Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The role of teachers in academic discussion
(USC Thesis Other)
The role of teachers in academic discussion
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 1
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION
by
Kathryn Rose Hunter
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2017
2017 Kathryn Rose Hunter
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 2
Acknowledgements
Dedicated to Kyla, Sammy, Kaitlynn, Jason, and Erik, my constant inspirations and
loving supporters. I’m finished; let’s go play now.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 3
Table of Contents
Abstract 5
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose 14
Research Questions 17
Significance of the Study 18
Delimitations 19
Limitations 19
Definitions 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
Introduction 22
Purposes for Academic Discussion 23
Vygotsky’s Model of the Zone of Proximal Development 24
Pedagogy 25
Dialogic Thinking 27
Cultural Relevance 31
Open-Ended Questioning 34
Spontaneous Classroom Discussion 37
Teacher Inquiry 39
Cultural Literacy and Sharing Knowledge 41
Teacher as Cothinker, Questioner, Respondent 43
Conceptual Framework 45
Chapter Three: Methodology 49
Research Design 50
Sample and Population 50
Data Collection 52
Interviews 52
Observations 55
Artifacts 57
Data Analysis 57
Coding 57
Credibility and Trustworthiness 58
Ethics 58
Chapter Four: Findings 60
Findings: Three Themes 61
Context: Granville Stanley Hall High School 62
The Participants and Perceptions of Supporting and Mediating
Academic Discussions 63
How Participants Understood Academic Discussions within their
Respective Classrooms 64
Teacher A 65
Teacher B 77
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 4
Teacher C 87
Summary 94
Chapter Five: Discussion 102
Summary of Findings 102
Discussion 103
Lack of Consistency in Using Academic Language 104
Variation in Professional Development and Pedagogical Choice 108
Implications for Future Research 112
Conclusion 113
References 115
Appendix A: Pre-Interview Protocol 123
Appendix B: Follow-Up Conversation Protocol 126
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 128
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 5
Abstract
This case study examined how three veteran English Language Arts teachers understood
academic discussion and how they described what they were doing to facilitate authentic
academic discussions within their respective classrooms. The central research questions were:
“How do English Language Arts teachers understand academic discussion within their
respective mainstream classrooms at an urban high school?” and “What elements do English
Language Arts teachers understand as being necessary to support authentic participation in
academic discussions in mainstream English Language Arts classes at an urban high school.”
A socio-cultural conceptual framework was implemented for this case study. A
qualitative study was conducted with data collected from interviews, observations, and
document collection, given the in-depth and descriptive in nature of the research questions. The
participants for this study were three veteran English Language Arts teachers at a single school
site, an urban comprehensive public high school, whose classes included students who spoke
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English. In order to establish credibility, the
study was triangulated with a pre-observation interview and three observations along with
informal conversations with each participant following the observations. The purpose of the
interviews was to gain an understanding about the three participants’ attitudes, thoughts, and
beliefs about the nature of and need for academic discussion within the secondary English
classroom. The purpose of the observations was to observe and collect data in the form of field
notes on the teaching and learning strategies that were observed occurring in the classrooms in
order to answer the research questions. Additionally, some artifacts were collected, with
permission, in order to gain additional understanding about how students used academic
discussions to create meaning about their texts and to demonstrate improved literacy. Data were
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 6
collected as handwritten notes, which were first reflected upon to form categories of meaning
and relationships through inductive reasoning processes. A set of a priori codes was used to
assist in focusing interviews and observations. The constant comparative method was used to
interpret and code the interview transcripts and observational data. In reviewing the data and
interview notes, discrete repeating or similar incidents were located and then coded accordingly
to develop insight about the social processes that were experienced, and ultimately informed the
focus of inquiry.
Findings from an examination of the observations, interview responses and instructional
behaviors across the data set revealed three themes in how teachers supported their students’
participation in academic discussion. The first theme was the use of varied technology. The
second theme was the use of questioning to encourage and mediate participation among the
group. The third theme was text selection, including primary, complementary, and
supplementary selections. The data also revealed that the three participant teachers believed
academic discussion is always necessarily a mediated activity but the degree to which mediation
is required is determined by the particular group of learners.
Implications for the research community include teachers’ being aware of students’
readiness for participation in academic discussions, and how to best facilitate academic
discussions using the understanding of students’ current ZPDs. Students required different
strategies in order to participate in and to learn effectively from academic discussions. Students
in the study were observed to have successfully demonstrated understandings of literature and
literary elements through their active and sustained participation in academic discussions using
technology, questioning, and text selection, and with the teachers’ understanding of their
respective students’ developmental readiness and ZPDs.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
An understanding of and proficiency in academic language in core classes is necessary
for secondary students to participate in the rapidly changing and quickly merging aspects of
political, social, and economic arenas of global society (New London Group, 1996), and the
secondary English Language Arts class is one of the key courses in this equation. Thus, it is
important that secondary students have a meaningful experience with and applicable knowledge
about the conventions of academic language, as well as opportunities to develop the ability to use
academic language through participation in authentic academic discussion (Schleppegrell, 2001).
However, access to, knowledge of, and experience with authentic academic discussion is not
equally available to all secondary students, particularly for those students who are speakers of
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English (Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004; Delpit, 2002;
Schleppegrell, 2001).
Overview of the Study
The challenges of acquiring proficiency in academic discussion for the large number of
students who are speakers of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English are not
being effectively addressed, due in part to a limited conceptualization of what academic
discussion is, and how to develop student proficiency in it (Gee, 2008; Zwiers, 2007;
Schleppegrell, 2001). Teacher effectiveness directly influences the extent to which participation
in academic discussion is even possible (Fialho, Zyngier & Miall, 2011). Current educational
practice assumes students can acquire proficiency in academic discussion without explicit
attention to strategies appropriate for developing academic language, including opportunities to
interact and negotiate meaning in authentic ways (Schleppegrell, 2001). Yet, such opportunities
for students to interact with and negotiate meaning in authentic ways has been found to be
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 8
lacking in students’ current experience with language at school (Schleppegrell, 2001).
Secondary English instruction has tended to focus on cultural and composition studies within the
classroom (Fialho, et. al, 2011), and not upon socialization into the academic discourse
community of schooling (Duff, 2010; Gee, 2008).
Research shows that effective academic discussion has a direct impact on student
participation and performance (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Richards, 2006; Alim, 2004; Delpit,
2002; Hall & Walsh, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2001). Therefore, the focus of this study was on how
three veteran secondary English Language Arts teachers facilitated and supported students’
authentic participation in academic discussions. This researcher looked at some of the ways in
which those three English teachers discussed how they supported student learning through the
use of authentic academic discussion.
This researcher first looked at how the three teachers claimed to understand academic
discussion, and how they described their facilitation of academic discussion within their
respective classrooms. Socio-cultural learning theory was a good lens with which to situate this
study, particularly in reference to what was known at the time of writing about developing and
supporting classroom talk through understanding how language proficiency occurs through
socialization: through the development of language, interaction, and thought (Miller, 2012; Gee,
2008; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990).
Specifically, this researcher examined the participant teachers’ perceptions of how they
assisted students in using the voice and register of Standard American English (Gee, 2008), and
how the participant teachers described what they were doing to facilitate authentic academic
discussions within their respective classrooms. This study also sought to highlight the
perceptions the three English Language Arts teachers had about how they used academic
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 9
discussion to build students’ proficiency in academic language, particularly for those students in
each respective classroom who spoke linguistic varieties other than Standard American English.
Background of the Problem
Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, there has been a major shift in the focus of what
teaching and learning should look like in that researchers now view how the social processes
within the classroom allow students to develop the cognitive and linguistic processes associated
with comprehension of literacy (Richards, 2006; Applebee, 2003; Langer, Nystrand & Gamoran,
2003; Cazden, 2001; New London Group, 1996; Newmann, Marks & Gamoran, 1995). The
language-learning process is recognized to be very much a social process (Ares & Peercy, 2003;
Hall & Walsh, 2002), with students constructing and negotiating meanings and understandings
through interactions with their teacher and others within the particular context in order to learn
how to skillfully and appropriately change patterns of participation within different social
contexts (Gee, 2008; Guthrie, 2004; Mercer, 1995). Understanding how teachers and students
co-construct literacy communities is important in order to understand how changing interactions
within a classroom context shapes literacy learning in schools (Ares & Peercy, 2003; Mercer,
1995). Furthermore, Gee (2008) contends that, in fact, literacy development requires meaningful
and authentic social discourse, because literacy development for students of linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English is actually literacy acquisition, in which speakers master
not only the rules of using the language, but also master the rules for using the language, or ways
in which speakers of the language act, interact, value, think, and feel as they participate in
conversations in different contexts. The meanings students construct must make sense to or be
verified by a larger public in order for academic achievement to be authentic (Newmann, et. al.,
1995). Knowing a language requires students’ being able to participate meaningfully with the
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 10
language, to make meanings that make sense to or can be verified by a larger public (Gee, 2008;
Newmann, et. al., 1995).
Literacy learning involves students’ becoming comfortable with and proficient in using
academic language, which is the language register associated with schooling, as opposed to less
formal or informal registers associated in other social contexts (Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004;
Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995). Not all students come to school prepared to use academic
language, nor do all students share an understanding of the ways in which language use is
expected at school (Schleppegrell, 2001). Schools often function to regulate access to certain
“orders of discourse,” or the relationship of different discourses within a particular social space,
which constrains students’ access to social capital in the form of employment opportunities,
cultural recognition, and political power (Alim, 2004; New London Group, 1996). According to
socio-cultural theory, language learning occurs through interactions with those who are more
proficient in the language and its cultural norms, and those who are more proficient transmit
knowledge about appropriate uses, values, ideologies and identities to those less experienced in
language use (Duff, 2010; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990). Thus, teachers become the designers of
learning processes and environments, instead of authority figures who determine and dictate
what students should learn and do (Cazden, 2001; New London Group, 1996).
Classroom discourse among teacher and students is shaped by many factors, including
certain aspects of classroom organization, and students can influence the course of the guided
construction of knowledge (Mercer, 1995). The role of discourse in the classroom has
traditionally been that of teacher initiation (I) of conversation—usually through directed
questioning—followed by student response (R), followed by teacher feedback (F), or evaluation
(E), called the IRF, or IRE method (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Richards, 2006; Cazden, 2001).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 11
IRF and IRE both refer to teacher-centered and teacher-controlled discussion, and for the
purposes of this dissertation project, this researcher used the term IRE to discuss this method.
When classroom talk is teacher-controlled through the IRE method, the teacher assumes
the role of the expert who transmits knowledge to the students; and the students must process and
store the information, and later reproduce the knowledge in an exact way when the teacher
initiates a conversation (Cazden, 2001). Freire (2005) used the term banking education, or
narrative education, to describe this practice or belief system. Banking education suggests
students are considered empty receptacles devoid of knowledge or understanding, and their task
is to passively await their filling up with knowledge by the teacher. Furthermore, the students
who receive the information must possess the ability to bank the deposits of information from
their teacher, and later allow the teacher to withdraw from the student banks the information
exactly as it was deposited (Freire, 2005). Narrative education reduces language to sonorous
words devoid of transformative power, in which students merely receive and bank their
deposited information to later memorize and repeat (Freire, 2005). Thus, the quality of learning
for students, especially those who need support in acquiring academic language, is restricted
(Many & Aoulou, 2014; Johnston & Hayes, 2008).
Furthermore, IRE teacher-controlled classroom talk gives both implicit as well as explicit
messages about text meanings, teacher and student roles, ways of knowing, and ways of talking
(Miller, 2012) by reaffirming the speech of the dominant hegemony (Alim, 2004; Delpit, 2002)
and denying the opportunities to co-construct knowledge (Cazden, 2001). The dominant
presence of the teacher-controlled IRE pattern therefore creates serious challenges for teachers
and students (Richards, 2006)—especially students who speak linguistic varieties other than
Standard American English—in the context of teaching academic language and academic
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 12
discourse (Cazden, 2001). This is because language learners and those acquiring a secondary
Discourse—the language use that is acquired through participation in social institutions like
school, which conveys the values and beliefs of the particular social institution, and allows for
the construction of a social identity through the use of the secondary Discourse—(Gee , 2008)
need a variety of interactional opportunities (Richards, 2006). The IRE pattern restricts such
opportunities in what can seem to be blunt and unforgiving ways (Richards, 2006). Cazden
(2001) finds that IRE-based classrooms tend to predominantly serve students of linguistic
varieties other than Standard American English. The IRE method, along with other traditional
methods for teacher-controlled classroom talk, limit discussion and student participation (Miller,
2012; Richards, 2006; Cazden, 2001). In short, when conversations are not open and mediated,
learning becomes stagnant (Miller, 2012; Vygotsky, 1986).
When teachers restrict discussion to IRE-based talk (Richards, 2006), students are denied
opportunities to negotiate meanings through voluntary interactions in which they determine what
they need to know (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Delpit, 2002; Cazden, 2001). Students should be
able to develop the ability to negotiate and engage critically with language in order to be able to
participate meaningfully in the working and social conditions of their adult lives (New London
Group, 1996). This requires authentic construction of knowledge, which involves the ability to
apply, manipulate, interpret, and analyze prior knowledge to solve a problem that requires such
complex thinking that routine retrieval or reproduction of information does not allow for
(Newmann, et. al., 1995). Furthermore, the IRE-based method for using classroom talk
(Richards, 2006) necessarily restricts students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard
American English from developing academic language skills, because the current socio-cultural-
based understanding of language learning is based on the premise that linguistic and social
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 13
knowledge develops from extended participation in socio-cultural events and activities which are
significant to the learners’ lives (Hall & Walsh, 2002; Cazden, 2001).
Students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English are already
faced with having to overcome cultural and linguistic differences in order to express their views
in the classroom (White, 2011). In other words, when speaking in class, students who are not
well-prepared for participating in a secondary Discourse (Gee, 2008), such as academic
discourse, must learn to code-switch to Standard American English from their respective
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English (Alim, 2004). Otherwise, those
students might face having the teacher correct or otherwise discount their contribution (Alim,
2004; Delpit, 2002). This often results in students’ avoiding participation in class in order to not
be seen as deficient (Delpit, 2002) or as not knowing the right answer (Miller, 2012; Mercer,
1995). In short, students who are denied the opportunity for meaningful conversational
participation are not engaged in discussions which allow for their negotiations of meaning,
critical language engagement, and co-construction of knowledge—all of which lead to and are
necessary for the development of academic language proficiency (Johnston & Hayes, 2008).
Without adequate linguistic proficiency, students who speak linguistic varieties other than
Standard American English are too often denied access to meaningful participation in working
and social conditions as adults (Alim, 2004; New London Group, 1996). Therefore, students
who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English will benefit when the
teacher builds on previous knowledge while allowing students to voice understandings and refine
them through meaningful discussion with others, thus allowing new knowledge to emerge
(Applebee, et. al., 2003).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 14
Thus, the purpose of having academic discussion in the classroom should be to benefit
students’ learning academic language through guided construction of knowledge (Mercer, 1995),
allowing students to transform culturally in order to gain access to and meaningfully participate
in different social groups in school and society (Alim, 2004; Ares & Peercy, 2003; Newmann,
et.al, 1995).
Statement of the Problem
There exists a need for understanding how socio-cultural factors allow for literacy
development, and how teacher instructional practices promote or hinder literacy development
among students, particularly those who are acquiring proficiency in academic discourse.
Therefore, the purpose of this qualitatively focused case study was to examine what secondary
English Language Arts teachers described what they did to facilitate authentic academic
discussions to allow students to participate in meaningful conversation to facilitate literacy (Gee,
2008; Alim, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995), within the classroom.
Purpose
There currently exists a gap in the literature about how teachers are actually effectively
using classroom discourse to build students’ understanding of academic language in order to help
students develop into socially proficient speakers in the classroom. As previously mentioned,
classroom talk is mainly teacher talk (Miller, 2003; Delpit, 2002), and teachers predominantly
use their talking either to transmit information, such as scaffolding, for formative assessment
purposes, such as checking for understanding, or for the teacher-fronted IRE method as
pedagogy (Richards, 2006)—and not to create a learning opportunity (Many & Aoulou, 2014).
According to Fialho, Zyngier, and Miall (2011), English Language Arts instruction does not
often enough support using academic discussion, especially for those students who speak
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 15
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English. These students in particular tend to
view English as merely a subject and not “an agent of knowledge about the world,” (Fialho, et.
al., 2011, p. 239). Often, English instruction does not prepare any students to use critical
thinking to move into a higher literacy level, because many students cannot find cultural
connection to the instruction and knowledge of traditional ELA, especially since they are not
being offered opportunities to co-construct knowledge (Thao, 2012; Johnston & Hayes, 2008;
Applebee, et. al., 2003; Mercer, 1995; Alvermann, O'Brien, & Dillon, 1990).
The research shows teachers’ typical purpose for using classroom talk has been for
transmission of information or for informal assessment purposes, and students are expected to
passively receive and silently accept information as knowledge (Many & Aoulou, 2014; Miller,
2012; Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Hall & Walsh; 2002; Delpit, 2002; Cazden, 2001). The teacher
assumes the role of an expert (Miller, 2012), and students are restricted to speaking only when
the teacher initiates a question and requests an exacted response, thereby disallowing students
any opportunity for co-constructing knowledge (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Hall & Walsh, 2002;
Cazden, 2001). Thus, recitation and passive listening, not authentic conversation leading to co-
construction of knowledge, continue to be the dominant schooling experience for students
(Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Zwiers, 2007; Cazden, 2001; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1996). Johnston &
Hayes (2008) have shown that classroom discourse is mostly teacher-controlled talk, designed to
keep students on task or to minimize disruptions and misbehavior, which demotivates students to
participate in negotiated, interactive learning through academic discussions. Cazden (2001)
finds that teachers’ have every right to initiate conversations with students, but students are
restricted to asking questions for help from the teacher, and are usually forbidden to talk to one
another. Thus, there is traditionally very little, if any, opportunity for students to co-construct
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 16
knowledge within the classroom (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Hall &
Walsh, 2002; Cazden, 2001).
Furthermore, when the classroom talk is teacher-controlled, there is little to no
opportunity for performance assistance to allow students to master the cognitive strategies
necessary for academic language acquisition (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990). Tharpe and Gallimore
(1990) explain that one goal of teaching is for teachers to repeat or re-proceed through assisted
performance to allow the students to move beyond the ZPD, and into self-regulation and
automatization. However, very little teaching of this kind exists in schooling (Miller, 2012;
Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990).
Interaction within the classroom is usually IRE-based and teacher-controlled discourse,
where the teacher decides who will participate, when turn-taking occurs, how much students may
contribute, and whose contributions are acceptable (Hall & Walsh, 2002; Cazden , 2001). This
results in limited learning opportunities for students to talk through understandings, to try new
ideas, or to develop proficiency in intellectually complex language (Hall & Walsh, 2002). Thus,
there exists a persistent and pervasive opportunity gap among secondary students—particularly
among students who do not come to school with knowledge or understanding about academic
language—and this is believed to be due a lack of understanding about how to instruct these
students in literacy development and academic language acquisition as assisted performance
(Tatum & Muhammad, 2012; Calderón, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Madrid, 2011; Alvermann,
2002; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990). Understanding how teachers facilitate co-constructed literacy
communities with their students is important in order to understand how changing interactions
within a classroom context shapes literacy learning in schools (Ares & Peercy, 2003; Mercer,
1995). Literacy learning involves students’ becoming comfortable with and proficient in using
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 17
academic language, which is the language register associated with the schooling context, as
opposed to less formal or informal registers associated in other social contexts (Gee, 2008; Alim,
2004; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995).
Despite there being research demonstrating the need for teachers to allow for academic
discussion to be used in ways in which learners can learn language conventions to become
proficient speakers of a new academic discourse (Gee, 2008), there still remains a disconnect in
and there is room for more information on the understanding about what teachers are actually
doing with academic discussion and how students are being offered different opportunities to
engage in academic discussion to build an understanding of how to use academic discourse,
since the persistence of teacher-controlled talk, in IRE and other versions, still continues.
This study used interviews, observations, and artifacts to explore methods and moves that
English teachers believed to be beneficial to facilitate their respective students’ participation in
authentic academic discussions, particularly for those students who speak linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English. This researcher sought to learn what the three participant
ELA teachers had to say about what they did to support academic discussion within their
respective classrooms.
Research Questions
As this researcher sought to understand the participant ELA teachers’ perceptions of and
methods for using academic discussions, the research questions that guided this study are:
1) How do English Language Arts teachers understand academic discussion within their
respective mainstream classrooms at an urban high school?
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 18
2) What elements do English Language Arts teachers understand as being necessary to
support authentic participation in academic discussions in mainstream English
Language Arts classes at an urban high school?
Significance of the Study
Despite there being a body of research on the need for and positive benefits of teachers’
facilitating authentic academic discussion within the secondary classroom, there is also research
describing how discussions within the secondary classroom are supporting something other than
constructivist methods for thinking, learning, and conversational participation, especially for
students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English (Miller, 2012;
Applebee, et. al., 2003; Alvermann, 2002; Cazden, 2001; Delpit, 2002; Mercer, 1995;
Alvermann, et. al, 1990). There are very few examples from the existing body of literature of
how academic discussion actually looks when it is being implemented with integrity, especially
for students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English. Thus, this
study is significant for two reasons. First, this study was significant because it focused on
English Language Arts teachers and their understandings of what academic discussion is and
why those teachers use academic discussions in their classrooms. Secondly, this study was
significant because it showed whether or not those teachers’ perceptions of academic discussion
were aligned with the findings in the literature, and some of the possible reasons for whether or
not the teachers’ perceptions are aligned with the literature. The findings of this study could be
useful for pre-service and novice teachers who seek to use authentic academic discussion in their
respective classrooms.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 19
Delimitations
In order to keep the goals of this study within a manageable scope and timeframe, this
researcher chose this particular course of study to include three high school mainstream English
Language Arts teachers whose classes within a comprehensive public high school included
students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English. Even though
there were only three participants, this researcher triangulated with a pre-observation interview
and three observations along with informal conversations with each participant following the
observations in order to establish credibility. Using a single high school and three English
Language Arts classes best fit the scope of interest and objectives for this particular research
design (Creswell, 2013).
Limitations
The generalizabilty of the research findings is limited, because the findings were
generated in an exploratory qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2013). The study and
participants were limited to three mainstream English Language Arts classes in a single
comprehensive public high school in Southern California. This research design was not intended
to produce results to demonstrate the perceptions of a wide range of teachers. Three teacher
participants were selected based on their known use of academic discussions in their teaching
repertoires. Because the data was triangulated to demonstrate credibility with the findings, the
use of three participant teachers was acceptable for this particular study (Creswell, 2013).
Another limitation was the possibility that teachers were not truthful or as forthcoming as they
could have been in their responses in the interviews (Creswell, 2013) because they may have
been trying to discuss what they believed this researcher wanted to hear, or they may have
avoided discussing something they were not certain of, in order to appear knowledgeable to this
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 20
researcher, for instance. However, the use of pre- and post-observational interviews reduced this
threat by allowing this researcher to discuss methods the teachers planned on using, and then
allowing further discussion and comparison of the responses to what was actually observed
during class time.
Definitions
The following terms are defined specifically for the purposes of this study.
Academic language—distinct linguistic features of schooling language, in texts and
conversation, relating to grammatical and lexical choices of speakers-writers to operate in and to
perform the functions of that language in school contexts (Gee, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2001;
Mercer, 1995).
Dialect – a variety of language that is distinct from other varieties of the same language, by
grammar, vocabulary, and usage, particularly by a specific group that uses the language variety
when the group is set off from other groups socially (Hornberger & McKay, 2010; Gee, 2008).
Academic discussion—teacher-mediated and supported discussion within the classroom that
allows for students to openly discuss and question texts in order to create a new zone of proximal
development by allowing students to co-construct knowledge and understanding with their
teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
Assisted performance (performance assistance)—level within a learner’s zone of proximal
development in which the learner can perform tasks with interactions with and appropriate levels
of assistance from a more knowledgeable individual (Miller, 2012; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990).
Automatization—mental connections or processes which make previously learned knowledge
automatic in an individual, the individual’s exiting of a particular zone of proximal development
(Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 21
Standard American English—official, standard conventions of speech and writing for
American English usage. English language without the use of vernacular; the language variety
that the dominant hegemony constructed “as the variety required to gain access to resources,”
(Alim, 2004, p. 194).
Students of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English—language varieties
spoken by persons (usually not from the dominant hegemony) that include lexical concepts
(Schleppegrell, 2001), and which use grammatical structures not common to or acceptable for
the language rules of Standard American English (Gee, 2008).
Zone of Proximal Development—a learning stage coined by constructivist Lev Vygotsky in
which performance must be assisted by more knowledgeable others (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this qualitatively focused case study was to examine three secondary
English Language Arts teachers’ understanding of academic discussion, their ways of thinking
about how to assist students in using voice and register of Standard American English (Gee,
2008), and how those teachers described what they were doing to facilitate authentic academic
discussions within their classrooms. Furthermore, this study examined how English Language
Arts teachers understood academic discussion in terms of how it promoted student participation,
and how academic discussion could enhance students’ competency in academic language,
particularly for those students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English. Specifically, this study sought to highlight methods and moves English Language Arts
teachers used to effectively build through classroom talk proficiency in academic language in
students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English.
This chapter will review the salient literature of effective and authentic classroom
discourse to demonstrate the components of effective and authentic classroom discourse in order
to examine the specific instructional practices that are identified as being effective in promoting
academic language development through the use of authentic academic discourse. The purpose
of this literature review was to review some of the prominent literature in the areas of what is
known about research-based pedagogical approaches for classroom talk in order to identify
elements of the effective use of classroom talk that are aimed at supporting and improving
academic language development in students of linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English. Finally, this literature review is followed by a discussion of socio-cultural learning
theory, the conceptual framework used to situate this study.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 23
Purposes for Academic Discussion
Literacy learning involves students’ becoming comfortable with and proficient in using
academic language, which is the language register associated with schooling, as opposed to less
formal or informal registers associated in other social contexts (Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004;
Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995). Effective, authentic academic discourse allows students
multiple opportunities to negotiate meanings through voluntary conversational interactions in
which the students determine what they need to know (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Delpit, 2002;
Cazden, 2001). Students are then able to develop the ability to negotiate and engage critically
with language (New London Group, 1996).
Thus, an understanding of and proficiency in academic language, which is the use of
Standard American English in classroom contexts (Gee, 2008), is required for all students to
participate meaningfully in the rapidly changing social and professional arenas of a global
society (New London Group, 1996). Academic language is also often a feature of authentic
classroom discussions when the teacher models appropriate usage and support for using
academic language (Cazden, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001). Therefore, students should have
meaningful experiences with and knowledge about the conventions of academic language, as
well as opportunities to develop the ability to use academic language and to participate in
authentic academic discourse (Schleppegrell, 2001). Research has shown that novice academic
literacy, specifically in students who speak a linguistic variety other than Standard American
English, hinders academic success (Oberg De La Garza, 2015; Gee, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2001;
Cazden, 2001). Keis (2006), as cited in Oberg De La Garza (2015), posits that students who are
from different social, economic, or linguistic backgrounds do not have access to the same
opportunities to academic literacy and learning (Oberg De La Garza, 2015). However, when
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 24
students participate in authentic class discussions in which they can volunteer concepts and ideas
to co-construct meaning of a text with one another and with the teacher’s guidance, then such
discussions help to socialize students into the norms for academic language and literacy (Enright,
Torres-Torretti & Carreon, 2001). Therefore, spoken language in the classroom—especially
appropriately modeled and adequately supported academic language (Cazden, 2001;
Schleppegrell, 2001)—is used as a cultural and psychological tool to think collectively and to
share collectively an understanding for how words and social beliefs and practices can
accomplish things (Mercer, 2004).
Vygotsky’s Model of the Zone of Proximal Development
Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) developed the concept of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) to indicate a significant place and moment in a learner’s process
of development (Chaiklin, 2003). Chaiklin (2003) explains the concept of ZPD as the distance
between two developmental levels of a learner, the level at which a learner can perform
independently, and the level at which a learner can perform in collaboration with an adult or
more capable peers. Skills and understandings that are ready to emerge with different degrees of
assistance are located within the ZPD (Bodrova & Leong, 1998). Performance of students in
collaborative situations with a more competent individual, such as the teacher, provides the
conditions for identifying the existence of maturing functions that are relevant to the next age
period (Chaiklin, 2003). Furthermore, a ZPD can be created for any domain of a skill (Tharpe &
Gallimore, 1990). Thus, the teacher should focus upon having meaningful interactions with
students, while carefully considering the learners’ potential and readiness to learn (Chaiklin,
2003). Chaiklin (2003) argues an important aspect of ZPD is that the teacher can greatly
accelerate learning if the ZPD can be properly identified and created through meaningful
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 25
learning interactions. Thus, when teachers can properly identify students’ ZPD for participating
in academic discussion, the teacher can then facilitate and support students’ participation in
academic discussions (Miller, 2012). The teacher can assist students in creating a shared
meaning of a text or texts by providing just enough instructional support to mediate
conversations to allow students to co-create new meanings and shared understandings (Thomas,
2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
Pedagogy
School language is based on Standard American English, which is the dialect associated
with wealth, power, and privilege (Alim, 2004; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Although Labov
(1972), as cited in Kutz and Roskelly (1991), demonstrated through his seminal research on
urban black youth that linguistic varieties other than Standard American English do not indicate
restricted linguistic or conceptual ability, these linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English are still neither understood nor valued by school. Therefore, linguistic varieties other
than Standard American English are too often treated as mistakes by secondary teachers (Kutz &
Roskelly, 1991). Students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English
will often reject the school’s language and fall silent in class (Alim, 2004; Kutz & Roskelly,
1991). Labov (1972), as cited in Kutz and Roskelly (1991), shows that no dialect is inherently
superior, as all dialects follow norms and rules which allow for the successful communication of
information. Thus, students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English
are capable of expressing their ideas and extending their ways of thinking through participation
in academic discourse (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). What is needed, then, for effective instruction
of students, particularly those who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English, is teachers’ understanding of how schools deny access to literacy to certain students
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 26
through the promotion of some normative ways for reading and understanding texts, such as
students’ relying on their teachers to make sense of texts instead of allowing opportunities for
students to co-construct meaning (Alvermann, 2002).
Effective instruction via cooperative learning, comprehension monitoring, and authentic
questioning develops students’ abilities to understand, discuss, and respond to multiple text
forms, because this type of instruction takes into account what students are capable of doing as
users of language and literacy (Alvermann, 2002). Furthermore, Alvermann (2002) posits that
effective teachers facilitate participatory approaches to actively engage students in creating their
own understandings of texts instead of using texts as fixed sets of understandings to be
memorized. Effective cooperative learning through active student engagement can be
accomplished in a variety of ways, and reviewed here are some distinct and prominent examples
of academic discussion which demonstrate how students can access textual content through
constructivist approaches (Thomas, 2013; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Enright,
Torres-Torretti & Carreon, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
The following case studies show instructional approaches which have been shown to
support students’ learning through their participation, with their teacher’s support, in authentic
academic discourse. Each study employs a different strategy or intervention, including:
cooperative conversation and idea sharing through structured and planned questioning and
feedback (Miller, 2012); negotiation of power through culturally responsive discourse (Thomas,
2013); authentic thinking and meaning construction generated through open questioning
(Christoph & Nystrand, 2001); and textual understanding and written response facilitated
through spontaneous classroom discussion (Vetter, 2010). The salient unifying feature of all of
the studies was how students had increased their achievement in literacy through the authentic
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 27
facilitation of academic discourse (Schleppegrell, 2001). Such pedagogy as demonstrated in each
of the studies shows promise for supporting language development through supported and
meaningful talk about texts (Thomas, 2013; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Enright,
Torres-Torretti & Carreon, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Dialogic Thinking
Miller (2012) found in her study in secondary English classrooms that when students
were afforded opportunities to jointly pursue a problem of understanding through a teacher-
mediated, open-forum discussion, the situation allowed for the development in students of new
ways of talking and thinking within a supported space. In other words, a new zone of proximal
development is created when teachers successfully mediate student discussion and meaning
making through the teachers’ providing instructional assistance to guide students through
questioning and elaborating upon problems with textual understanding (Miller, 2012).
In one 9th grade classroom Miller (2012) studied, the teacher, Ms. Mitchell, carefully
focused on changing her role as the knowledge expert by changing the way she used talk in her
classroom (Miller, 2012). Ms. Mitchell changed the seating into a circular forum to allow
students to have more authority over the conversations, and she began to listen more than she
talked, effectively becoming a facilitative participant (Miller, 2012). Miller (2012) found that
when Ms. Mitchell began asking students authentic questions about the text and allowing the
students to determine turn-taking norms, it then allowed students to take on more active roles in
the conversations, and led to students’ having cooperative conversations and new understandings
about the text and one another. In terms of meaningful feedback, Ms. Mitchell provided her
students with strategies for considering differences of opinions reflectively (Miller, 2012).
Furthermore, Ms. Mitchell modeled how to use talk to probe for additional information and to
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 28
respond to alternative perspectives (Miller, 2012). This was done through questioning, and Ms.
Mitchell would ask students for clarification on their ideas, or ask students if they would like to
ask each other questions about their responses (Miller, 2012). Ms. Mitchell also encouraged
long pauses for students to think before speaking, and she respectfully enforced the
conversational norm for allowing a student to finish before another student began speaking
(Miller, 2012). Over time, Miller (2012) found, the students began to develop Ms. Mitchell’s
socially useful language strategies—taking time for thinking before speaking, asking clarifying
questions to one another, and allowing one student to finish speaking before another students’
taking a new turn—for developing their understanding. A new ZPD had been created through
Ms. Mitchell’s understanding of her students’ readiness to learn how to participate in meaningful
discussion interactions and through her successful facilitation and modeling of authentic
conversational strategies (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003). One language strategy included the
students’ keeping the discussion open by tentatively making claims, and by suggesting
alternative possibilities, and the classroom discussion transformed from students’ talking at each
other to students’ talking with each other (Miller, 2012). Ultimately, Miller (2012) found, Ms.
Mitchell’s classroom talk strategies allowed students to learn to listen, to ask clarification
questions respectfully, and to build meaning collaboratively. Students then began to view Ms.
Mitchell’s classroom as a safe place for discussions with a serious purpose (Miller, 2012).
Over the course of the school year, students in the study began to use dialogic thinking to
read and reflect between text, self, and others to create new ways of thinking about social values
and experiences (Miller, 2012). Dialogic thinking suggests that all language use is the result of
thinking about and responding to language spoken in a particular context or situation (Miller,
2012). In other words, language use is a continual and reciprocal engagement process through
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 29
which meaning and understanding are developed (Miller, 2012). Miller’s (2012) study found
that meaningful feedback from the teacher in supported discussions allowed students to develop
their dialogic thinking: the students were found to have learned conversation strategies for
listening, responding, collaborating, and building meaning. In other words, effective classroom
talk can promote the development of critical thinking, and promote constructivist learning
(Miller, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2001).
Furthermore, Miller’s (2012) study found that meaningful questioning and feedback from
the teacher in supported discussions allowed students to learn conversation strategies to
collaborate and build new meanings and understandings. For instance, during a whole class
discussion, Ms. Mitchell would look around the circle of students, and she would invite students
to ask one another questions about their previous responses (Miller, 2012). Miller (2012) found
that students began to use this as an opportunity to develop understanding about different points
of view on a topic. Miller (2012) also found that, over time, the teachers’ carefully constructed
and dialogically supported strategies allowed students to move beyond their initial responses and
to begin to internalize interpretations, evaluations, personal response, and public responsibilities
in order to create repertoires that allowed the students to think and make meaning about texts and
knowledge in increasingly complex ways. In such instances, Ms. Mitchell would ask students
for clarification on their suggestions in such ways that would invite other students to offer
alternative explanations (Miller, 2012). Ultimately, adolescents need time and space to
experiment and to interact with different literacies, and they do need meaningful feedback from
both teacher and peers in order to become comfortable with and proficient in dialogical thinking
for reading and reflecting upon texts and conversations (Miller, 2012; Moje, Young, Readence &
Moore, 2000). These collaborative conversation opportunities are simply not afforded in
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 30
classroom discussions based on the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) method found in
teacher-controlled conversations within classrooms (Miller, 2012; Johnston & Hayes, 2008;
Richards, 2006; Guthrie, 2004; Hall & Walsh, 2002; Cazden, 2001; Enright, Torres-Torretti &
Carreon, 2001). This is because the IRE pattern of discourse allows the teacher to control the
amount of speaking students can do by initiating questions, requesting or directing students to
respond, and then evaluating the degree of correctness contained in the response (Miller, 2012;
Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Richards, 2006; Hall & Walsh, 2002; Cazden, 2001; Enright, Torres-
Torretti & Carreon, 2001). In short, the teachers in Miller’s (2012) study who used authentic
academic discourse to co-construct textual meanings with their students, rather than simply
treating the textbook as fixed knowledge and relying on the IRE pattern of discourse, allowed
students to develop their understanding more deeply and to develop conversational strategies that
are useful in other classes.
Miller’s (2012) study illustrates how academic discussion in the English Language Arts
classroom creates new understanding and collective thinking through the lens of socio-cultural
theory. Miller’s (2012) study is significant to the understanding of effective the effective use of
academic discussion in terms of creating a new ZPD through the teachers’ understanding of
students’ potential for learning how to participate in academic discussion. Miller’s (2012) study
also shows the importance of the teachers’ creation of a new ZPD through the teachers’
understanding of students’ readiness to learn how to engage in academic discussion with
carefully supported conversational interactions (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003). While Miller’s
(2012) study was a four-year ethnographic study focused on high school English Language Arts
teachers—one that reveals excellent findings on the positive effects of and purposes for using
academic discussions—there is not specific data on the students’ backgrounds as speakers of
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 31
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English. Nor does Miller (2012) include much
interview data from the teachers to link the teachers’ perceptions about their practices and
methods for using academic discourse. Thus, there is a need for additional research and case
study on how teachers are using meaningful questioning and feedback in supported discussions
to support learning among students who are from linguistic varieties other than Standard
American English.
