Measuring Preservice Teachers' Discussion Facilitation in Social Studies Classrooms

• In Event: Examining Shifts in Teachers' Student-Centered Practices as a Result of Practice-Based Teacher Education

Abstract

Objectives and Perspectives
The paradox of classroom discussion--that it is both valuable and rare--is particularly acute in social studies, where teachers must navigate content rife with political landmines. Observation protocols might resolve such paradoxes (Kane et al., 2013; Papay, 2012). However, Hill and Author (2013) caution that effective feedback depends on fine-grained suggestions at the intersection of content, curriculum, and instructional practices. Otherwise, observation protocols may capture general pedagogical knowledge but miss subject matter knowledge. Neither of the two existing history-specific classroom observation protocols capture instruction at this intersection (van Hover et al., 2012; Huijgen et al., 2017).
In this study, we present a new observation protocol, the Social Studies Discourse Instrument (SSDI). We adapted the Science Discourse Instrument (Fishman et al., 2017; Osborne et al., 2019), which captures teacher moves (e.g., link, press) and student discourse (e.g., explain, co-construct), adding a domain for substance of social studies discussions to capture growth in preservice teacher quality practices after undergoing a practice-based teacher education program. Using mixed methods, we first present trend lines from our scoring of videos from a cohort of preservice teachers, and then engage in qualitative analyses of cases to highlight the unique challenges novice social studies teachers experience in facilitating discussion.
Methods
Participating candidates (N=7) were enrolled in a university-based secondary social studies methods course for which they were required to submit four 15-minute discussion videos accompanied by reflection memos. Researchers also conducted video-stimulated recall interviews with each candidate. We scored all videos using SSDI and generated trend lines to visualize patterns in candidate development before conducting statistical hypothesis tests to assess whether differences in scores among the four time points and among the four raters were statistically significant. These hypothesis tests were performed as part of a G-study (generalizability study) analysis to determine whether the variability among time points and among raters was significant. Follow-up qualitative analysis relied on reflection memos and interviews to understand candidates’ decisions.
Results
Preliminary analysis suggests the utility of the SSDI in illustrating the complexity of learning to facilitate social studies discussions. G-study results did not find significant differences between raters or scores across time points. Even without indicators of linear growth, certain trends were observable across time points. While candidates were successful in initiating student discussion of open-questions about social studies content, those discussions often remained teacher-centered and epistemically simplistic. A subgroup of candidates, however, consistently asked targeted press questions (Dimension 1b) and sustained discussions about justice and equity (Dimension 3c). Qualitative analysis on candidates' decisions with regard to these dimensions reveals that they were deeply situated in their classroom context and lesson content.
Significance
These initial findings demonstrate the potential for using subject specific observation protocols to shed light on the development of novice teacher discussion facilitation. By capturing not only the features of teacher and student talk, but also the substance of that discourse, SSDI positions researchers, teacher educators, and teachers themselves to be sensitive to the range of instructional goals that constitute social studies instruction.

Authors

• Abby Reisman, University of Pennsylvania

• Wendy Chan, The University of Pennsylvania

• Lightning Jay, Binghamton University - SUNY

• Timothy Patterson, Temple University

• Avi Kaplan, Temple University

• Jenni Conrad, Temple University

• Andrew del Calvo, University of Pennsylvania

• Joseph Eisman, Temple University

• Andrew J. Schiera, University of Pennsylvania