Fostering Classroom Dialogue in Math and Science Classrooms: Changing Teacher Practice by Addressing Purposeful Activities

• In Event: Toward a More Dialogic Pedagogy: Improving Student Learning in Science, Mathematics, and Language Arts Education

Abstract

Purposeful classroom dialogue is a promising means of improving student learning (Mercer & Dawes, 2014). The research reported here examined the learning and support by teachers of two main instructional activities to support such dialogue: Activity 1 – supporting the engagement of students verbally and linking one student’s response to another; and Activity 2 – scaffolding student learning and providing effective feedback (Walshaw & Anthony, 2008). For teachers to learn such instructional strategies, specifically targeted aspects of professional development (PD) need to be used (Desimone, 2009). As teacher PD in [specified country] does not usually address such components, we developed an innovative, year-long intervention program, the “Dialogic Video Cycle” (DVC) that includes both purposeful activities and elements of PD research suggests are effective (Author et al, 2014). We then compared the DVC (intervention group=IG) with a traditional program (control group=CG) to examine:

1. How do teachers in the IG change their teaching practices towards a more dialogic pedagogy compared to the CG?
2. How do teachers in the IG change their teaching practice of purposeful classroom dialogue activities during the intervention?

Ten teachers (IG=6; CG=4) participated in the study. The DVC consists of a workshop in which teachers revise a planned lesson, then teach and video recording this lesson, and two workshops focusing on teachers’ reflections on their teaching activities that support classroom dialogue. CG teachers participated in standard workshops and met twice in additional round tables. The intervention was run twice during the school year 2011/12. Both groups had the same content, coherence and duration, and differed only in the opportunities to reflect on their daily practice in a social community.

To answer research question 1, for Activity 1, using all 32 videotaped lessons of IG and CG, two independent raters estimated verbal student engagement (6-items scale; e.g., “The teacher encourages students to engage verbally more in classroom dialogue.”), awareness of student contributions (5-items scale; e.g., “The teacher encourages students to relate their own thinking to one another.”), and for Activity 2, scaffolding student learning processes (6-items scale; “The teacher encourages students to express own ideas.”) and teacher feedback (2-items scale; “The teacher gives individual feedback to a student.”) using a 4-point Likert format. The intraclass correlations were satisfactory (ICCs > .77) and non-parametric analysis of variance showed significant changes in all dimensions of both activities in favor of the IG (p between .00 and .03).

To answer research question 2, Friedman tests revealed significant changes in the IG for verbal student engagement (Activity 1) and scaffolding student learning processes (Activity 2) (p < .03) as measured over 4 points in time (Pre, DVC 1, DVC 2, Post), but only a trend of improvement for awareness of student contributions and teacher feedback.

The findings showed that the DVC effectively enhances teachers’ capacities to engage students verbally in classroom dialogue and to scaffold student learning in math and science. Further, they suggest how to re-conceptualize instructional strategies for both activities to empower teachers’ use of purposeful dialogue.

Authors

• Alexander Groeschner, University of Paderborn

• Ann-Kathrin Pehmer, TU München

• Katharina Elisabeth Kiemer, TU München

• Tina Seidel, Technische Universität München