Cultural Relevance
In her qualitative research study of culturally responsive discourse in a diverse 9th and
10th grade English teacher’s classroom, Thomas (2013) found that culturally responsive
discourse, or discourse which is sensitive to and inclusive of students of culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds, requires regular routines of agreement and involvement
between the teacher and her students. Gay, (2000), as cited in Thomas (2013), suggests a
framework for culturally responsive teaching which calls for pedagogy that is validating,
comprehensive, transformative, empowering, and emancipatory in terms of addressing student
diversity and multiculturalism in education. Agreement and involvement are facilitated and
mediated through talk and interaction, which in turn creates an environment where students are
taught the value of participating and contributing in a classroom where expectations are high and
the teacher genuinely cares (Thomas, 2013; Adkins-Coleman, 2010). When disagreements arise
during classroom discourse interactions, the teacher and students cooperate to mutually shift
conversations toward points of agreement, often by repeating what has been said so each student
involved in the conversation knows their perspectives have been heard and are valued (Thomas,
2013).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 32
During a whole class discussion, the teacher, Ms. Daniel, demonstrated an effective
routine of agreement, involvement, and negotiation of power as the class formed consensus on
themes, moral lessons, and use of the n-word in Johnson’s (1992) Dangerous Minds (Thomas,
2013). Thomas (2013) found that Ms. Daniel, who is White, successfully used classroom talk by
mediating the conversation to allow students of diverse backgrounds to negotiate around the
ideological dilemma of using the n-word in terms of appraising the novel’s author and
characters. Ms. Daniel elicited students’ reactions to the novel during the classroom discussion,
and effectively engaged the students to discuss and describe their feelings about the novel,
particularly its use of racist language, which aligned both the listeners and speakers through
language (Thomas, 2013). When a student stated that she noticed “really bad words” (Thomas,
2013, p. 336) in reference to the n-word, Ms. Daniel acknowledged the student’s observation and
had the class turn to the page in the book where the n-word appeared (Thomas, 2013). Ms.
Daniel then began asking probing questions as to why the author would use the word, and
whether the students believed it was appropriate of the author to use the word (Thomas, 2013).
A second student suggested the author was using the word as “a sentence enhancer” (Thomas,
2013, p. 338) and Ms. Daniel affirmed and restated the response, complimenting the student’s
suggestion, and then Ms. Daniel began to ask the class for more clarification (Thomas, 2013).
More students responded, and Ms. Daniels continued to facilitate the conversation through
restating responses and offering suggestions (Thomas, 2013). Ms. Daniel noted that the first two
students had different reactions to reading the n-word, and other students had different ideas
about whether or not the author should use the n-word, so she took the opportunity to use
academic discourse to build solidarity among the students (Thomas, 2013). Thomas (2013)
found that, instead of escalating a conflict among students of culturally and linguistically diverse
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 33
backgrounds over a racially charged term, Ms. Daniel had effectively used mediated talk and
interaction to validate the students’ opinions, and to facilitate agreement and involvement among
her students. Ms. Daniel demonstrated to her students that their contributions were valued, and
she effectively used academic discourse to allow the students to find points of agreement
(Thomas, 2013).
Ms. Daniel explained in one of her interviews that she used academic discussion in her
classroom to diffuse conflict about difficult topics found in the texts, and to also help students
find points of agreement (Thomas, 2013). Ms. Daniel also shared that she effectively teaches
students how to use language to build community, to negotiate a shared position, to circulate
power among teacher and students, and to avoid conflict (Thomas, 2013). Furthermore, Ms.
Daniel shared that she placed herself in academic discussions as the mediator, and helped
students to understand the reality of conflict of agreement, and described how she reconsiders
and adjusts her teaching in response to culturally diverse learners (Thomas, 2013).
Thomas’ (2013) study is significant because it shows the effective use of academic
discussion to accomplish solidarity of language and the effective managing of interpersonal
relationships through culturally responsive academic discourse (Thomas, 2013). Thomas (2013)
found evidence to support how students can become co-constructors of knowledge through
classroom discourse, and how students can emerge as successful readers by meaningful
interaction with a text (Schleppegrell, 2001). This study demonstrates how an English teacher
can effectively use academic discussion as a means to negotiate conflict and to form a consensus
on racist language. In addition to socio-cultural theory, Thomas (2013) has also used
sociolinguistics as a lens to situate her study. The teacher successfully mediated through talk to
create a routine of agreement and involvement (Thomas, 2013) that resulted in new
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 34
understanding and collective thinking. Although this study demonstrates a teacher’s
understanding of how to frame classroom talk, and does promote participation beyond the IRE
method, Thomas (2013) admits a limitation in that there was no evidence to support how a
teacher can use classroom talk to help students to understand themselves, or to reveal to students
linguistic codes of power in the classroom and in society, because the discussion Ms. Daniels
mediated did not extend discussion beyond the novel and into the students’ personal lives. As
with Miller’s (2012) study, Thomas’ (2013) study lacks information on teachers’ attitudes
towards and perceptions about how students from linguistic varieties other than Standard
American English learn. Thomas’ (2013) study is also lacking in some information on the
teacher’s perspective on why classroom talk is necessary for allowing students to co-construct
meanings about texts, each other, and the society in which they participate as adults who are
competent in a secondary Discourse (Gee, 2008). Therefore, additional research is needed for
understanding how teachers use academic discussions on fiction to help students understand
about linguistic codes of power and negotiations of power in society.
Open-Ended Questioning
An ethnographic study conducted by Christoph and Nystrand (2001) finds that a teacher
in a 9th grade English class in a low-performing high school can change the profile of classroom
discourse from the dominant IRE method to an authentic, dialogic discourse through careful
scaffolding, specific and careful phrasing of questions to elicit student discussion, and
acknowledging and allowing for students’ interpersonal relationships (Christoph & Nystrand,
2001). The teacher in the study, Ms. Smith, was a 20-year veteran teacher and English
department chair, who admitted to being a traditional teacher who controlled conversations in her
classes, but also described herself as being in transition towards a more student-centered and
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 35
dialogic classroom (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Christoph and Nystrand (2001) observed Ms.
Smith over the course of a semester in her 9th grade English class of 4-5th grade level readers—
predominantly speakers of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English—and noted
occasions of her excessive use of scaffolding and inauthentic, directive questioning during
discussions, which directed students to her desired answers, and resulted in predictable sessions
of classroom talk. Routine reproduction of knowledge, as was the case with Ms. Smith’s use of
directive questioning, does not allow for complex thinking or for critical engagement with
language (New London Group, 1996; Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995), as evidenced by
some students’ negative attitude towards the other students who answered correctly by simply
picking up on the suggestions Ms. Daniels used to direct students to the correct answer
(Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
However, the authors also observed Ms. Smith using discussion questions in which she
herself demonstrated her own thinking as she spoke (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Ms. Smith’s
discussion questions featured her self-correcting and repairing as she questioned the class, and
discussion questions were phrased in a conversational tone to reduce the power differential
between teacher and students (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001), similar to how Ms. Daniel’s
classroom talk negotiated the power differential between teacher and students in Thomas’ (2013)
study. Furthermore, Christoph and Nystrand (2001) observed as the study progressed Ms.
Smith’s discussion questions required complex thought and personal opinion, which Ms. Smith
encouraged by accepting multiple answers to her discussion questions. Ms. Smith encouraged
students to take the time to think about their answers, scaffolded by calling attention to evidence
in the text, but did not suggest how students should interpret their answers, thus allowing
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 36
students to construct and negotiate meanings and understandings through interactions with one
another, the text, and Ms. Smith herself (Gee, 2008; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Mercer, 1995).
The most salient finding of this particular study is that Christoph and Nystrand (2001)
found that Ms. Smith was able to create the best instance of authentic academic discourse by
being willing to take the risk of asking an open-ended question about A Midsummer Night’s
Dream (Hoffman, 1999) for which she did not have a pre-thought and expected answer and for
which she allowed the class considerable control over the direction of the discussion—to
deliberate, question, debate, and discuss in order to form new understandings about the text and
one another (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001). The entire class, and not just
the four students who tended to dominate the discussions, was engaged in the discussion
(Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Christoph and Nystrand (2001) suggest that the entire class
participated not only because Ms. Smith had asked a key question and then facilitated student
discussion rather than redirected towards her expected answer, but because Ms. Smith had built
relationships with her students, and had made the effort to make her curricular material relevant
to her students’ lives (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Because Ms. Smith created a safe space in
her classroom, when she began to experiment with dialogic conversation, the students felt
comfortable sharing collectively and developing a common understanding (Mercer, 2004;
Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
The significance of this study is that it demonstrates how the possibility for authentic
classroom discourse is dependent upon the teacher’s and students’ positive relationships with one
another (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Furthermore, the study
demonstrates how a teacher successfully moved beyond the traditional IRE pattern of discourse
and facilitated meaningful classroom discourse among students of linguistic varieties other than
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 37
Standard American English (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Creating a classroom where
authentic classroom discourse can take place requires more than teachers’ recognizing the
importance of their positive interactions with students, as teachers should also demonstrate they
understand student learning, particularly for Black (Adkins-Coleman, 2010) and other
linguistically diverse students (Oberg De La Garza, 2015). From this study, researchers,
educators, and others can see how students of linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English can become co-constructors of knowledge through classroom discourse facilitated by
their teacher another (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001). This study, like
Miller’s (2012) and Thomas’ (2013), also demonstrates how adolescents become comfortable
with and proficient in dialogical thinking for reflecting upon a text through conversation, and
provides evidence for how academic discussion is successfully performed through teacher
questioning and meaningful feedback from both teacher and peers (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001;
Moje, Young, Readence & Moore, 2000).
Spontaneous Classroom Discussion
Similarly, Vetter’s (2010) qualitative study investigated how a third year teacher of 11th
grade English situated her students of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English
as engaged readers and capable writers through spontaneous classroom interactions. Vetter’s
(2010) findings are helpful in understanding academic language acquisition through a socio-
cultural lens, as the teacher Gina’s use of classroom talk demonstrates the negotiation of
meaning, power, understanding, and gives evidence of students’ negotiating and interacting with
academic language, along with evidence of Gina’s understanding of and respect for the students’
informal registers associated with other social contexts (Vetter, 2010; Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004;
Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 38
Vetter’s (2010) study found that by Gina’s routine use of informal and spontaneous
classroom discussion, Gina helped her students to position themselves as readers and writers. In
one observation, Gina responded to students’ disengagement with a writing task and opened a
conversation about how to construct a writer identity (Vetter, 2010). Gina guided her students
through careful questioning and turn-taking to help students co-construct the understanding of
what it means to become a good writer, and students then began drafting reflections which—
after a few weeks’ of similar spontaneous open classroom talk—the students produced polished
reflective essays (Vetter, 2010). Vetter (2010) finds Gina’s unexpected and unplanned
improvisations, or use of what Vetter (2010) called cultural resources at hand, were an important
part of positioning her students as readers and writers in the classroom. Teacher Gina’s ability to
choose the best routines and responses allowed her students to position themselves as engaged
readers and capable writers (Vetter, 2010), while simultaneously shaping her students literacy
success (Cazden, 2001). Gina also shared with her students her own perceptions of herself as
culturally different from her students, but she also maintained rapport and demonstrated caring
towards her students (Vetter, 2010).
This significance of this particular study is that it demonstrates how Gina successfully
used spontaneous academic discourse to facilitate literacy in her students (Vetter, 2010). Vetter
(2010) finds that open-ended questions, connections to students’ interests, and flexibility to allow
the students to influence the conversation allows students to position themselves as capable,
engaged readers and writers. This study shows how meaningful classroom talk can allow a
teacher and her students to co-construct a literacy community, which in turn gives an illustration
of how changing interactions within a classroom context shapes literacy learning (Vetter, 2010;
Ares & Peercy, 2003; Mercer, 1995). Additional research is needed to show how teachers can
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 39
use their understanding of spontaneous academic discussion to facilitate learning and literacy in
students.
Teacher Inquiry
Teachers’ personal questioning of their assumptions reflects a deepening awareness of
the importance of the teachers’ role in the making of pedagogical theory (Kutz & Roskelly,
1991). Kutz and Roskelly (1991) contend that teachers should begin the process of inquiry about
what students do and how students learn in the English classroom, which will lead teachers to
view the social, individual, cultural, and institutional perspectives that intersect within a
particular classroom. This process ought to be conscious and continual in order to facilitate
meaningful change within the classroom (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Miller’s (2012) study shows
how the teacher, Ms. Mitchell, had begun to question her students’ understanding of what it
means to participate in academic discourse. Ms. Mitchell changed the entire set up of her
classroom and introduced a new process for reflectively considering differences of opinion
(Miller, 2012). Ms. Mitchell understood the students’ readiness to learn how to participate in
academic discourse to build meanings and shared understandings of the text (Chaiklin, 2003),
and her process of thinking of the ways in which her students might demonstrate literacy and
textual understandings led her to guide students to create conversational norms and to begin to
speak together in meaningful ways (Miller, 2012; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Similarly, Christoph and Nystrand (2001) found that the teacher, Ms. Smith, had begun to
question her own teaching process and successfully changed her classroom talk from the IRE
method to one of authentic academic discourse. Ms. Smith’s continual process of personal
inquiry allowed her to re-examine the process of classroom talk and to allow her students to
become comfortable with and proficient in dialogical thinking for reflecting upon a text through
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 40
conversation. (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Like Ms. Smith, Ms.
Daniel and Gina were all able to inquire about what their students knew and what their students
expressed, and so were able to give their respective students many opportunities to tell and to
know, and to negotiate meanings into a shared consensus (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter,
2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
When teachers are able to come to understand that knowledge is not merely facts, but the
ways in which facts can be used (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991), student learning can be supported
through supported talk about reading, texts, and students’ related understanding and experiences
(Mercer, 1995; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Thus, teachers have to model expected language use, so
that students can learn how to be engaged in acts of doing things with language, and, by
extension, learn how to be engaged in acts of knowing things through language use (Gee, 2008;
Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Because knowledge is a construction via individuals’ attempts to act on
and respond to the world, the teacher’s role can be to encourage students’ thinking about and
acting upon the world (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Thus, skilled teaching will both support and
enhance the development of thought and language (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Thomas (2013) found that Ms. Daniel successfully guided her students through the use of
authentic academic discourse into acting upon and responding to the racially charged language in
the text, Dangerous Minds (Johnson, 1992). Ms. Daniel successfully modeled how language can
be used to get through a conflict, and, through agreement and involvement, can allow students to
develop their thinking and understanding about language use in the world (Thomas, 2013; Kutz
& Roskelly, 1991). Similarly, Ms. Smith successfully modeled to her students how to use
language to get to an understanding about a character in Hoffman’s (1999) A Midsummer Night’s
Dream (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Gina used spontaneous
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 41
conversation to demonstrate to her students how to understand a reading assignment and
ultimately get a writing assignment done (Vetter, 2010). Vetter (2010) found that Gina’s use of
spontaneous academic discourse allowed the students to use language to develop their thoughts
on a particular text and the response assignment assigned to it. And finally, Ms. Mitchell was
also able to model to her students different ways to ask one another for clarification or additional
information, which ultimately led to new understandings about dialogue, textual understanding,
and interpersonal understanding (Miller, 2012; Mercer, 1995; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Each of
these four teachers were successful in using academic discourse because these teachers
understand that students’ development of new forms of thought and language is active,
constructive, and systematic (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Furthermore, each of these four teachers
understand that development of language and thought is a social process, one that is necessarily
culturally bound (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Cultural Literacy and Sharing Knowledge
By making learning and co-construction of knowledge meaningful to students, teachers
make literacy both a product and process of the cultures that students live in, learn from, and
affect (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Kutz and Roskelly (1991) explain that people know things
through personal experience as well as through formal structures, and thus teachers support the
developing thought and language in all students by allow multiple ways of knowing. One
component linked to accomplishing this is teachers’ showing genuine caring towards their
students (Noddings, 2007; Valenzuela, 1999; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). In terms of facilitating
authentic literature discussion, demonstrating genuine caring is linked to effective instruction and
the accomplishing of multiple ways of knowing (Alvermann, 2002). When teachers can instill in
their students a sense of competence, confidence, and self-worth through genuine caring,
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 42
students understand the teacher cares about their learning, and students become more receptive to
teaching approaches designed to enhance learning through participation in academic discussions
(Noddings, 2007; Alvermann, 2002). This is, in part, due to students’ feeling more confident in
their abilities to actively develop their own meanings and understandings instead of simply
trying to understand the accepted meaning the teacher transmits (Alvermann, 2002). When
students do not perceive their teacher’s having genuine interest in their learning, students will be
reluctant to participate for fear of making mistakes (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Thus, it is
important for teachers to demonstrate genuine interest in talking and listening to students, and to
allow multiple ways of knowing (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Teachers Gina, Ms. Daniel, and Ms. Smith in the studies discussed previously were found
to give meaningful responses and a form of praise when their respective students spoke in class
(Thomas, 2013; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). This is
because each of these teachers were able to build and use shared knowledge among their
respective students, which in turn allowed for the students to actively participate in the academic
discussions and to co-construct meaning of their respective texts with one another and with their
respective teacher’s guidance (Thomas, 2013; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001;
Enright, Torres-Torretti & Carreon, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Furthermore, the teachers in
each of the four studies had successfully redefined their roles in the classroom, from one who
controlled interaction to one who facilitated interaction, and thus allowed the academic
discussions to accomplish the sharing and co-constructing of knowledge in meaningful ways
(Thomas, 2013; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Enright, Torres-Torretti & Carreon,
2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 43
From Thomas’ (2013) and Vetter’s (2010) studies, the respective findings show that
teachers Ms. Daniel and Gina were able to demonstrate caring to their students through the use
of academic discussions. Ms. Daniel acknowledged her students’ differing opinions, and
encouraged conversation among students to arrive at a point of agreement (Thomas, 2013).
Thomas (2013) found that Ms. Daniel listened to her students’ responses, and demonstrated
genuine interest through affirmation, restating, and asking for clarification. Similarly, Gina
demonstrated caring towards her students by acknowledging their frustrations and helping them
to overcome their reluctance to write (Vetter, 2010). Kutz and Roskelly (1991) posit that when
teachers do begin to facilitate open discussion, they will still encounter silenced learners. The
way to overcome this is through gaining students trust (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). The students in
each of the four studies discussed were able to engage in the academic discussion because they
already had an established rapport with their respective teachers, as evidenced by their
participation in their respective academic discussions and by the teachers’ responses to interview
questions about caring about each student’s success and well-being (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012;
Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
Teacher as Cothinker, Questioner, Respondent
Kutz and Roskelly (1991), as well as Mercer (1995), contend that teachers can support
language development in their students by becoming active participants in literacy conversations.
