Advertisement

New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 209–225 | Cite as

Secondary Students Use of Dialogical Discussion Practices to Foster Greater Interaction

  • Maree J. Davies
  • Kane Meissel
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

This article describes the results of a study that investigated the effect of features of talk that appear to foster higher levels of interaction, within the scope of a larger study (Davies and Meissel in Br Educ Res J 42:342–365, 2016). Students were recruited from seven classrooms across three secondary schools of varying socioeconomic levels within the Auckland region in New Zealand, with four of the classrooms engaging in face-to-face and online discussion in small groups and the other three participating as whole classes. Results indicated a significant increase in the proportion of uptake questions used by students working in small groups for face-to-face group discussions. When placed in online groups (the same groups as the face-to-face groups), uptake questions increased. Classes who worked as a whole class online used significantly more elaborated explanations but, consequently, fewer interactions—less than half as many as the small groups. The results suggest that students using uptake questions fostered higher levels of interactions in both conditions.

Keywords

Students’ questioning Interactive talk Online learning Group discussions Secondary education 

References

  1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2013). Piagetian approaches. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 28–31). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., & Reznitskaya, A. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1978). Communication and learning in small groups. London, England: Routledge & Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and action. Vol. 3: Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London, England: Routledge & Keegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheong, C. M., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 556–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. (2001). Patters of discourse in two kinds of literature discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, 49(2), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, M. J., & Meissel, K. (2016). The use of quality talk to increase critical analytical speaking and writing of students in three secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 342–365.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, M. J., & Sinclair, A. (2013). The effectiveness of on-line discussions for preparing students for a Paideia seminar. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(2), 173–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.773719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.Google Scholar
  13. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, S. (2005). Electronic spaces as an alternative to traditional classroom discussion and writing in secondary English classrooms. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 9(3), 25–46.Google Scholar
  16. Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. May, S. (1993). Collaborative learning: More is not necessarily better. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLaren, P., Macrine, S., & Hill, D. (2010). Revolutionizing pedagogy: Educating for social justice within and beyond global neo-liberalism. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London, England: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). In C. Smith (Ed.), Phenomenology of perception. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oakeshott, M. (1962). The voice of poetry in the conversation of mankind, rationalism in politics and other essays. London, England: Methuen.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  25. Redmon, R., & Burger, M. (2004). Web CT discussion forums: Asynchronous group reflection of the student teaching experience. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 6(2), 157–166.Google Scholar
  26. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers and Education.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soter, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., & Reninger, K. B. (2016). Analyzing the discourse of discussion: Coding manual (Technical report, unpublished manuscript). Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education & Ecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Steinberg, L. D. (2005). Adolescence (7th ed.). New York, NY: McCraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wegerif, R., Fujita, T., Doney, J., Linares, J. P., Andrews, R., & Van Rhyn, C. (2016). Developing and trialing a measure of group thinking. Learning and Instruction, 48(September), 40–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/learninstruc.2016.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 49–65). UK, Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.Google Scholar
  33. Wells, G. (1978). Talking with children: The complementary roles of parents and teachers. English in Education, 12, 15–38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.1978.tb00010.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wells, G. (2006). Monologic and dialogic discourses as mediators of education. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(2), 168–175.Google Scholar
  35. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations