This article describes the structure of academic discussions during the implementation of a literacy curriculum in the upper elementary grades. The authors examine the quality of academic discussion, using existing discourse analysis frameworks designed to evaluate varying attributes of classroom discourse. To integrate the overlapping qualities of these models with researchers’ descriptions of effective discussion into a single instrument, the authors propose a matrix that (1) moves from a present/absent analytic tendency to a continuum-based model and (2) captures both social and cognitive facets of quality academic discourse. The authors conclude with a discussion of how this matrix could serve to align teachers’ and researchers’ identification of quality academic discussion and the process by which users could measure improvement in students’ discourse skills over time.
AndersonR. C.PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension (Technical Report Number 306). Cambridge, MA: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
2.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A.NystrandM.GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5.
BakhtinM. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (EmmersonC.HolquistM., Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
6.
BartonJ. (1995). Conducting classroom discussions. Journal of Reading, 38(5), 346–350.
7.
BreenM. P. (1985). The social context for language learning: A neglected situation?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135–158.
8.
CazdenC. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
9.
ChinnC.AndersonR. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.
10.
Common Core Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
.
11.
DiazgranadosS.SelmanR. L.WeinsteinE. C.DionneM. (2012). A measure of perspectival acts. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
12.
FisherE. (1996). Identifying effective educational talk. Language and Education, 10(4), 237–253.
13.
GamoranA.NystrandM. (1991). Background on instructional effects on achievement in eighth-grade English and social studies. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(3), 277–300.
14.
GoldenbergC. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom application (Instructional Practice Rep. No. 2). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
15.
GreenM. (2002). A strong right arm: The story of Mamie “Peanut” Johnson. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers.
16.
HabermasJ. (1985). Remarks on the concept of communicative action. In SeebassB.TuomelaR. (Eds.), Social action (pp. 151–178). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Co.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
19.
JohannessenL. R. (2003). Strategies for initiating authentic discussion. English Journal, 93(1), 73–78.
20.
KohlbergL. (1963). Moral development and identification. In StevensonH. (Ed.), Child psychology: The sixty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 277–332). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
21.
KohlbergL. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-develpmental approach to socialization. In GoslinD. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
22.
KuhnD.CrowellA. (2010). Argumentation as a path to the thinking development of young adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College Columbia University, New York, NY.
23.
LarsonB. E. (2000). Classroom discussion: A method of instruction and a curriculum outcome. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 661–677.
MercerN. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
26.
MercerN.WegerifR.DawesL. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
27.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.
28.
MitchellM. K. (1995). Uncle Jed’s barbershop. New York, NY: Aladdin Paperbacks.
29.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.
30.
NystrandM.WuL.GamoranA.ZeiserS.LongD. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.
31.
O’ConnorC. (2001). “Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 143–185.
32.
O’ConnorC. (2011, July). Discussion and debate: What has to happen and how can we get it to happen? integrating curriculum and PD around forms of talk [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Strategic Educational Research Partnership’s Catalyzing Comprehension through Discussion and Debate General Workspace.
33.
O’ConnorC.MichaelsS. (2007). When is dialogue “dialogic”?Human Development, 50, 275–285.
34.
RawlsJ. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
RuedaR.GoldenbergC.GallimoreR. (1992). Rating instructional conversations: A guide. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence: Educational Practice Report.
36.
RumelhartD. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In SpiroR. J.BruceB.BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
SelmanR. L. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership of developmental theory and classroom practice. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
SinclairJ.CoulthardM. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
SinclairJ.CoulthardM. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In CoulthardM. (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). London: Routledge.
40.
SnowC. (2011, June). How does social development promote language and literacy? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Zaner-Bloser Professional Development Institute.
41.
SnowC.LawrenceJ.WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344.
42.
SnowE.Ross AndersonT.ElizabethT.SelmanR. (2010). The voices read-aloud study: The evolution of an action research study for a school in need. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
43.
SoterA. O.WilkinsonI. A.MurphyP. K.RudgeL.ReningerK.EdwardsM. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372–391.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In WertschJ. V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
45.
WellsG. (2001). Coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse. Unpublished manuscript, Developing Inquiring Communities in Education Project.
46.
WellsG. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244–274.
47.
WellsG.ArauzR. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
48.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
WestgateD.HughesM. (1997). Identifying “quality” in classroom talk: An enduring research task. Language and Education, 11(2), 125–138.
50.
WhiteA. (2003). The application of Sinclair and Coulthard’s IRF structure to a classroom lesson: analysis and discussion, a module four assignment classroom and spoken discourse/written discourse. Retrieved from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/AWhite4.pdf
.