Kutz and Roskelly (1991) posit that in order for students to become critical thinkers, they first
become active participants in the co-creation of knowledge. Many students are not necessarily
ready to do this independently, and so teachers can support students’ learning by creating new
ZPDs through authentic academic discussion (Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008; Chaiklin, 2003; Kutz &
Roskelly, 1991; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990). In other words, teachers who are able to
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 44
successfully keep students within the learning zone in which they can perform offer adequate and
appropriate support and guidance (Chaiklin, 2003; Bodrova & Leong, 1998). Therefore, teachers
may join in the creation of new knowledge with their students by participating in the process of
discovery and authenticating the knowledge that students create (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
The research further indicates that teachers need to make lots of opportunities for lots of
talk in the classroom, because culturally shared knowledge is transmitted orally (Gee, 2008;
Chaiklin, 2003; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Cooperative talk and listening will promote literate
behaviors, because authentic academic discussions help to socialize students into the norms for
academic language and literacy (Enright, Torres-Torretti & Carreon, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2001;
Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
In addition to becoming a conversational partner, the teacher might participate in other
literacy activities with students, including reading and writing, in order to model and support
language development (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Vetter’s (2010) findings show that Gina used
spontaneous academic discourse to support her students’ literacy development. Gina read along
with her students and helped to write ideas on the board (Vetter, 2010). Similarly, Ms. Daniel
read along with her students as they negotiated agreement about the use of the n-word in
Dangerous Minds (Thomas, 2013), as did Ms. Smith when her class studied Hoffman’s (1999)
film, A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Ms. Smith, Ms. Daniel, and
Ms. Mitchell used open questioning and responding along with their students and demonstrated
their ability to support co-creating knowledge through their becoming active participants in
students’ discussions (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Along with
Gina, each of these teachers demonstrated understanding of how to talk with students, not to
them or about them, and each of these four teachers understood how to design opportunities for
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 45
new learning with what their respective students already knew (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012;
Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Finally, the teacher, as the
informed spokesperson, guides the discussions into areas she knows to be productive because of
her more extensive experience with texts (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). The findings of Vetter
(2010), Miller (2012), Thomas (2013), and Christoph and Nystrand (2001) show that each of the
four teachers discussed previously were able to successfully guide and sustain the conversations
about the texts being studied in their respective classrooms. Each of these strategies is necessary
for developing literacy with students of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English
(Gee; 2008; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used in this study was socio-cultural theory to examine
secondary English Language Arts teachers’ understanding of academic discourse, the ways of
thinking in and the ways for using voice and register of Standard American English (Gee, 2008),
and how those teachers described what they were doing to facilitate authentic academic
discussions within their classrooms. Socio-cultural theory was a good lens with which to situate
this particular study, specifically in reference to how socio-cultural theory holds that learning is
more effective when students are actively engaged in learning through socialization methods of
guided discovery and discussion (Miller, 2012; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1990). This study aimed to
answer the research questions by looking at how teachers used socialization into academic
language use through authentic academic discourse in order to facilitate learning through
authentic academic discussion.
The review of the literature has revealed there are currently some existing gaps in the
literature about how teachers are actually effectively using academic discussion to help students
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 46
develop their understanding of literacy through multiple meanings. As mentioned previously,
there are limitations with understanding how academic discussions, planned or improvised, can
allow for speakers of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English to develop as
active participants in co-constructing meaning (Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010). Therefore, there
exists a need for understanding how socio-cultural factors allow for literacy development
through academic discussions, and how teacher instructional practices promote or hinder literacy
development among students, particularly those students who are speakers of linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English. Socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky,1978) emphasizes the
social and individual processes involved in the co-construction of knowledge (Chaiklin, 2003).
For Vygotsky, learning is a social process that involves language and thought, and knowledge is
co-constructed through meaningful social interactions using mediated tools such as language
(Chaiklin, 2003; Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). Vygotsky (1977), as cited in Shabani, Khatib, and
Ebadi (2010), has emphasized the importance of cognitive development through mediated
activity, because development is dependent upon and cannot be separated from mediated
interactions within particular social and cultural contexts. Furthermore, Wertsch and Tulviste
(1992), as cited in Shabani, Khatib, and Ebadi (2010), interpret Vygotsky’s concept of the social
origin of higher mental functioning to mean that cognitive activities are not attributes of the
individual, but are functions that must be carried out through mediated interactions within
particular social and cultural contexts. Mediated activity occurs through the means of applying
both physical and psychological tools, according to Vygotsky (1977), as cited in Shabani,
Khatib, and Ebadi (2010). John-Steiner and Mahn (1996), as cited in Shabani, Khatib, and Ebadi
(2010), argue that psychological tools, specifically language, were of primary concern to
Vygotsky. Thus, learning and development take place most profoundly through and emerge as a
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 47
result of language interactions within a particular cultural and historical context (Shabani,
Khatib, & Ebadi, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978).
Thus, the Vygotskian socio-cultural theory posits that a skilled teacher can engage
students in dialogue and support their learning through the creation of a ZPD (Kutz & Roskelly,
1991). Furthermore, Street (1997) argues that language and literacy have to be studied as they
occur naturally in social contexts, and the contexts and their different meanings for different
cultural groups should be considered, therefore. Because contexts can vary, pedagogy can be
adapted to fit from evidence-based practices. Pedagogy can also be modified, and new
applications might also be developed. Therefore, this study will utilize the Vygotskian socio-
cultural framework to examine the relationship between literacy learning and development based
upon how a teacher should interact with students by using authentic academic discourse to
develop literacy (Chaiklin, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2001).
The preceding literature review has informed this researcher’s approach in answering the
research questions in the following ways. This researcher had to understand three English
Language Arts teachers’ attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs about academic discourse, instructional
methods, and responding to varying levels of motivation and engagement—particularly to
students who speak a linguistic variety other than Standard American English. Additionally, this
researcher’s own experiences, education, and prior understandings helped shape the
understanding of the findings of this study (Maxwell, 2013).
Furthermore, the literature shows that teachers who successfully use academic discourse
in their respective classrooms do so by making room for a lot of talk in the classroom to allow
students to improve their literacy through talk and listening (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991). The
teachers in the respective studies reviewed here were found to have allowed a lot of opportunity
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 48
for students to learn about their respective texts through mediated discussion and listening
(Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012, Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Furthermore, teachers
who can situate themselves as active participants instead of controlling coordinators within an
academic discussion, can use authentic questioning and feedback to help students to connect
textual understandings with events and conditions in the students’ own lives (Kutz & Roskelly,
1991). The literature also demonstrates how teachers and students need to engage in authentic
inquiry, discovery, and negotiation in order to co-construct knowledge (Kutz & Roskelly, 1991).
The literature review also informed this case study in terms of sampling and data
collection. Each of the case studies reviewed served to identify promising data collection
practices in terms of observations and semi-structured interviews (Maxwell, 2013). For this
study, three secondary English teachers were observed in their respective classrooms on specific
occasions where the teacher said they were planning to hold academic discussions. The
participants observed were the teacher and the students. As with the case studies reviewed in the
literature, this researcher was not a participant during the observation. This allowed this
researcher to study and record observations about the interactions and relationships among
teachers and their respective students, which, along with interview data, in turn informed the
answering of the research questions.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this case study was to investigate how three secondary English Language
Arts teachers understood academic discussion, their perceptions of their understanding of
academic discussion, and for using voice and register of Standard American English (Gee, 2008),
and how those three ELA teachers described what they were doing to facilitate authentic
academic discussions within their classrooms. Furthermore, this study examined how English
Language Arts teachers understood academic discussion in terms of how it promoted their
respective students’ participation, and how academic discussions could enhance students’
competency in academic language, particularly for those students who spoke linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English. This case study research was intended to understand the
characteristics of academic discussion employed by three veteran ELA teachers within an urban
public high school that, at the time of this dissertation study, predominantly served students who
spoke linguistic varieties other than Standard American English.
This chapter describes the research design and includes a review of the appropriateness of
the research method. Furthermore, this chapter describes the rationale for the participants’
selection, a discussion of population and sample, data collection procedures, issues of internal
validity, and limitations to generalizability (Creswell, 2013). The case study research was
analyzed using Creswell’s Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures (Creswell, 2013).
As this researcher sought to understand teachers’ perceptions of and methods for using
academic discussions, the research questions developed for this study were:
1) How do English Language Arts teachers understand academic discussion within their
respective mainstream classrooms at an urban high school?
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 50
2) What elements do English Language Arts teachers understand as being necessary to
support authentic participation in academic discussions in mainstream English
Language Arts classes at an urban high school?
Research Design
This study examined what three secondary English Language Arts teachers described
what they were doing to facilitate authentic academic discussions within their respective
classrooms to allow their respective students to participate in meaningful conversations and to
promote literacy (Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995). The research
questions are both in-depth and descriptive in nature, used to develop an in-depth understanding
about how three cases provided insight about the problem of not using academic discussion to
develop literacy within secondary classrooms (Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark & Morales, 2007).
There were no variables as there would have been if this had been a quantitative or a mixed-
methods study (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark & Morales,
2007). And while other methodologies and methods could have helped to illustrate how
academic discussion looked in three secondary English classrooms, qualitative methods still fit
better with the descriptive nature of the research questions (Creswell, 2013). Thus, qualitative
research methods were deemed most conducive for this particular study.
Sample and Population
An urban high school in Southern California within a district where this researcher had
worked as an English Language Arts teacher was an apt choice for a research site, because, at the
time of this dissertation study, the district predominantly served a population of students who
spoke linguistic varieties other than Standard American English, as previously mentioned. The
target participants for this study were three veteran English Language Arts teachers at the school
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 51
site. In order to locate such participants, this researcher used purposive sampling to actively
select the most productive sample of subjects to answer the research questions (Maxwell, 2013;
Marshall, 1996). This was accomplished by contacting the principal’s secretary of the target site
to help this researcher identify and deem appropriate three veteran English Language Arts
teachers who were known to use academic discussions within their respective classrooms.
Furthermore, this researcher based her selection of participants on her practical knowledge of
this researcher area, as evidenced by the review of the available literature (Marshall, 1996). The
findings on the three teachers and their respective methods in their classes helped to answer the
research questions of this study. The principal’s secretary requested the participants’ help via
email, and then the participants responded to the researcher. This selection method was,
therefore, appropriate for this particular study in that it allowed this researcher to complete field
research at a campus she is somewhat familiar with, and to focus upon three teachers who were
identified for their use of academic discussions within their respective classrooms. Using a
single high school and three teachers of three different English Language Arts classes best fit the
scope of interest and objectives for this particular research design (Creswell, 2014) as well,
because the context was the same, and the students were of similar educational and
socioeconomic and, in some cases, linguistic backgrounds.
Access to the school site was not problematic. The target participants were advised they
were identified specifically for their known use of academic discussion, and each of the three
participants was receptive when their participation was requested for completing this research
study.
It was explained and made explicit to each participant that this research study was
completed in order to fulfill the requirement of completing a dissertation to obtain a doctoral
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 52
degree from the University of Southern California where this researcher was a candidate for the
doctoral degree in education. Furthermore, the participants were provided an explanation of this
study’s purposes as well as the expectation and duration of their participation (Creswell, 20130).
The interviews and follow-up conversations began with a short interview protocol (Appendix A)
(Merriam, 2009; Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, 2003) in order to assure and
reassure each participant that this researcher did not intend any harm or discomfort, and that this
particular study aimed to understand how socio-cultural factors allowed for literacy development
through the teachers’ understanding and facilitation of academic discussions. Furthermore, the
participants were assured that their participation was always voluntary, and they could stop
participation at any time, without penalty or loss of any sort (Merriam, 2009), and also that all
collected data would remain confidential, and would not be shared with anyone else at the school
site or district.
Data Collection
Interviews
Multiple forms of instrumentation are used to conduct case study research, including
interviews, observations, and artifacts (Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark & Morales, 2007). James
(2015) suggests interviews help researchers gain understanding how participants construct their
lives through in-depth stories of experience. Furthermore, interviews allow for flexibility to
gather data through open questioning and follow-up discussion (James, 2015). Interviews were
essential to this qualitative study in order to gain an understanding about the three participants’
attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs about the nature of and need for academic discussion within the
secondary English classroom, particularly for students who speak linguistic varieties other than
Standard American English.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 53
Because there were just three participants, this researcher triangulated with one pre-
observation interview, and three observations with informal conversations to follow among each
participant in order to establish credibility. The method used was a cycle of interview-
observation-informal follow-up conversation, and then two cycles of observation-informal
follow-up conversation for the following reasons. A baseline interview (Creswell, 2013) took
place with participants prior to the observations in order to establish a rapport with each
participant, as well as to have an understanding of what the participants described as academic
discussion and its purpose prior to observing the classroom. This researcher conducted follow-
up conversations informally in order to discuss what was observed along with what had been
discussed previously. Additionally, because this researcher’s own experiences, education, and
prior understandings helped shape the understanding of the outcome of this study (Maxwell,
2013), the opportunity to debrief and discuss what was observed was necessary to create
meaning and understanding. Having a chance to debrief with the teachers after each observation
of their classroom climates and the teachers’ own apparent sensitivity allowed this researcher to
better make meaning of what happened during the observations, because the teachers were able
to cooperate to help make meaning of the observed data in terms of their prior responses
(Bracey, 2009; Bubb, 2005; Munson, 1998).
The pre-interviews were approximately one hour, as they occurred during each
participant’s prep period. This time frame was sufficient to complete the interviews and to allow
the participants time to expound upon the questions they were asked. This researcher used a
semi-structured interview format with researcher-generated questions based on the Stanford
Institute for Higher Education Research’s (2003) sample interview protocol (See Appendix A) to
ensure that the interview questions allowed the participants and researcher flexibility in asking
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 54
probing or follow-up questions, while still allowing the responses to inform the research
questions (Merriam, 2009). The structure of the interview and the structure of the questions
were designed to encourage participants to share additional information as they saw fit, and the
interview structure also allowed for participants to converse more naturally than they could have
in responding to a survey or with more standardized questions—which also improved rapport
and helped participants to feel at ease in discussing their perceptions, understandings, methods
and students (Merriam, 2009), as previously mentioned. By extension, the interviews took place
in the participants’ classrooms to allow the participants to feel comfortable in a familiar
environment, and to help the participants to consider this researcher an interviewer and not an
evaluator (Merriam, 2009). The post-observation follow-up conversations were approximately
thirty minutes hour, as they again occurred during each participant’s prep period. This time
frame was sufficient to debrief and to allow the participants time to expound upon the questions
they were asked. This researcher used a semi-structured interview format with researcher-
generated questions based on the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research’s (2003)
sample interview protocol (See Appendix B) to ensure that the questions allowed the participants
and researcher flexibility in asking probing or follow-up questions, while still allowing the
responses to inform the research questions (Merriam, 2009). All of the interviews also offered a
template for gaining consent and assuring confidentiality (James, 2015).
This researcher was conscious of building rapport and trust with the participants during
the interview process (Creswell, 2014) in order to gain the most credible responses from the
participants. As previously mentioned, participants were reminded of their voluntary
participation and their ability to self-select out or not respond at any time (Stanford Institute for
Higher Education Research, 2003) to allow this researcher to maintain both credibility and
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 55
trustworthiness in her findings. This researcher made every attempt to report findings as
carefully and consistently as possible to answer the research questions. This data helped to
answer the research questions by providing information and insight on what the participants
understood about authentic participation in academic discussions as well as what the participants
believed to be necessary for supporting their students’ authentic participation in their respective
academic discussions.
Each of the three participants’ prior experiences, education, and understandings were
analyzed and triangulated through pre-interview, classroom observations, and post-observation
informal conversation in order to interpret this study experience (Maxwell, 2013) and to answer
the research questions.
Observations
The purpose of the observations for this study was to observe and collect data in the form
of field notes on the teaching and learning strategies that were observed occurring in the
classrooms in order to answer the research questions. This researcher was advised by the
principal’s secretaries that audio and video recording would not be permitted in the classrooms.
The structure of the observation protocol was based upon Merriam's (2009) six qualities
of an effective observation. This researcher opted to be less structured in order to capture the
observational data in the most natural way possible (Creswell, 2013). Not being a part of the
study allowed for a more objective view of what was happening in the classroom.
Primarily, this researcher was interested in watching the teachers’ instruction for
providing learning opportunities for facilitating and promoting academic discussion within the
classroom. Because this research study was conducted within a socio-cultural framework, noted
were things such as the teachers’ placement in the classroom in relation to the students, how
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 56
often the teacher interacted with different students, and the nature of the interactions. Because
the research questions were inquiring about participation in academic discussion and associated
teaching and response strategies, this researcher recorded the instances of teachers’ encouraging
students to participate in academic discussions. Other items of interest were the layout of the
classroom: how the students’ tables were arranged, allowing or disallowing access to the teacher
and one another. The structure of the observation protocol (See Appendix C) allowed this
researcher to observe and take note of the physical setting and the conversational interactions
going on in each of the participants’ respective classrooms. Furthermore, this researcher had a
priori codes in place to avoid bias during the observations (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Because
this researcher already knew she would be looking for certain things, such as instances of
teachers’ using conversational techniques not based on the IRE method, and for students’ using
more developed language in their responses, having a priori codes allowed this researcher to
attend to the whole context of the conversations for data that was salient in informing and
answering the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Validity and Reliability. In keeping the study valid and reliable, this researcher was
careful to employ the same approach with both observations and interviews (Creswell, 2014). In
conducting observations, this researcher scheduled observational time with each individual
participant when the participant indicated they were having an academic discussion session in
class. During observations, this researcher was consistent in remaining as unobtrusive as
possible in the classrooms, and in using the same pre-interview question sets with each
participant. Interviews were conducted in the same fashion under the same conditions: one-on-
one in the participants’ classrooms before the observations took place, and the informal follow-
up conversations were conducted one-on-one under the same conditions after the observations
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 57
took place. There were three observations with the same participant, and these observations
were to be conducted a few weeks apart in order to collect data that would be related but still
different enough to justify emergent themes (Creswell, 2014). These procedures allowed for
findings to be both valid and reliable: because data collection and measurement were done as
consistently as possible, the findings were reliable for this particular study; and the same three
participants remained throughout the study, thus making the findings valid.
Artifacts
Additionally, this researcher collected, with permission, some handouts (Creswell,
Hanson, Plano Clark, Morales, 2007) as artifacts in order to gain additional understanding
(Merriam, 2009) about the extent to which those artifacts encouraged participation in academic
discussions. These artifacts helped to reveal how students used their academic discussions to
create meaning about their texts and to demonstrate improved literacy (Schleppegrell, 2001).
Data Analysis
This researcher’s own experiences, education, and prior understandings came into play
to help shape the understanding of the outcome of this study (Maxwell, 2013), and therefore this
researcher had to reflect upon notes and interview data before beginning to analyze the data to
answer the research questions (Merriam, 2009). Data were collected as handwritten notes.
Coding
This systematic approach to data collection and analysis, along with open-ended
questioning methods, allowed for this researcher to form categories of meaning and relationships
through inductive reasoning processes (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, as mentioned previously,
a priori codes were used during observations, emerging from the literature review of academic
discourse. Codes used were: academic discussion, non-standard English, IRE, transmissive
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 58
approach, student-centered approach. These codes also assisted in focusing interviews and
observations (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
This researcher used the constant comparative method to interpret and code the interview
transcripts and observational data, because the nature of the study best lent itself to this style
(Creswell, 2013). In reviewing the data and interview notes, this researcher located discrete
repeating or similar incidents and then coded them accordingly to allow this researcher to
develop insight about the social processes that were experienced, and ultimately informed the
focus of inquiry (Creswell, 2014). Clustering topics together without having preconceived codes
and categories allowed this researcher to best understand the underlying meaning of the
information (Creswell, 2014). For this particular study, the constant comparative method
allowed this researcher to best make meaning of the perceptions of the observational and
interview experiences, and answer the research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This researcher will keep the participants and school site anonymous, and used credible
sources as participants (Creswell, 2014): three veteran English Language Arts teachers, who
were identified by the principal’s secretary for their use of academic discussion in their
respective classrooms, from a school site that, at the time of this dissertation study,
predominantly served students who spoke linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English.
Ethics
In order to keep this study ethically sound, this researcher gained the three selected
participants’ express consent to participate and continue in this research study. The participants
were informed that their names will be withheld, and their privacy respected (Creswell, 2014).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 59
The three participants were also informed that a pseudonym that is in no way revealing of their
actual identity would be used in the final research report findings (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore,
because this research study involved observing students, students were not identified in any way.
