|
Dialogic Discourse.
In philosophical inquiry, the discourse framework is structurally dialogic and resembles a discourse chain where student turn taking dominates the flow of a discussion (e.g. student: student: student: student: teacher: student and so on). From an ideological perspective, (O’Connor and Michaels, 2007), dialogic discussions cultivate shared ownership between participants and position students as both agents and negotiators of meaning-making. Epistemologically, dialogic discourse is undergirded by the belief that “discourse is cognition is discourse” (Resnick, Pontecorvo, Säljö , & Burge,1997, p. 2).
Throughout our discussions, I strived to position myself as the facilitator of the talk and often began the inquiry by attending to procedural norms (e.g. “Let’s begin by discussing the first hypothesis we created yesterday. Who wants to start?). Together, the students and I sat in an aptly named “philosophy circle”, where hands-free turn-taking was controlled by the students and eye contact was afforded to everyone, not just me, the teacher. My instructional duties were to pose questions, prompt for elaboration, and help students establish relationships between ideas. The following vignette characterizes these interactions as students considered the philosophical elements of pride and friendship from the text Frog and Toad Together: The Dream (Lobel, 1970). In this discussion, they worked to understand why Frog would be getting smaller and smaller in the presence of Frog’s hubristic performance.
TEACHER
Okay, the next one. So Toad was amazing, and Frog was shocked. So talk more about that.
JACOB
Because he was shocked that he was melting. And he was getting tinier and tinier because he was shocked.
MICHAEL
Did it say he was shocked? I don't think it said he was shocked.
SEAN
It looks like he got tinier and tinier.
TEACHER
Let's look at the book, does it look like he’s shocked?
SEAN
Yeah, you see his eyes wide open?
MICHAEL
He doesn't look shocked.
TEACHER
Well, let's read it. Toad walked on the high wire. Frog cried “Toad can you do tricks like this?” “No” peeped Frog, who looked very, very small.
So how would being shocked get you smaller?
JACOB
I think that because he looked shocked on that page.
LUCAS
Can I see?
MICHAEL
He's just sitting there like this with a frowny face (motions with hands).
SEAN
No, he's like this (shows with arms). You can tell that he’s shocked because if you put your arms up your shocked.
MICHAEL
No, he's not putting his arms up. He's putting his hands on the arm rest.
Within this dialogic exchange is the indicator of high level talk known as exploratory talk (Mercer, 2000). Suggested to advance critical thinking, exploratory talk is defined as:
…that in which partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas. Relevant information is offered for joint consideration. Proposals may be challenged and counter-challenged, but if so reasons are given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is sought as a basis for joint progress. (p. 98).
Note how the boys began to construct an argument regarding Frog’s behavior by building off one another’s ideas. They analyzed suppositions as observed when Michael and Sean disputed the picture’s meaning; they also provided evidence to support their inferences. Most importantly, students worked towards jointly understanding the behavior of the character Frog. My role as the teacher was limited, but necessary, as I prompted students to consider evidence in the text.
Additionally, it’s important to note that although students engaged in exploratory talk, they were still developing the ability to provide elaborated explanations (Soter, Wilkinson, Murphy and Reninger, 2007). Also reflective of higher order thinking, elaborated explanations are defined by an individual making a claim and then providing at least two or more reasons of support. For instance, note how Jacob stated “I think that because he looked shocked on that page” but doesn’t elaborate with why. When students began the intervention, these sorts of responses were not uncommon. In fact, students with language impairments, like Sean and Jacob, often have concomitant reading difficulties (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). Therefore, scaffolding the academic language of inquiry through discourse training, ground rules of talk, and anchor charts were critical to facilitating these dialogic exchanges. Although the trajectory of student talk increased over the course of the intervention, ultimately students needed sustained dialogic environments, both in and out of the intervention, in order to foster elaboration.
Finally, you will note throughout the vignettes provided in this article, that students generally didn’t receive praise (e.g. good job) regarding their ideas. When the teacher focusses on the process of problem solving instead of praising correctness, it demonstrates that thinking through ideas is what matters, not merely finding the “answer” (Johnston, 2012). Instructionally, our habit might be to interject and explain plausible interpretations of the text, but as Vygotsky (1986) noted, social language is an essential mediator for children’s intellectual growth. Indeed, the dialogic nature of students’ engagement in philosophical discussions underscored the Vygotskian (1986) notion that children’s cognitive development can be advanced through social interaction and collaborative problem solving.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
