Evaluating classroom dialogue Reconciling internal and external accountability

Abstract

In this article we present an instrument to be used by students and professors to evaluate classroom dialogue. We begin with an explanation of the classroom community of inquiry and why we value it as a pedagogical approach. We then describe our different reasons for evaluating classroom dialogue — including institutional, professional and pedagogical accountability — and describe the inherent conflicts among these reasons. We explain how our evaluation instrument was designed to ameliorate these conflicts. We recount a number of theoretical and practical problems we encountered in designing and implementing the instrument and explain how we attempted to overcome these problems. We conclude the article by describing the advantages and disadvantages of our instrument in light of our analysis of data gathered from its first implementation.

Keywords

accountability accreditation classroom dialogue community of inquiry Lipman Philosophy for Children philosophy of education self-assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cherryholmes, C. (1999) Reading Pragmatism, pp. 101—7. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kennedy, D. (1994) `The five communities', Analytic Teaching 15(1): 316.

Lipman, M. , Oscanyan, F.S. and Sharp, A.M. (1980) Philosophy in the Classroom, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lushyn, P. (2002) `The paradoxical nature of ecofacilitation in the community of inquiry', Thinking:The Journal of Philosophy for Children 16(1): 8—17.

Lushyn, P. (2003) `Some reflections on the ecology of the pedagogical space', Thinking:The Journal of Philosophy for Children 16(3): 4—11.

Peirce, C.S. (1932) `Some consequences of four incapacities', in The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, electronic edition ,Vol. 5, Book 2, Paper 2, p. 265 at www.nlx.com, last accessed 3/15/04.

Sharp, A.M. (1997) `The aesthetic dimension of the community of inquiry ', Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 17(1): 67—77.