None of the data were directly collected from students. During each interview, the participants
were informed that their participation would always remain confidential, voluntary, and could be
revoked at any time should the participants feel the need to do so (Stanford Institute for Higher
Education Research, 2003). Interview questions were drafted in a way which helped the
participants to feel comfortable and have trust in their responding honestly the questions were
worded in such ways as to not be obtrusive or offensive in any way (Creswell, 2014; Stanford
Institute for Higher Education Research, 2003). The participants were reminded they were not
being evaluated in any way as this was not the nature of this research study (Creswell, 2014;
Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, 2003). Data are kept in accordance with IRB
guidelines. All electronic data are kept on a password-protected laptop computer, and all
artifacts are stored in a locked file cabinet.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 60
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitatively focused case study was to examine how three English
Language Arts teachers understood academic discussion, their perceptions of how they assisted
students in using voice and register of Standard American English (Gee, 2008), and how they
described what they were doing to facilitate authentic academic discussions within their
respective classrooms. Furthermore, this study examined how the three ELA teachers described
academic discussion in terms of how their use of academic discussions promoted student
participation, and how their academic discussions could enhance their respective students’
competency in academic language, particularly for those students who speak linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English. Specifically, this study sought to highlight the
perceptions the three English Language Arts teachers had about how they used academic
discussion to build students’ proficiency in academic language, particularly in the students who
speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English.
The first three chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the problem of the
existing need for developing a better understanding of how socio-cultural factors allow for
literacy development, and how teacher instructional practices promote or hinder literacy
development among students, particularly for those students who speak linguistic varieties other
than Standard American English—those students who are acquiring proficiency in academic
discussion—and the methodological design that was used for this study. This chapter presents
this researcher’s findings which have emerged from the data collected and analyzed using the
socio-cultural conceptual framework that was implemented for this case study.
A qualitative study was conducted with data collected from interviews, observations,
and document collection (Merriam, 2009). A pseudonym was created for the school site and
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 61
the teacher participants, with the teacher participants simply referred to as “Teacher A,”
“Teacher B,” and “Teacher C” in order to maintain confidentiality by ensuring all participants
can remain anonymous.
The findings for each teacher’s responses and methods are presented as a cross-
case analysis. All findings presented here served to answer the research questions for this
study:
1) How do English Language Arts teachers understand academic discussion within their
respective mainstream classrooms at an urban high school?
2) What elements do English Language Arts teachers understand as being necessary to
support authentic participation in academic discussions in mainstream English
Language Arts classes at an urban high school?
Findings: Three Themes
An examination of the observations and of each of the three participant teachers’
interview responses and instructional behaviors across the data set revealed three themes in
how teachers supported their students’ participation in academic discussion. The first theme
was the use of technology. In the three observations of each teacher, varied technology was
being used. The second theme was the use of questioning to encourage and mediate
participation among the group. The third theme was text selection, including primary,
complementary, and supplementary selections. The data also revealed that the three
participant teachers believed academic discussion is always necessarily a mediated activity
(Thomas, 2013; Alvermann, 2002), but the degree to which mediation is required is
determined by the particular group of learners (Thomas, 2013). This belief aligned with this
dissertation’s definition of academic discussion in that teacher-mediated and supported
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 62
discussion within the classroom that allows for students to openly discuss and question texts
provides students an opportunity to co-construct knowledge and understanding with their
teacher and peers (Miller, 2012). This suggests that, because the three teachers understood
that academic discussion aligned with literary analysis, it is thus likely that each teacher’s
practice worked to develop and support students’ learning and development through their
participation in academic discussions. And by extension, this suggests that, because the three
teachers understood that academic discussion aligned with literary analysis, it is thus likely
that each teacher perceived that they were supporting their students’ participation in academic
discussions by using technology, questioning strategies, and text selection to allow each
teacher to effectively mediate their academic discussions.
Context: Granville Stanley Hall High School
G. Stanley Hall High School (SHHS) is a comprehensive public high school managed
by Northside Unified School District in Southern California. The student population was
approximately 2,475 at the time of writing, with approximately 69% of students identifying
as Hispanic/Latino, and approximately 19% identifying as Black/African-American.
Approximately 53% of the student population qualified for free/reduced lunch. Additionally,
approximately 11% of the student population had been classified as English Language
Learners, with approximately 18% reclassified as English proficient, as of 2013. The school
was considered high performing based on its standardized test scores. Finally, 100% of the
teachers were fully credentialed.
Built around the turn of the century, SHHS was a series of off-centered buildings
identified by letter (e.g. “A” Administration, “B,” “C,” and so forth to “F”). The school was
adjacent to a county public library, to which students also had access during school hours to
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 63
complete research, projects, and other studies. The campus was clean and apparently well-
maintained. The visitor parking lot faced a huge double-story glass-windowed auditorium,
and to the right of the auditorium was the much smaller administration office entrance. The
visitor must walk up a set of wide concrete stairs and then pass through an iron-bar gateway
to actually enter the administration office. There was a second iron-bar gate and fencing
leading to the quad area. These gates were securely locked during school hours, requiring
visitors to use the administration office to access the campus. Upon entering the
administration office, the visitor found a circulation desk taking up most of the reception area.
On the side walls were glass display cases featuring a few awards and trophies for sporting
accomplishments, the most recent of which dated from the previous decade. There were no
chairs for visitors in this area. Upon admission, the visitor could enter a swinging half-door
to the main office. A pleather couch and matching chairs with coffee table and fake trees sat
on the other side of the wall. Inside the main office were the principal’s secretary’s desk and
receptionist’s desk. Along the wall were a series of rooms within rooms, which functioned as
administrative offices and conference rooms. Besides the principal’s secretary and
receptionists, the room was usually found to be largely empty. Down the corridor, the visitor
would pass through a maze-like setup that consists of the attendance office, school resource
officer and school police office, nurse’s office and the attendance office. This section of the
office had several adult and student workers moving about. At the end of the hallway was a
pair of heavy double-doors leading into the quad area and the rest of the campus.
The Participants and Perceptions of Supporting and Mediating Academic Discussion
Teachers A, B, and C indicated that academic discussion was an important part of the
curriculum. They discussed the use of academic discussion to build understanding of difficult
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 64
text such as a Shakespeare play (Teacher A), contemporary poetry (Teachers B and C), and
contemporary prose texts with complex characterizations and themes (Teacher C). This aligns
with the literature discussed in Chapter 2 of this dissertation in that the participants shared the
belief that students could learn about difficult texts more effectively when supported academic
discussion was used (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
How Participants Understood Academic Discussion within their Respective Classrooms
Although each of Teachers A, B, and C agreed on the importance of academic
discussion, each one of the teachers discussed their understandings of academic discussion in
somewhat differing ways. Teachers A and C discussed allowing their students the
opportunities to speak out freely, with Teacher C’s describing the need to follow a particular
format with sentence frames. Teacher B discussed allowing the opportunity to speak freely
without any scripting, but within managed time frames and with some use of IRE methods.
The subsequent sections will outline each teacher’s understanding of academic discussion and
its relationship to their beliefs about how to support students in their respective practices.
The three teacher participants all discussed similar understandings of academic
discussion, which aligned—to various degrees—to the literature on academic discussion.
Teachers A, B, and C each revealed a perspective that academic discussion was an integral part
of the English Language Arts curriculum. Their definitions were focused on academic
discussion as a conversation within the classroom, with some distinguishing elements. Teacher
A indicated that an academic discussion involves students participating in a discussion activity
with questioning and sharing of ideas, including statements of thoughts, clarifying questions,
and suggestions for other possibilities. Teacher B specified that within an academic
discussion, students are voluntarily active participants who take an active lead in sharing
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 65
thoughts and ideas with the class. Teacher C suggested an academic discussion would involve
students’ discussing using affirmations, clarifying questions, polite disagreement, and building
upon previous suggestions. Although the participants’ definitions basically aligned with this
researcher’s working definition of academic discussion in that each teacher indicated their
academic discussions involved active and open participation among students with teacher-
mediation and support, leading to the students’ co-construction of knowledge along with their
respective teacher’s (Miller, 2012). However, this researcher observed several managed
discussions, some of which were tightly controlled with an expectation for an exacted response
in some cases. This researcher also observed some discrepancy among the three participants in
how they structured academic discussions, in that each of the teachers structured their
academic discussions differently. The teachers’ understandings as verbalized might not have
always aligned with their practice, and this is further discussed in the findings for each teacher.
Additionally, Teachers A, B, and C each indicated how they understood the promoting of the
use of authentic classroom talk within the classroom to give all students a more equal voice in
academic discussions. Teachers A, B, and C indicated they understood this movement had
been emerging from research on the process of teaching and learning through academic
discussion. This perception may be due to Northside district’s mandated professional
development in accountable talk. This viewpoint aligns with the findings of the literature on
academic discourse (Gee, 2008; Alim, 2004; Delpit, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995).
Teacher A
Teacher A’s classroom was located in a back building through a covered passageway.
Teacher A kept the door closed during school hours but unlocked. The classroom door’s
window was uncovered, so the visitor could see the 12th grade students inside. Inside, the
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 66
desks were arranged into tables of two or four, with easy visibility to the front of the room.
The teacher’s desk was a permanent structure attached to a corner wall at the front corner of
the room, next to the whiteboard. There was an extra office chair on the opposite side of the
teacher desk that students were welcomed to sit in during instruction. The classroom had one
teacher computer at the teacher desk, and three student computers along the opposite wall,
and students were free to use the student computers to type their assignment responses. There
was a projector mounted to the ceiling and pull-down screen for films and presentations. The
walls of the classroom featured many posters of films and plays, including Shakespeare, as
well as instructional posters featuring the school-wide Accountable Talk strategies. Teacher
A also had a prominent instructional poster featuring a concept map for questioning and
response strategies to be used in participating in meaningful discussion. However, Teacher A
did not use any of the posters during instruction.
The class consisted of 32 enrolled 12th grade students, with about 24 students who
attended the class regularly. The majority of the class was of Hispanic background (18
students), and the remaining students were of African-American descent. Teacher A was a 20-
year veteran teacher who held one advanced degree. Teacher A was friendly and polite,
maintained a calm, leisurely, yet professional tone, and dressed in business professional attire
each day. The students seemed to have a good rapport with Teacher A, as evidenced by their
observed willingness to participate and perform in class, and by their informal, friendly
exchanges with Teacher A.
Academic discussion supporting student learning: talking through the text.
Teacher A’s understanding of academic discussion related to his perception of how he
supported student participation in an academic discussion that involved talking through the
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 67
text using questioning and text selection. Teacher A stated that talking through the text
allowed students to come to understanding where there otherwise would be
misunderstanding:
We talk in class almost every day. I ask [open-ended] questions to see if students
understand what is taking place [in Macbeth]. Students are able to ask questions and
make suggestions about what they think is happening in [the Shakespeare play].
Sometimes, there is misunderstanding about what the characters are doing or saying,
or why the characters are doing or saying things. [Academic discussion] helps
students come to [an understanding] about what imagery means [in poems and
plays].
Teacher A indicated during an interview that academic discussion was integral to allowing
students to talk through the difficult Shakespeare text to allow students to collaboratively
build an understanding. Here, it can be seen that Teacher A’s suggested belief aligned with
this dissertation’s definition of academic discussion because Teacher A described how he had
the students talk actively during the readings, ask questions of one another or the teacher, and
answer questions. In one observed discussion, students engaged in academic discussion, and
reached an original (i.e. not pre-thought and posited by the teacher) and agreed-upon
understanding (Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010) of the Shakespeare text. When Teacher A
refrained from providing any suggestions for any accepted understanding, and instead
allowed students to talk through their ideas to meet ultimately at agreed upon and co-
constructed understandings, Teacher A was promoting the creation of a new zone of proximal
development (ZPD) (Miller, 2012). Further observational data revealed Teacher A’s
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 68
perception of how he supported and mediated student participation in an academic discussion
using questioning.
Questioning to facilitate academic discussion: necessary element to support
authentic participation in academic discussion. When Teacher A used questioning to
check for understanding and to begin a conversation about Macbeth, the initial questioning
began in the typical IRE fashion with Teacher A’s asking “Who’s M&M?” in reference to
Malcolm and Macduff. This question was apparently intended to be an attention-getter,
because the students responded readily to the question, and were observed being attentive
and ready to continue talking. Although Teacher A started the discussion with cued
elicitation in which Teacher A already knew the answer to the question (Mercer, 1995)
“Who’s M&M?,” Teacher A did not continue to rely on IRE to extract only expected, known
answers. Therefore, this questioning strategy may have promoted an academic discussion.
This researcher observed Teacher A’s subsequent interactions to have all expanded to open-
ended probing questions to mediate the discussion (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010;
Christoph & Nystrad, 2001). Thus, Teacher A’s questioning strategy aligned with this
dissertation’s definition of academic discussion in that Teacher A promoted a teacher-
mediated and supported discussion to allow his students to co-construct knowledge and
understanding with their teacher and peers (Miller, 2012), as described below.
Technology as a necessary element in supporting academic discussion. In another
observation, which was in the middle of a lesson of the screenings of several film versions of
Macbeth, Teacher A played a video short of Macbeth created for YouTube by FlocabularyYT
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyytzE13iV4), which summarized the play (2010). The
YouTube video of Macbeth played for a few moments, and then Teacher A paused the video
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 69
to use a check for understanding. The checking for understanding questioning was done in
the typical IRE fashion. After about three IRE-type questions, Teacher A then switched the
conversation to an academic discussion format. At this point in the observation, Teacher A
facilitated the students’ talking actively about the new understandings of Macbeth from
having seen the FlocabularyYT (2010) video. It was evident here that Teacher A’s suggested
belief about using academic discussions aligned with this dissertation’s definition of academic
discussion. The students had begun to volunteer ideas and suggestions about the play, such as
how desperate King Macbeth was, and violent the battles must have been. By positing
suggestions together with Teacher A, rather than only answering questions, the students
engaged in an academic discussion and began to come to a new agreed-upon understanding
(Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010) of the original Macbeth play.
Mediation as necessary element in supporting academic discussion. Teacher A also
used the YouTube video to mediate a discussion that allowed the students to come to an
understanding about the “Tomorrow” soliloquy in the play Macbeth. The YouTube video
closed with the video narrator’s recitation of “Tomorrow” soliloquy as the soliloquy scrolled
onscreen. Teacher A remarked, “Another reason I like this [video] is because he’s [the
narrator’s] all, “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow…” Teacher A stopped and allowed
the students the opportunity to respond. This was apparently an understood cue for the
students to begin an academic discussion, because several students agreed to liking the closing
as well, and then the students began to talk about how the video allowed them to understand
what was meant by “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.” Without further teacher
intervention, the students were observed speaking with marked excitement, stating how they
understood the final act and the soliloquy. Teacher A allowed the conversation among several
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 70
students to continue, as the students enthusiastically verbalized their understandings, trying to
reach a shared meaning. For example, several students indicated they liked the rap, because it
was easy to understand the motif of running out of time, and then students began to discuss the
implications and the symbolism associated with the motif of time in the play. Teacher A
guided the conversation by asking probing questions such as, “Out of time? Who is out of
time? Why are they out of time?” Students gave responses that Lady Macbeth was out of time
because she had been found dead, and that Macbeth himself was out of time, because the army
was approaching and he was about to die, too. While Teacher A attempted to elicit more
abstract thinking here, the students were not able to meet the challenge. However, without
reverting to cued elicitation (Mercer, 1995) or another IRE method, Teacher A continued to
guide the conversation by making only a general comment about personally liking the way the
soliloquy was performed. He allowed time and space for students to share their thoughts and
ideas in an effort to expand the meaning of hearing performed: “Tomorrow…and
tomorrow…and tomorrow…” (Miller, 2012; Alvermann, 2002).
Teacher A guided the conversation about time using comments to prompt further
discussion, aligning with this dissertation’s definition of academic discussion in the mediated and
supported open discussion, which allowed students to actively and enthusiastically co-construct
knowledge about the abstract concepts of “tomorrow” and “time” with one another (Thomas,
2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). As students described their
understanding of “tomorrow” and “time,” they developed a new understanding of the concepts
of “tomorrow” and “time” as being metaphors for the lives of the main characters and for life in
general, with some lives ending while other lives continue on. Here the students were also able
to show they developed an understanding of Macbeth’s apathetic feelings towards life as he
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 71
approached the ending of his own life, as they were not able to articulate such an understanding
in previous observations where Macbeth’s death was discussed.
It was also observed that the students appeared to have been working within a newly-
created ZPD (Miller, 2012) through their academic discussion which allowed the students to
make inferences about Macbeth’s feelings at the end of the play—Teacher A had indicated in an
informal interview that inferring feelings of Shakespeare characters was something the students
were unable to do without high levels of support in pervious lessons. Teacher A extended the
tomorrow-time conversation further by asking a probing question, “How does Macbeth feel?,” to
promote continued student facilitation of the conversation (Alvermann, 2002) and to provide
students a little more support in the form of guidance to encourage continued meaning-making
by the students (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001).
During this observation, Teacher A facilitated an academic discussion using the YouTube video,
and students learned from their interaction with one another discussing the tomorrow-time
soliloquy, and also that the students created a collective understanding about the Macbeth
character from the continued interactions during the academic discussion (Mercer, 1995).
Teacher A demonstrated understanding of the use of academic discussion for allowing students
to speak through their understandings in an attempt to reach a shared understanding (Miller,
2012; Vetter, 2010).
Exploratory talk as a necessary element for academic discussion. After a few turns in
the discussion on Macbeth’s feelings, students then apparently began to lose direction in their
conversation again after one of the students could not complete a thought. Teacher A intervened
and asked a student, who up to this point had remained silent, to read the soliloquy from the text.
This particular student met this dissertation’s definition of a student of a linguistic variety other
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 72
than Standard American English, because this student was observed using grammatical
structures common to AAVE but not common to the language rules of Standard American
English (Gee, 2008). This AAVE-speaking student also joined the conversation after the
reading. The student began to offer suggestions along with several classmates about the overall
significance of the soliloquy. Here, this researcher notes that this AAVE-speaking student and
classmates had been observed only using the casual register. In other words, Teacher A was not
observed requiring the use of academic language during any academic discussion, or what this
dissertation defined as the formal language style associated with language functions in school
contexts (Gee, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995). This occurred because Teacher A
appeared to have been promoting exploratory talk in his classroom during his academic
discussions.
Mercer (2000), as cited in Boyd and Kong (2015), defined exploratory talk as a
discussion where participants engage critically and constructively, and ideas are challenged
with new reasons—reasoning is observable in the talk. Mercer (2000), as cited in Boyd and
Kong (2015), went on to suggest that in exploratory talk, participants keep new knowledge
publicly accountable. Students use language to mediate and to shape their thinking (Boyd &
Kong 2015; Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008), but in order to even engage in exploratory talk, students
must feel safe and free of the threat of being aggressively contradicted or shamed (Barnes
2008, as cited in Boyd & Kong, 2015).
This dissertation’s conceptual framework provided that learning necessarily requires
language, and that language is a social mode of thinking (Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008; Schleppegrell,
2001; Mercer, 1995). Exploratory talk is a social mode of thinking (Mercer, 2000, as cited in
Boyd & Kong, 2015), and requires that students and their teacher engage in collaborative
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 73
conversation to build understanding through reasoning. Therefore, Teacher A’s academic
discussions featured students and teacher using the casual register, and if Teacher A’s focus was
on building understanding through reason, then even absent the use of academic language,
Teacher A’s academic discussions still aligned with this dissertation’s definition of academic
discussion, because the use of exploratory talk allowed Teacher A’s students to co-construct
knowledge and understanding with their teacher and peers through mediated discussion (Miller,
2012). Furthermore, by allowing the AAVE-speaking student to read and participate in
exploratory talk showed Teacher A values both students’ contributions to the academic
discussion and linguistic varieties other than Standard American English (Alim, 2004). Teacher
A provided the opportunity to listen to the Shakespearean language again by asking the AAVE-
speaking student to read aloud, which led to students’ spontaneous sharing of their thoughts and
understandings through exploratory talk, without the constraints of teacher-correcting-type
intervention (Boyd & Knog, 2015; Mercer, 1995). Teacher A, through his actions, supported
continued academic discussion as a tool for students’ self-discovery of meaning together, which
aligns with this dissertation’s definition for an academic discussion (Miller, 2012).
Technology and text selection as necessary elements in academic discussions.
Technology and text selection were found to have facilitated academic discussion. In a
subsequent observation, Teacher A allowed unmediated talking to ensue among the students
as they watched the ending of the Kurzel (2015) film of Macbeth. Teacher A considered this
talking through the film as a type of academic discussion: “I let students talk through films,
because they can talk through their understandings. Some of them did not even understand
[some of the scenes and Shakespearean language] until they saw it in a film [version].”
Instead of silencing the class to conform to traditional norms of classroom behavior, Teacher
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 74
A allowed the students to talk though the scenes so that understandings could emerge from the
film and the print versions of the play: “It [talking] doesn’t really become a distraction from
the film—they see and hear enough of [the film, even with their talking]. [This is evidenced
by] their discussions and journaling and essays.” Additionally, Teacher A suggested also
being able to know from the students’ talking during the film where any misunderstanding
occurred: “I can, kind of, correct them by making sure they understand what they are
[watching]. Kind of direct their attention but let them keep talking and figure it out.” Here,
Teacher A indicated an understanding that academic discussion was to be used primarily to
promote conceptual understanding of a text rather than for promoting the assimilation of
required academic language (Gee, 2008). This indication again aligned with this
dissertation’s definition of an academic discussion because Teacher A indicated using
mediation and support during academic discussion within his classroom so his students can
discuss and question their texts while co-constructing knowledge and understanding with him,
their teacher, and one another (Miller, 2012).
At the end of the Kurzel (2015) film, the students spontaneously applauded. Teacher A
stopped the film and asked the students to raise their hands if they liked that version of the
film. A few students raised their hands, and one student announced, “I loved it!” The other
students also began to speak at once, and Teacher A suggested the class discuss their thoughts
on the film for a few minutes, thus signaling the beginning of an academic discussion in which
the students stopped speaking all at once and began to wait for a turn to contribute a thought
or idea. This suggested Teacher A understood how the students needed a supplementary text
to enhance their understanding of the themes of Macbeth in order to have a productive
learning opportunity through an academic discussion (Miller, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2001).
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 75
This also suggested Teacher A understood that academic discussion is facilitated through
open-ended questioning along with ample time for thinking and speaking to have allowed the
majority of the students in the class to take an active part in the discussion, as supported by the
findings of Thomas (2013), Miller (2012), and Christoph and Nystrand (2001), as discussed in
Chapter 2 of this dissertation. In this instance, the use of technology (the Kurzel film and the
YouTube video) along with teacher mediation and support (Miller, 2012) facilitated students’
meaning-making through academic discussion.
School-wide Accountable Talk
During the initial interview, Teacher A indicated that academic discussions were
important, and shared that school-wide accountable talk strategies were taught in class at the
beginning of the school year, so students will have had some scaffolding on how to participate
in academic discussion during the remainder of the school year. Teacher A also stated that all
conversations are started and allowed to flow naturally, and Teacher A guides the conversation
to “keep it going where needed.” In other words, Teacher A was observed participating in
conversations with students, and was observed guiding the conversation through both
questioning and commenting. For example, when the students were completing a screening of
Kurzel’s (2015) Macbeth, and the students were discussing the ending and the changes from
the textbook version they had read in class, Teacher A let the students discuss together what
they disliked about the slow film speeds during the battle scenes in the film. Then, when the
students began to show signs of dwindling in their conversation, Teacher A intervened in the
conversation, saying, “Like [Snyder’s (2006)] 300. That’s what 2016 young people like—not
you…It was slow, but they cut so much…” Which caused the conversation to move into new
directions, apparently with Teacher A’s having allowed students to access prior knowledge
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 76
about the second film and recall new information about the current film, as the students then
began discussing the setting of Kurzel’s (2015) film, and the similarities to Snyder’s (2006)
300. Here, Teacher A’s understanding aligned with this dissertation’s working definition for
an academic discussion in that students used their own and others’ previous understandings to
create, through teacher-mediated conversation, a new co-constructed understanding (Miller,
2012).
Exploratory talk allows for participation in academic discussions. Teacher A,
interestingly, did not indicate a requirement for students’ using academic language during any
academic discussion, and, in fact, students were observed by the researcher to only have used
the casual register during the academic discussions. Teacher A had allowed mainly casual
talking—what was apparently regarded as short academic discussions—to ensue among the
students as they watched films and clips during class. As Teacher A explained, “Some of [the
students] did not even understand [some of the scenes and Shakespearean language] until they
saw it in a film [version].” Teacher A reiterated during a post-observational conversation that
talking during a film was not considered a distraction from the film. Teacher A was also able
to know from the students’ talking during the film where any misunderstanding occurred: “I
can, kind of, correct them by making sure they understand what they are [watching]. Kind of
direct their attention but let them keep talking and figure it out.” Here, Teacher A’s use of
classroom discussion aligned with this dissertation’s definition of academic discussion in terms
of the teacher being an active mediator and providing support while allowing students to
continue an ongoing open discussion leading to the co-construction of knowledge (Miller,
2012). Talking during the film, regarded as exploratory talk (Boyd & Kong, 2015), was not
considered a hindrance to learning, therefore.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 77
Academic language is not a necessary element in academic discussions. Teacher A
allowed the casual register because, as Teacher A revealed, the students who were enrolled in
the class at the time of the study were not generally high achieving students, and because
student participation in academic discussion was of such high importance, then as long as
students were actively initiating and participating in discussions on the text, the casual register
was perfectly acceptable (Boyd & Kong, 2015; Alim, 2004). Again, Teacher A provided the
opportunities for students to participate openly in ongoing open discussions leading to the co-
construction of knowledge (Miller, 2012). Teacher A also valued linguistic varieties other
than Standard American English, was pleased to have in class the students who spoke
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English, and was satisfied when students
were participating in academic discussion through exploratory talk (Boyd & Kong, 2015).
Teacher A appeared satisfied if academic language had been sprinkled, however lightly and
randomly, within any given discussion, as long as students used a term in a correct context. For
example, the students were observed talking in the casual register, but were also observed
correctly using academic language terms such as “soliloquy.” Again, Teacher A was primarily
observed to have supported academic discussions with himself as the active mediator while his
students continued open dialogue through exploratory talk (Boyd & Kong, 2015) that led to the
co-construction of knowledge among teacher and students (Miller, 2012).
Teacher B
Teacher B’s classroom was located down the corridor from Teacher A’s classroom.
Access to Teacher B’s classroom was outside of the corridor, and, upon entering, the visitor
would find the desks arranged in a U-shape in three sections of three rows each: one section
faced the whiteboard and teacher desk while the other two sections were placed opposing one
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 78
another. Teacher B’s desk was also a built-in structure, just to the left of the whiteboard.
Teacher B’s desk was not a part of the classroom wall, as Teacher A’s and Teacher C’s desks
were. There was one teacher computer at the teacher desk, and four student computers along
the back wall of the classroom.
Teacher B’s classroom walls were also covered with movie posters and
inspirational posters. The Accountable Talk poster from the district was also displayed
prominently in the back of the classroom, and Teacher B also had a second academic
discussion poster (different from Teacher A’s poster) that showed a concept map for
achieving an authentic academic discussion: sentence starters were suggested on how to
assert information, ask clarifying questions, disagree politely, and discuss meaningfully
by offering plausible suggestions. Teacher B, like Teacher A, did not refer to any poster
during instruction. Student desks were arranged into groups of four for collaboration
projects, including academic discussions.
Teacher B stated the class consisted of 37 enrolled 10th grade students, all of whom
attended the class regularly, if not daily. The majority of the class was of Hispanic background
(32 students), and the remaining students were of African-American descent (4 students) and
Pacific Islander (1 student).
Teacher B was a 17-year veteran teacher who held one advanced degree, and for whom
teaching was a second career. Teacher B was a self-proclaimed high school dropout who went
to college later in life, after having “taken time to party,” a personal story that Teacher B had
previously used to build rapport with students. Additionally, Teacher B dressed casually, in
flannel or plaid button-up shirts un-tucked into denim jeans, with lace up athletic shoes of a
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 79
well- known brand, and spoke to students in casual register, often becoming animated and
boisterous during instruction.
Teacher B’s understanding of academic discussion was evident in his practice.
Teacher B stated in the initial interview that academic discussion is a necessary part of the
curriculum, because students need to learn how to take part in discussion effectively in order
to understand literary terms and literature. Teacher B also stated that the teacher must play a
significant part in academic discussions “to make sure that students are learning what they
are supposed to be learning in order to prepare for AP exams.” The former statement was in
alignment with this dissertation’s definition of academic discussion in that an academic
discussion would allow students to co-construct knowledge and understanding of literary
terms and literature through an open discussion among teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
However, the latter statement does not align with this dissertation’s definition of academic
discussion since Teacher B implied that he as the teacher possessed express knowledge of AP
exams that must be imparted onto—rather than deliberated and constructed by—students for
their own good (Gee, 2008; Johnson & Hayes, 2008; Alim, 2004; Delpit, 2002) in
preparation to pass the exam.
Academic discussion supporting student learning: text selection and collaboration.
Text selection and collaboration impacted academic discussion. Teacher B was observed, like
Teacher A, having provided time for students to engage in academic discussion so that
meaning making would take place. During one observation, students were presenting on the
text “Booker T. Washington Delivers the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech” (Harlan, 1974).
Teacher B showed understanding of academic discussion as a tool for creating meaning by
encouraging and allowing audience participation in the form of an academic discussion after
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 80
each presentation. Teacher B was observed here demonstrating understanding of academic
discussion in alignment with this dissertation’s definition, because Teacher B mediated the
open student discussions while allowing students to deliberate and co-construct knowledge
(Miller, 2012). Furthermore, Teacher B appeared to have created a new ZPD for his class as
the students used academic discussion to build upon knowledge and ideas presented (Milller,
2012). This presentation-discussion took place over two days, and the researcher observed the
second day’s discussion.
Students had picked two different interpretations of the tone of the speech, as
previously instructed by their teacher, which served to give different perspectives on the text
and, by extension, to stimulate a discussion about those perspectives. Teacher B provided
guidance and support (Miller, 2012) by helping a student to pronounce the word
“obsequious” (one of which students selected previously from a teacher-provided list of
terms) to describe the tone of Washington’s speech, and by suggesting the student use a direct
quote from the text. Another student found a quote and read it to the class, and Teacher B did
not provide any evaluation, but waited as yet another student then joined the discussion and
provided an interpretation of the second student’s proffered quotation. This aligned with this
dissertation’s definition of academic discussion as students were observed building upon
previous ideas and extending meaning to co- construct knowledge (Miller, 2012). Teacher B
did not revert to IRE by waiting for an expected answer. Instead, Teacher B remained silent
and allowed the students to find a quote themselves, thus suggesting an understanding that
during an academic discussion, students need time to think and to discover understandings on
their o+wn, with some guidance from the teacher (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010;
Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). When Teacher B refrained from
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 81
commenting, the students used the time to think and to select a quote they judged to be
significant. Then the students were able to share their understanding of significance with the
class, and, with some guidance from Teacher B, to co-construct knowledge with one another.
This fit this dissertation’s definition of an academic discussion, because it allowed students to
deliberate and discuss understanding together with their teacher (Miller, 2012).
Questioning to facilitate academic discussion: element necessary for academic
discussion. Academic discussion was observed when the students showed their participating
in the beginning of a conversation, and commenting on one another’s work, to indicate an
academic discussion was taking place. Another student presenter continued the discussion
previously described above by extending upon what another student had posited. And then
another student from the class then continued to extend the meaning further with a suggested
interpretation of the tone.
Mediation as necessary element in academic discussion. At that point, Teacher B
joined the conversation to help keep the presentation moving, which Teacher B later
commented on an understanding that during academic discussions, it was important to allow
students to continue to build the conversation on a topic until they have nothing left to say, but
the presentations and the conversation still needed to move forward. This again fit this
dissertation’s definition of an academic discussion, because it allowed students to deliberate
and discuss understanding together with their Teacher B’s mediating and facilitating as
needed (Miller, 2012).
Teacher B indicated in a post-observation conversation how at that point in the
presentations, he understood he needed to ask a question to help guide the discussion and the
students’ thinking (Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010). Teacher B asked: “Did the Whites give them
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 82
any reason to mistrust them?” On the surface, the question appeared to be a closed question
with a single, expected “correct” answer, an IRE-method. However, Teacher B later suggested
in a post-observation conversation that the question was intended to be rhetorical, with many
possible arguable answers, and thus Teacher B demonstrated the understanding that, during
academic discussions, the teacher’s questioning must occur at strategic moments to facilitate
the conversation while still allowing students the chance to build understanding through
thinking and speaking with one another (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Alvermann, 2002;
Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). One student offered an explanation before suggesting their
opinion, and that particular student responded confidently to the students—not the teacher—
suggesting that student was not interested in providing the teacher-expected answer, but
genuinely interested in sharing a personal opinion to the group and contributing to the
academic discussion. This was in alignment with the findings of Thomas (2013), Miller
(2012), Vetter (2010), Christoph and Nystrand (2001), and Schleppegrell, and with this
dissertation’s definition of an academic discussion’s necessarily featuring open dialogue
among students (Miller, 2012), and suggested Teacher B’s question was, in fact, rhetorical.
Teacher B designed and understood this presentation-discussion to be an academic discussion,
and not an IRE-based checking for understanding session. Furthermore, because this academic
discussion was student-led, Teacher B understood this academic discussion gave students a
more empowered stance as speakers and learners. Again, this aligns with this dissertation’s
definition of an academic discussion with students’ co-constructing knowledge and
understanding with their teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
Academic language as an element of academic discussion. Each student was also
observed using academic language accurately, including grade-level vocabulary like
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 83
“obsequious” to describe the theme, and one student was observed to have made self-
corrections in what appeared to be attempts at using more exact and more informative
language: from “contemplating” to “contemplative.” This showed the student’s using
language as a thought process while simultaneously shaping the role of the speaker (Gee,
2008), because the student who self-corrected attempted to continue their role as both a
proficient speaker of academic English and as a speaker with some authority on the text of
study (Miller, 2012, Gee, 2008). Teacher B allowed for self-correction without comment,
indicating Teacher B understood that academic discussion was the opportunity for students
not only to demonstrate conceptual understanding through exploratory talk (Mercer, 2008, as
cited in Boyd & Kong, 2015), as Teacher A did, but was also the opportunity for the students
to focus on and demonstrate proficiency in their assimilation of the required schooling
language (Gee, 2008).
Technology and text selection as necessary elements in academic discussions.
Technology and text selection impacted academic discussion. In another observation,
Teacher B—like Teacher A—used a film to facilitate academic discussions. During the
screening of Spielberg’s (1997) Amistad, which completed a unit including texts by Ralph
Ellison, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and the theme of the complications of
slavery, Teacher B held more informal academic discussions, similar to how Teacher A was
observed holding academic discussion. Like Teacher A, Teacher B allowed students to talk
and take notes during the film. Much of the conversation appeared to have been student
commentary without elaboration, and some inaudible side conversations, which Teacher B
possibly regarded as exploratory talk (Boyd & Kong, 2015). But, two conversations stood
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 84
out to the researcher for their evidence of academic discussion and student use of academic
language, as this dissertation defines academic discussion and academic language.
Spontaneous conversation as academic discussion. The first section of interest
involved Teacher B’s beginning a short academic discussion that required students to make
inferences about what they saw happening in a trial scene in the film. The trial scene told
witness testimony about how 50 slaves aboard the slave ship, La Amistad, were forced
overboard (Spielberg, 1997). Teacher B had paused the film and asked, “Why did they throw
50 overboard?” Teacher B’s question looked like a standard IRE question to check for
understanding (Johnston & Hayes, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2001), and that was apparently how
at least one student interpreted the question, as evidenced by that student’s response with the
literal answer of the slave traders’ not having had enough food, as the film explained.
Teacher B understood the academic discussion needed further prompting, and so Teacher B
then asked two probing questions “So, why not ration it? Split provisions?” Teacher B later
indicated in a follow-up conversation that the questions were intended to help students to
make inferences and to extend their understanding of the film and the unit theme on the
complications of slavery.
Here, Teacher B’s academic discussion met the criteria for this dissertation’s definition
of an academic discussion. The student who responded with the literal answer then inferred
that the Spanish captains of La Amistad (Spielberg, 1997) did not care about the lives of the
black slaves and had no problem forcing 50 slaves overboard, and two more students then
made further inferences into the motivations for forcing the 50 slaves overboard. First, a
student made the inference that the decision was motivated by profit, and that student
demonstrated shaping meaning through language use by outlining the logic behind tossing 50
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 85
overboard instead of humanely trying to split provisions or ration more carefully. Then, the
other student successfully built upon what the inferring student had said by suggesting the
slave-traders decided to only save the slaves who were deemed “strong” and most likely to
survive to render a profit. After the students spoke, several other students in the class began to
speak at once, and comments such as “They were human chattel!” and “That’s messed up!”
were uttered by several. Teacher B did not speak, but left the film paused for several moments
and observed the students as they were speaking together in their table groups, apparently
understanding that students needed time and space to share their ideas and come to a consensus
(Miller, 2012). The discussion quieted and Teacher B resumed the film. This observed
academic discussion aligns with this dissertation’s definition of an academic discussion
because students were observed taking turns offering suggestions for building upon the
student-provided inference with Teacher B’s waiting to mediate (Miller, 2012).
Moments later, when the first verdict was made that the slaves were to be freed
(Spielberg, 1997), the students became animated and talkative, uttering comments such as,
“That’s right!” A few students clapped a little and began writing quickly (students were
assigned to take notes for comparison activities among the other studied texts). Teacher B
indicated in a follow-up conversation how he used the academic discussion for students to
solidify their understandings, because the students were happy to see justice served for what
they apparently determined were deeply unjust actions on the part of the slave traders.
Just a few minutes after the above-mentioned observation, the film came to the scene
in which the character of the attorney Baldwin has to tell the character, Cinque, that the case
has been appealed and must be retried (Spielberg, 1997). Then Cinque becomes markedly
upset and demands the attorney Baldwin character to explain: “What kind of a place is this
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 86
where you almost mean what you say? Where laws almost work? How can you live like
that?” (Spielberg, 1997). The students apparently made an emotional connection to the scene
and spontaneously began their own academic discussion after hearing the dialogue. Students
were observed making comments to their groups, including that the American justice system
gave rise to the opportunity to lie or deceive in some way.
The researcher then observed Teacher B’s students’ beginning an academic discussion
together in which they reacted to a Black and White racial interaction in the film, and then
students’ accessed their prior knowledge and made connections to their current situations.
These included the students’ references to Trayvon Martin, a controversial victim of a
shooting, and “Black Lives Matter,” a controversial racial justice movement emerging shortly
after the death of Trayvon Martin. Furthermore, the students demonstrated metalinguistic
awareness when they began to question the value of the modal “should” in the English lexicon
after hearing Cinque, a non-English speaker, question the indefinite meaning suggested by the
English language (Spielberg, 1997). Teacher B did not enter the conversation until five
conversational turns were taken by the students themselves, which suggests Teacher B was
engaging in an academic discussion by allowing students the opportunity to take the lead in
maintaining the conversation (Miller, 2012). When another conversation did not go further
than a few turns among the students, Teacher B stopped the film and encouraged further
discussion. Teacher B appeared to see that students would benefit from continuing as a whole
class academic discussion before proceeding with the film. Teacher B’s academic discussions
were both spontaneous (Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001) and planned (Thomas,
2013; Miller, 2012), and Teacher B was prepared to facilitate both types of discussions.
Teacher B later stated in a follow-up conversation that it was okay for students to feel
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 87
uncomfortable in tackling certain issues and themes, such as racism and Trayvon Martin,
because that was where learning occurs, as long as it remains understood that the environment
is one of mutual respect. Thus, Teacher B understood academic discussion to be a safe place
for students to work through difficult social issues (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Alvermann,
2002; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Like Teacher B, Teacher C also used academic
discussions to help her students to contend with difficult or uncomfortable issues and themes,
specifically those associated with dystopian social order.
Teacher C
Teacher C’s classroom was across from Teacher B’s classroom on the other side of
the passageway. This classroom was a reverse layout of Teacher A’s classroom, with the
teacher desk located in the right front corner, next to the whiteboard. Teacher C’s
classroom was heavily decorated, featuring many posters and pictures on the walls and
whiteboard, mostly inspirational sayings and humorous quips. The other walls featured
butcher-paper bulletins frames with busy paper scalloped bordering. The bulletins were
surprisingly devoid of student work. The school-wide Accountable Talk poster was
displayed on the window wall. Teacher C’s classroom also featured student work posted on
various display boards on the walls all around the classroom. Although Teacher C did not
use the posters during instruction, Teacher C also had accountable talk objectives and
sentence frames posted on the whiteboard next to the standards and agenda. The student
desks were in tables of four, with extra desks placed in rows along the side walls. The back
wall of the classroom had three student computers, and the teacher computer is at the
teacher desk.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 88
Teacher C stated the class consisted of 32 enrolled 9th grade students, all of whom
attended the class regularly, if not daily. The majority of the class was of Hispanic background
(28 students), and the remaining students were of African-American descent (4 students).
Teacher C was a 14-year veteran teacher who held one advanced degree. Teacher C
was a theatre major in college, and teaching English was not a first choice as a career choice,
but Teacher C stated she enjoyed this career and was very happy as an English teacher.
Teacher C wore loose-fitting shirts and pants in solid colors, with dark hair bearing streaks of
magenta and green. At the time of writing, Teacher C taught 9th grade English. During
whole-group instruction, Teacher C was observed being casual and polite, but was also
observed on occasion making friendly jokes with students.
Teacher C also shared her belief that the English classroom cannot function without
academic discussion: “The English classroom has to have discussion so students can learn
about literature…this is how students make meaning.” This belief ties in with Teacher A’s
understanding in that Teacher C suggested that students’ talking is how students make
meaning in general, and is how students make meaning of literature, and is, by extension, how
students learn effectively in the English classroom. This aligns with the literature, as when
Miller (2012) notes that when students were afforded opportunities to jointly pursue a problem
of understanding through a teacher-mediated, open-forum discussion, the situation allowed for
the development in students of new ways of talking and thinking within a supported space.
Teacher C’s students were observed in small group academic discussions about their
dystopian texts in which they shared thoughts, built upon one another’s thoughts, and offered
praise and suggestions while Teacher C observed and monitored the progression of the
conversations. Probed further about how much speaking the teacher does versus how much
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 89
speaking the students do, Teacher C stated, “Students need to have the teacher instruct them,
sure. But teachers’ talking all the time is not the way to go. I hardly ever lecture,” Teacher C
paused and then repeated, “I hardly ever lecture. I teach them different [academic discussion]
strategies at the beginning of the year. And we practice. By now, they have it down. They
know what to do.” Teacher C was referring here to the district-mandated Accountable Talk
strategies, Affirm, Clarify, Follow-Up, Piggyback, and Disagree, which Teacher C and
Teacher A both indicated they believed their students had all memorized and become
proficient in.
Teacher C indicated that she only lectured minimally, primarily at the beginning of the
school year when “students need to have the teacher instruct them” in “different strategies,”
because students need to know the expectations and practices. This aligned with the findings
of Thomas, (2013), Miller (2012), Vetter (2010), Christoph & Nystrand (2001), and
Schleppegrell (2001), that students need adequate instruction, scaffolding, and support to be
able to participate in academic discussions. Furthermore, Teacher C noted that students do not
need “teachers’ talking all the time.” At the time of the study, second semester was already
over halfway completed, and Teacher C suggested the students already had been through
enough instruction and scaffolded practice to be able to participate competently in academic
discussion in her class. Teacher C’s suggestion here aligns with the research in that students
need decreasing scaffolding and modeling to feel comfortable and competent in participating
in academic discussions (Thomas, 2013; Miller 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand,
2001; Schleppegrell, 2001). Teacher C, like Teachers A and B, also indicated an
understanding that academic discussions could be spontaneous or planned, which aligns with
the research findings of Thomas, (2013), Miller (2012), Vetter (2010), Christoph & Nystrand
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 90
(2001), and Schleppegrell (2001). And Teacher C, like Teacher B, insisted that “Students are
prepared to talk during class because that is an expectation for the class…They have texts, and
question sets, presentations—there’s always something to talk about.” This idea, however, did
not align with this dissertation’s definition of academic discussion, because there was nothing
to suggest the “talk during class” would necessarily include dialogic thinking and teacher-
mediated and supported discussion allowing students to co-construct knowledge and
understanding together with their teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
Teacher C was observed with students participating in planned small group academic
discussions. Students were seated in table groups of four, and each student was required to
take turns sharing information, building upon previously shared information, asking
clarifying questions, and encouraging elaboration of meaning.
Text selection, technology, and collaboration as necessary elements of academic
discussions. Text selection and collaboration impacted academic discussion. The assignment
required students to compare several texts—including print texts as three poems and a short
story, and non-print texts as two podcasts, one audio and one video—all relating to a futuristic
dystopian theme. The students were instructed to discuss their responses to a questions set, to
ask for clarification, and to add to the responses based on group consensus. This observed
lesson was a continuation of previous lessons in which each print text had been read
separately and responses prepared as homework, according to Teacher C. Students had access
to the podcasts and videos they were instructed to have watched before class, but some of the
students were viewing the podcasts and videos for the first time during the lesson, which
delayed some of the groups’ beginning their academic discussions. Teacher C had posted
“Discussion Sentence Starters” for students’ reference during these group interactions:
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 91
“Expressing an Opinion,” “Politely Disagreeing,” and “Asking for Clarification,”
demonstrating an understanding that students require some form of teacher guidance and
facilitation during an academic discussion. The students were not observed looking at the
posted sentence starters, and Teacher C insisted that was because the students “already knew
what to do” and didn’t really rely on the starters anymore. Teacher C suggested here with the
posting of sentence starters that she had an understanding that the teacher could still provide
guidance during an academic discussion in a non-verbal form, which aligns with this
dissertation’s definition for an academic discussion in which the teacher provides support—
verbal or non-verbal—that allows for students to openly discuss and question texts in order to
co-construct knowledge and understanding with the teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
Teacher C gave brief instructions to get the class started on the assignment:
“I do want to remind you of the policies for podcast. First listen. Read your notes and
the notes in the book. Have a conversation with your group then have a second listen
to analyze. What message is it trying to leave the individual? Yes? Excellent. I do
expect you to be working diligently. You may use your phones to watch videos and
podcasts. That’s allowable. But nothing else. Yes? …Hopefully you’re all [about at
the same point in the reading], and ready to discuss.”
Mediation as a necessary element of academic discussions. These instructions
suggested that students were not really mediated as much as Teacher C suggested because
there was no indication that Teacher C would be mediating any of the discussions. The
instructions imply students would be accountable for discussing and mediating on their own.
However, these instructions did show that Teacher C, like Teachers A and B,
understood that academic discussions must be signaled in some form to the students. Here,
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 92
instead of asking a question like Teachers A and B did, Teacher C used brief and basic
procedural directions to signal the students’ starting their academic discussions when they
reached the appropriate procedural step.
The students were then left to begin their discussions at will, and Teacher C got up
and began to circle the class to make sure students were getting on task, and to monitor
progress by listening to the groups as they discussed. Teacher C approached a group but
spoke to the class as a whole to give a directive: “We’re getting materials out. Getting ready
to go.” The students were talking as they complied, mostly off-topic side conversations.
Teacher C watched until satisfied the class was ready to begin, and returned to her desk.
Here, Teacher C, like Teachers A and B, showed an understanding that the teacher must use
verbal cues to get the class started. However, there was no indication of a signal that
students were to have begun their conversations, or whether they were to begin at-will.
The researcher was able to observe two groups’ academic discussions. The first group
was a group of six students, most of whom had apparently already read the texts and listened to
the media. The group was reviewing parts of the podcast in order to make inferences and
comparisons to the other texts in order to finish their responses in their question sets. The
students were observed practicing the different conversational practices as outlined in the
Accountable Talk strategies.
Sentence frames: necessary elements in academic discussions. This first group of
students was observed demonstrating successful use of some of the accountable talk strategies
from the posters, including polite agreement, politeness strategies for attempting to reach a
consensus, and attempts to posit suggestions to the group. A student from the group was
observed suggesting a synthesized response including a line from the podcast and a quotation
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 93
from the textbook, and another built upon the first student’s understanding by suggesting the
insertion of information from a third student’s notes. From this small group academic
discussion, the researcher observed polite agreement as “You put A and C together. That’s
right,” polite disagreement as “Yeah, I’m not okay with it,” implied request for additional
information as “I didn’t analyze well. I was having trouble with that,” talking through
understandings as “The podcast was only an hour, but it was in two parts. To me, it was
interesting because [the speakers] were afraid…[The speakers] made good points, and building
upon previous understandings to make further understandings of the texts as “And this (another
student’s notes)…[this reminds me of] Death of a Salesman …coming home disappointed.”
Academic language: necessary element in academic discussions. Additionally,
students in this group were observed using more formal linguistic structures in the form of
complete sentences and some academic language (e.g. referring to their work as “analysis”).
These observations fit with this dissertation’s definition of academic language in that students
used distinct linguistic features of schooling language as complete sentences in conversation
(Gee, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2001; Mercer, 1995), and also suggest that Teacher C had, in fact,
taught students the norms and expectations for participating in a self-started academic
discussion.
The second group the researcher observed had students who attempted to use some of
the accountable talk strategies and start an academic discussion. This group was observed
attempting to build understanding together as they were discussing the Joshi (2011) text and
the RadioLab (2016) podcast, and Teacher C joined the conversation to offer guidance when
the discussion appeared to be faltering. Teacher C approached the group, but first addressed
the class, “You may not find all the answers here. And that’s okay,” showing Teacher C was
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 94
also assisting other groups who might also be faltering in their discussions and might require a
signal to look for evidence somewhere else besides the given text set. Teacher C also
facilitated the groups’ academic discussions by using open-ended questioning.
Questioning and mediation: necessary elements to facilitate academic discussions.
To the group who was struggling, Teacher C said, “How’s things?” Students admitted to
being stuck. Without giving away answers or suggesting an expected response, Teacher C
said, “You’re trying was too hard. Listen to the podcast again. Listen again for analysis.”
When one of the students attempted to ask for Teacher C’s assistance and approval, Teacher C
merely replied, “Read through this. Listen again. Talk to each other. So, let’s do that, Yes?”
The students agreed and began their academic discussion again. Although there was only very
brief and basic use of questions, Teacher C’s responses showed how Teacher C understood
academic discussion was a way for that group of students to work through misunderstandings
or a lack of understanding, and also suggested Teacher C’s understanding that the teacher must
facilitate the conversation in the desired direction but without giving away any expected
answers—the students had to find the answers together using the texts, prior knowledge, and
one another’s ideas to create a consensus. Thus, Teacher C’s use of questioning aligns with
this dissertation’s definition for academic discussion, because she assisted students with
continuing their group’s open discussion by allowing the group of students to continue to co-
construct knowledge and understanding together (Miller, 2012) when they approached their
questions from another perspective.
Summary
Teachers A, B, and C each discussed the importance of allowing academic discussions in
the classroom, yet each of the teachers were observed using varied practices, and in following up
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 95
with their discussions in different ways. Additionally, each of the teachers claimed, in different
fashions, that academic discussions were necessary to allow their respective students to build a
better understanding of literature and to develop literacy. This claim was in alignment with the
research findings of Thomas (2013), Miller (2012), Vetter (2010) and Christoph and Nystrand
(2001) in which students in each respective study were observed to have successfully
demonstrated understandings of literature and literary elements through their active and
sustained participation in academic discussions.
Teachers A, B, and C also each indicated there had been, at the time of writing, a recent
movement within their district which had resulted in the emphasis of academic discussion
practices in professional development sessions to meet the mandate of the district, and each of
the teachers seemed to want to show they completely understood the expectation for practicing
academic discussion with today’s ELA students.
School Wide Accountable Talk Strategies
At the time of writing, Stanley Hall High School required all teachers to have posted in
their classrooms the same instructional poster featuring the officially adopted school-wide
Accountable Talk policy strategies. These strategies were displayed in a poster of a basic
concept map as a set of sentence starters for sharing information, agreeing or disagreeing
politely, asking politely for clarification or more information, positing new suggestions or ideas,
and showing respect towards a differing opinion. Teacher A also had an additional prominent
instructional poster featuring another conversational concept map for questioning and response
strategies to be used in participating in meaningful discussion. This second poster had a series of
sentence starters and sentence frames with possible responses to questions, and each of the
starters and frames included academic language and politeness strategies, such as agreement,
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 96
extending meaning, asking for clarification, and politely disagreeing. Teacher C, during the
observation in which students used podcasts and group discussions, posted on the white board
“Discussion Sentence Starters” for students’ reference during group discussion interactions,
which read: “Expressing an Opinion,” “Politely Disagreeing,” and “Asking for Clarification.”
Teacher C insisted to this researcher that the students “already knew what to do” and didn’t
really rely on the sentence starters anymore. This is important because it suggested that Teacher
C’s students had moved into a new ZPD, and aligns with the research (Thomas, 2013; Miller,
2012) that different levels of scaffolding and support become necessary as students become more
comfortable with and proficient in participating in academic discussions.
That the three teachers were all from the same district and the same school site shows
there was a somewhat similar context, yet the observed variation in practices suggests there was
variation in teacher training on best practices for conducting academic discussions, due to
teacher trainers’ varied understandings of what academic discussion is and should be, that, by
extension, caused teachers who participated in trainings to have varied interpretations of what
academic discussion is and should be. Furthermore, because there was likely not a solid
understanding of what elements of academic discussion should be present, the teachers who
attended the trainings were left to decide how to proceed with conducting academic discussions
within their respective classrooms. And, although there was variation in practice, this researcher
did observe some evidence of student learning through academic discussion in each of the
respective classrooms. This suggests that Teachers A, B, and C had a significant understanding
of what elements of academic discussion contributed to student learning, and thus should be
present during academic discussions within their respective classrooms.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 97
This researcher observed academic discussion being implemented in varied ways, despite
there being common themes in how academic discussion was to be supported. For instance,
Teachers A and B did not indicate any reliance upon sentence frames, with Teacher A’s use of
exploratory talk, and Teacher B’s indicating an outright rejection of the district’s Accountable
Talk policy. Conversely, Teacher C believed in the importance of teaching and reinforcing the
use of sentence frames from the district’s Accountable Talk policy in order to promote successful
academic discussion. This could have been because mandates and restrictions (e.g. required use
of Accountable Talk sentence frames) for how learning must occur does not necessarily generate
outcomes in which learning has actually occurred, because restrictive approaches do not allow
learners to learn as individuals, in their own ways and in their own time. The Accountable Talk
sentence starters may not have been advantageous in promoting complexity and for building
upon students’ existing knowledge, at least initially, which led to their rejection by Teachers A
and B. The research of Chaiklin (2003) shows learning can be accelerated if the teacher can
identify the students’ ZPD through meaningful learning interactions. Meaningful learning
interactions could be accomplished though the successful mediation of academic discussion, as
the participants demonstrated through the use of technology, text selection, and the use of
questioning. By extension, Miller’s (2012) research shows that when teachers can properly
identify students’ ZPD for participating in academic discussion, the teacher can then facilitate
and support students’ participation in academic discussions, and thus, the teacher can assist
students in creating a shared meaning of a text or texts by providing just enough instructional
support to mediate conversations to allow students to co-create new meanings and shared
understandings (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Thus,
students might begin to use sentence frames more readily after the frames have been taught
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 98
according to the students’ correctly identified ZPD, and later, the use of sentence frames could
then become automatic. The sentence frames may then lead to true learning from academic
discussions, as was observed in Teacher C’s classroom. Thus, the observed variation in
academic discussion was necessary because Teachers A’s, B’s, and C’s students all had different
ZPDs, as individuals and as a collective class. And, if each of Teachers A, B, and C were to
have implemented rigid and static rules for conducting and participating in an academic
discussion would not have resulted in student learning, because the students’ current ZPDs and
academic readiness would not have been appropriately considered.
For instance, none of the teachers, particularly Teacher A, were observed to have
required the use of any academic language or the formal register. Conversely, Teacher B’s and
C’s students were observed using academic language, suggesting academic language was a
requirement for participating in academic discussions in their respective classrooms, and that
Teacher B’s and C’s students had a correctly identified and created ZPD for performing
academic language (Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008; Chaiklin 2003). Teacher A was observed having
allowed students to use the casual register almost exclusively, suggesting academic language was
not Teacher A’s students’ current ZPD. Teacher A likely correctly identified the students’
current ZPD, and did not therefore require the use of academic language in academic
discussions, because student learning would not have occurred if students were forced to try to
operate within a ZPD above their current ZPD (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003). It was unclear
when or, in fact, if ever the learning of academic language or the use of the formal register took
place, because no teacher in this study was observed providing support for participating in an
academic discussion using the formal register. Additionally, it is not clear whether every
conversational interaction observed in each classroom could be reasonably qualified as an
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 99
academic discussion according to the adopted definition for this dissertation: teacher-mediated
and supported discussion within the classroom that allows for students to openly discuss and
question texts in order to create a new zone of proximal development by allowing students to co-
construct knowledge and understanding with their teacher and peers (Miller, 2012).
On the other hand, the three identified themes all point to how authentically students
were engaged in the academic discussion, and, by extension, how well students were able to co-
construct knowledge and demonstrate learning. While each of Teachers A, B, and C approached
authentic engagement differently, each of the teachers gave reasons for their respective students
to discuss and thereby learn through the discussion because the students were authentically
engaged. Teacher A promoted authentic engagement through the use of compelling movies and
videos based on the play, and also by indicating an understanding for and respect of the students
in the class and their need to express themselves in the casual register using linguistic varieties
other than Standard American English. The research of Alim (2004) and Kutz and Roskelly
(1991) has shown that students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American
English—like those found in Teacher A’s class—often reject the schooling language and will not
speak in class. Students in Teacher A’s class were able to construct knowledge and
understanding by using the casual register, exploratory talk, because they remained meaningfully
engaged in their academic discussions. Therefore, this researcher believes learning could have
been occurring at least some of the time, because Teacher A’s students were observed to have
been actively and authentically engaged. Teacher B was also able to facilitate successful
engagement in academic discussion through the use of authentic engagement in a compelling
film. Teacher B’s students were also allowed to use authentic talk—not forced or appropriated
from the standard—when they became engaged in the discussion about Black-White racial
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 100
tensions and then applied it to their current experiences with racism, specifically the high-profile
death of Trayvon Martin. And, Teacher C’s students were free to discuss their stories and
podcast amongst their small groups, allowing the groups of students to be authentically engaged
in their discussions by freely and intimately responding to one another’s questions and thoughts
while practicing academic language and conversational politeness. Thus, students were able to
co-construct knowledge and demonstrate learning because they were authentically engaged
according to their own needs and academic readiness, as correctly identified by their respective
teachers.
Each of the teachers were observed using IRE methods in different situations, apparently
to begin or to transition an academic discussion, perhaps because each of the teachers deemed it
necessary to have their respective students begin with a base of remembering information in
order to build knowledge successfully, and in turn, that remembered information allowed the
students to become and remain actively engaged in their discussions. Teachers A and C were
observed using IRE to begin an academic discussion, or to further a discussion that had faltered,
suggesting that Teachers A and C understood that their respective students had to remember
certain pieces of information before they could effectively participate in their respective
academic discussions. From Teacher B’s comments, particularly on the rejection of the School-
Wide Accountable Talk Strategies, it seemed Teacher B did use some academic discussion, and
also IRE. It could be that Teacher B’s implied belief that IRE was a useful strategy is actually
alignment with Mercer’s (1995) suggestion that no one classroom talk strategy can be effective
in each and every classroom discussion since all talk is historically and contextually bound in
order to have meaning, and that IRE is useful for teachers in certain situations when checking for
understanding or managing student talk and behavior is necessary to ensure learning is occurring.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 101
However, because the researcher observed Teacher B’s use of IRE methods in nearly the same
frequency as Teacher B’s use of authentic academic discussion strategies, it is unclear whether
learning of how to use academic language, and how to participate in an academic discussion,
actually occurred, and, even if assuming learning was actually happening, to what extent learning
did occur. This suggests that while the students may have begun an academic discussion,
Teacher B did not always successfully mediate the discussion or encourage learning through
ongoing discussion, but that at times, Teacher B shut down the discussion in favor of students’
independently finding the currently accepted understanding. Thus, it is important for teachers to
gauge both their students’ readiness for participating in and sustaining academic discussions and
discovering their own understandings with their teacher’s support. Furthermore, as with Teacher
C’s students, teachers need to gauge their students’ readiness for more independent discussion
participation so that time for academic discussions can be used productively and efficiently.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 102
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This dissertation study examined how three English Language Arts teachers employed in
an urban comprehensive high school understand and teach academic discourse, and how these
teachers have described what they are doing to facilitate authentic academic discussions within
their classrooms. Furthermore, this study examined how the three English Language Arts
teachers claim to understand classroom talk in terms of how classroom talk promotes student
participation, and how classroom talk can enhance the students’ competency in academic
language, particularly for those students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard
American English. Specifically, this study sought to highlight the methods and moves the three
English Language Arts teachers used to effectively build proficiency in academic language in
students who speak linguistic varieties other than Standard American English.
A qualitative study, guided by both socio-cultural theory and academic discourse case
studies and employing a single-site case study methodology, with data collected from interviews,
observations, and document collection (Merriam, 2009) sought to answer the following research
questions:
1) How do English Language Arts teachers understand academic discussion within their
respective mainstream classrooms at an urban high school?
2) What elements do English Language Arts teachers understand as being necessary to
support authentic participation in academic discussions in mainstream English
Language Arts classes at an urban high school?
Summary of Findings
Three distinct themes were revealed in the results of this study: 1) the use of technology
was an integral part of the ELA curriculum for student participation in authentic academic
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 103
discussions; 2) the use of questioning strategies to encourage and mediate participation among
the group; and 3) text selection, including primary, complementary, and supplementary
selections influenced the success of academic discussions. Teachers A, B, and C were able to
engage in culturally responsive discourse and to manage interpersonal relationships among the
students and themselves (Thomas, 2013; Alvermann, 2002). The data also revealed that the
teachers believed academic discussion was necessarily a mediated activity (Thomas, 2013;
Alvermann, 2002), but the degree to which mediation was required was determined by the
particular group of learners.
Within these three themes, the findings focus on the teachers’ role in mediating academic
discussion, and the various tools and participant structures each participant used in practice. The
implications from this will show others what practice might look like to support mediation of
academic discussion.
Discussion
Each of the three participant ELA teachers had discussed the connection between
academic discussion and learning, with each claiming a relationship between academic
discussion and their respective practice, and each of the three participants had described some of
the ways they used academic discussions in their classrooms to promote learning and
understanding of literature. Specifically, each ELA participant teacher had shared their
understanding of academic discussion, and each participant had related their understanding to
their perceptions of how they supported their respective students’ participation in academic
discussions facilitated in their classrooms.
Teachers A, B, and C each showed they understood the importance of academic
discussions in the classroom as each of the teachers suggested that academic discussions were
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 104
necessary to allow students to build a better understanding of literature. This was in alignment
with the research findings of Thomas (2013), Miller (2012), Vetter (2010) and Christoph and
Nystrand (2001) in which students in each respective study were observed to have successfully
demonstrated understandings of literature and literary elements through their active and
sustained participation in academic discussions. Additionally, Teachers A, B, and C indicated
there had been, at the time of writing, a recent movement within the district, which had resulted
in the emphasis of academic discussion practices in professional development sessions.
Each of the teachers seemed to want to show they completely understood the
expectation for practicing academic discussion with today’s ELA students, and they attempted
to give an exact definition of what academic discussion is, as mentioned in the previous
sections. And, while the teachers were able to suggest a similar degree of comprehension of
and competence in academic discussion, some of which did align with this dissertation’s
definition of academic discussion, none of the teachers were able to give a solid, near-identical
definition of what academic discussion was. Additionally, there was found to be a lack of
consistency in the required use of academic language, and a variation in how each of the three
ELA teacher participants used their own understanding of their professional development to
make pedagogical choices for facilitating academic discussions within their respective
classrooms.
Lack of Consistency in Using Academic Language
This researcher observed a marked lack of consistency in the required use of academic
language. None of the three participant teachers, particularly Teacher A, were observed to have
specifically required the use of academic language or the formal register during any observed
academic discussion. That Teacher B’s and C’s students were observed using some academic
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 105
language during some if the discussions suggested that academic language was a requirement for
participating in academic discussions in Teacher B’s and C’s respective classrooms, and, by
extension, that Teacher B and Teacher C had each correctly identified the current ZPDs of their
respective students, and had created successfully a new ZPD for performing academic language
during academic discussions (Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008; Chaiklin 2003).
Teacher C’s students were observed using some academic language during their
academic discussions, indicating they had previously been taught how to use academic language
through their learning to use the Accountable Talk sentence frames. Though Teacher C had
previously identified her students to this researcher as non-White, none of the students were
observed using African-American Vernacular English, or AAVE, (Delpit, 2002) or another non-
standard dialect. Teacher C did not, during any of the observations, give any explicit instruction
for using academic language, but was observed giving instructions to keep the groups on task.
Thus, while Teacher C’s students had been performing within their current ZPD for their
understanding of how to use academic language while participating in an academic discussion in
Teacher C’s classroom (Miller, 2012; Gee, 2008; Chaiklin 2003), Teacher C’s expectation was
on maintaining students’ engagement with their texts and their groups, and not with academic
language development. And, for Teacher C’s students’ continuing to learn within their current
ZPD, the improving of academic language use was not as important as the improving of
sustaining self-regulated academic discussion. This does not mean there was any time deficiency
or that Teacher C had any low expectations for her students, but rather that Teacher C had
determined that, given the students’ current ZPDs, the time was best used by students’
performing to the expectation of maintaining ongoing engagement within a student-mediated
small group academic discussion.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 106
Similarly, Teacher B’s students were observed using some academic language during
their planned academic discussions, indicating that, like Teacher C’s students, Teacher B’s
students had previously been taught how to use some academic language for certain planned
academic discussions. Although Teacher B had previously identified his students as non-White,
none of the students were observed using AAVE or another non-standard dialect, only the casual
register. During the spontaneous academic discussions that were observed during the screening
of the film Amistad, Teacher B’s students were not observed using academic language in their
spontaneous speech. Clearly it was not due to a lack of time for Teacher B, either, as Teacher B
had paused the film during several suspenseful scenes with impactful dialogue and had allowed
the students the time to make comments and build upon each other’s ideas for several turns
before entering the conversation. When Teacher B had entered the conversations, he used his
contributions to further the students’ thinking and to further the conversation. Again, this
showed that Teacher B, like Teacher C, had the primary expectation for sustaining students’
engagement within an academic discussion in order for students to arrive at a co-constructed
understanding (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Again,
Teacher B’s inconsistently requiring academic language use was not detrimental for his students,
because his students were continuing to operate within their current and correctly identified ZPD,
and the primary learning objective was on developing sustained engagement in academic
discussions, planned and spontaneous alike. If Teacher B had insisted on the use of academic
language development at the time of the observation, the students would not have learned to
remain engaged and to talk through their understandings, because they would have also been
trying to remember use expected language patterns. And Teacher B’s students were not at a
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 107
ZPD in which they could comfortably and competently remain engaged in an academic
discussion while primarily using more formal academic language structures.
Teacher A did not require the use of academic language at all, as this researcher only
observed Teacher A’s having allowed students to use the casual register and to use AAVE
exclusively. This strongly suggested the use of academic language during an academic
discussion was not within the current ZPD of Teacher A’s students at the time of the study.
Furthermore, it strongly suggested Teacher A had correctly identified the students’ current ZPD,
and therefore did not require academic language in any academic discussions, because student
learning would not have occurred if students were forced to try to operate within a ZPD above
their current ZPD (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003). By extension, Teacher A was observed
consistently allowing students to use exploratory talk exclusively during their academic
discussions. Teacher A had indicated that his particular group of students were not, overall, very
high-performing students, and that several students enrolled in the class at the time of the study
did not attend class very regularly. This did not mean that Teacher A had any low expectations
for this particular group of students, but that Teacher A, in fact, had correctly identified the
students’ current ZPD, and that Teacher A was interested in meeting the students where they
were at, developmentally-speaking. By meeting students where they were developmentally,
Teacher A could teach the students most effectively and allow students to develop their
proficiency in participating in academic discussions in their own time and in their own ways.
Teacher A fully understood that this group of students was capable of actively participating in
academic discussions when they were allowed to use exploratory talk—which included the
casual register, AAVE and other non-standard dialects, and the absence of any correcting speech
into Standard American English or the formal register (Gee, 2008; Delpit, 2002). Teacher A
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 108
respected and understood most of the students enrolled in his class at the time of the study were
speakers of linguistic varieties other than Standard American English, and this researcher did
observe most of the students speaking AAVE in Teacher A’s classroom regardless of how
Teacher A had previously identified their ethnic background to this researcher. Teacher A
maintained a positive, respectful environment in which the students felt comfortable participating
in academic discussions with their peers and their teacher, as evidenced by their engagement in
academic discussions during the observations. Therefore, Teacher A’s primary expectation, like
Teacher B’s and Teacher C’s primary expectation, was on developing the students’ ability to
participate in sustained academic discussions, and not at all upon developing academic language
since the students in the class were not developmentally ready to learn to use academic language
in verbal conversations.
Variation in Professional Development and Pedagogical Choices
At the time of the study, Stanley Hall High School had required that all teachers
participate in professional development for using academic discussions in the classroom, and
SHHS had required that all teachers have prominently posted in their classrooms the district-
adopted Accountable Talk strategies posters.
That the three participant ELA teachers were all from the same district and the same
school site shows there was a somewhat similar context, yet the observed variation in practices
suggests there was variation in teacher training on best practices for conducting academic
discussions. This is likely due to the teacher trainers’ varied understandings of what academic
discussion is and should be, that, by extension, caused teachers who participated in trainings to
have varied interpretations of what academic discussion is and should be. Furthermore, because
there was likely not a solid understanding of what elements of academic discussion should be
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 109
present, the teachers who attended the trainings—including Teachers A, B, and C—were left to
decide how to proceed with conducting academic discussions within their respective classrooms.
However, despite there being observed variation in practice, based on the variation in the
three participant ELA teachers’ interpretations of their professional development experiences,
there was not a problem with this variation. This researcher did observe some evidence of
student learning through their participation in academic discussions in each of the respective
classrooms. This suggested that Teachers A, B, and C had a significant understanding of what
elements of academic discussion contributed to their respective students’ learning, based on their
significant understanding of their respective students’ current ZPDs. Thus, Teachers A, B, and C
understood which learned elements of academic discussion should be present during their
academic discussions within their respective classrooms.
As mentioned previously, Teacher A had correctly identified his students’ current ZPD,
and therefore Teacher A did not require academic language in any academic discussions.
Teacher A knew that student learning would occur when his students were allowed to use
exploratory talk instead of academic language, or sentence frames, or any other professional
development trainer-prescribed strategy. Teacher A understood that to try to force students to
operate within a ZPD above their current ZPD would result in frustration, resistance, and reduced
learning opportunities (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003; Delpit, 2002). Teacher A had indicated
that this particular group of students were not, overall, very high-performing students. But,
based on Teacher A’s pedagogical decisions along with the observed positive rapport, it shows
that Teacher A had realistic learning expectations for this particular group, and since Teacher A
had correctly identified the students’ current ZPD, that Teacher A was interested in meeting the
students where they were at, developmentally-speaking. Teacher A’s pedagogical choices were
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 110
appropriate for Teacher A’s students, but would not have been as appropriate for Teacher B’s or
Teacher C’s students, because those students were at different ZPDs than Teacher A’s students
were, and thus, Teachers B and C made different pedagogical decisions based on their current
understandings of what academic discussion should look like, given a particular set of students at
a particular ZPD.
Teacher B had made it very clear that he did not believe in the methods and strategies
taught in the professional development sessions. However, this researcher still observed learning
occurring in Teacher B’s class, based on the students’ observed participation in academic
discussions. Teacher B, like Teachers A and C, understood student learning would occur when
his students were engaged in the text and in the conversations, and so Teacher B did not use the
professional development strategies such as sentence frames. Teacher B did rely on IRE
methods to facilitate or transition classroom discussions, but also used strategies that were in
alignment with the findings from the research, including questioning, spontaneous discussion,
and student-centered conversations (Thomas, 2013; Miller, 2012; Vetter, 2010; Christoph &
Nystrand, 2001). Teacher B understood his students’ current ZPD, and also understood if he
were to try to force students to operate within a ZPD above their current ZPD, or if he were to try
to implement strategies that he did not genuinely believe to be effective, it would result in
frustration, resistance, and reduced learning opportunities (Miller, 2012; Chaiklin, 2003; Delpit,
2002). Again, Teacher B’s pedagogical choices were appropriate for Teacher B’s students,
based on how students were observed interacting and participating. Teacher B’s pedagogical
choices would not have been as appropriate, if at all, for Teacher A’s or Teacher C’s students,
because those students were operating within different ZPDs. Thus, Teacher C, like Teacher A
and Teacher B, made different pedagogical decisions based on her current understandings of
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 111
what academic discussion should look like for her particular group of students at their current
ZPD.
Teacher C was more inclined towards following the prescribed strategies from the
professional development sessions, as evidenced by her use of sentence frames and Accountable
Talk poster strategies. Teacher C’s students had received scaffolding in using the strategies, as
evidenced by their observed group academic discussions. Furthermore, Teacher C’s students had
evidently been scaffolded for participating in more student-regulated and student-mediated
academic discussions, as evidenced by their observed participation in their group academic
discussions. Like Teachers A and B, Teacher C understood her students’ current ZPDs, and had
worked to help them arrive at their current ZPD in which the students could participate in small
group academic discussions with less teacher-directed mediation than was required by the
students in Teacher A’s and B’s respective classes. Thus, Teacher C’s understanding of her own
learners and their ZPD influenced her interpretations of the professional development sessions,
and, by extension, influenced Teacher C’s strategy selections and other pedagogical choices.
These strategies and choices did affect student learning, as evidenced by the observations of
students’ participating in their small group academic discussions.
Therefore, the variation seen among the three participant ELA teachers’ pedagogical
decisions for facilitating academic discussions was not problematic, but was, in fact, appropriate
for teaching and learning styles, students’ given ZPDs, and the three participant ELA teachers’
interpretations of how academic discussions should be. Thus, it was not important to have
observed consistency in how academic discussions were facilitated among the three participant
ELA teachers, because each or their respective classes were operating within different ZPDs, and
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 112
required different strategies in order to participate in and to learn effectively from academic
discussions.
Implications for Future Research
The findings from this study suggest the need for future research in which future studies
could include a larger selection of teachers, possibly from different disciplines. Furthermore,
future studies could include additional school sites to see whether the findings from this study
are similar to the findings of subsequent studies. Additionally, a follow-up to this study could be
conducted within SHHS using the same participants to see whether patterns emerge in their
practices for academic discussion with different student groups, whether the participants show
changes in their understandings of academic discussion—from additional experience and training
or professional development—and how students are found to respond to and participate in
academic discussions. Further research might also evaluate the school’s professional
development sessions on academic discussions, as well as the implementation of and adherence
to the school’s and district’s classroom talk policies. The collected and analyzed data can then
be compared to other secondary classrooms where academic discussions are used to facilitate
and enhance literacy.
The research protocol can be replicated across different classrooms and different school
sites to investigate how academic language develops from the teaching of literacy through
academic discussions. Future research in this area would add to the existing body of literature
and could serve to broaden the scope of researchers’, educators’, and others’ knowledge of
literacy development through the use of authentic academic discussion and academic language.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 113
Conclusion
This researcher studied how three English Language Arts teachers at a single
comprehensive public high school understood the importance of using academic discussion to
improve literacy, particularly among student who spoke linguistic varieties other than Standard
American English. The three participants discussed the connection between academic
discussion and learning, and each participant described some of the ways they used academic
discussions in their classrooms to promote learning and literacy development. Specifically, the
participants related their understanding of academic discussion to their perceptions of how they
were supporting their students’ participation in academic discussions in their respective
classrooms.
The three participants each showed they understood the importance of academic
discussions in the classroom by suggesting that academic discussions were necessary to allow
students to build a better understanding of literature. These findings were in alignment with
the research findings of Thomas (2013), Miller (2012), Vetter (2010) and Christoph and
Nystrand (2001) in which students in each respective study were observed to have
successfully demonstrated understandings of literature and literary elements through their
active and sustained participation in academic discussions. Additionally, each one of the
participants in this study seemed to want to show they completely understood the 21st century
expectation for practicing academic discussion with ELA students, and each participant
attempted to give an exact definition of what an academic discussion was. Although the
participants in this study were able to suggest a similar degree of comprehension of and
competence in academic discussion, some of which did align with this dissertation’s
definition of academic discussion, none of the teachers were able to give a solid, near-
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 114
identical definition of what academic discussion was. This study’s findings suggest that
when teachers use technology, specific questioning strategies, and purposeful text selection,
students can become meaningfully engaged in academic discussions, and can learn to
improve their understanding of literature and literacy. Additionally, the findings of this study
suggest that teacher mediation of academic discussion is necessarily required, but the extent
to which teacher mediation is required is dependent upon the particular group of learners and
their readiness for participation in academic discussion. This study approached understanding
the need for and importance of academic discussions by focusing on a single school site and
comparing findings across a set of three participants, and has shown how teachers’
understanding of how to facilitate academic discussion in different ways can still bring about
student learning when teachers understand their students’ needs and readiness. Thus, this
study has contributed to the existing body of research in understanding how the use of
academic discussion can be used successfully.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 115
References
Adkins-Coleman, T. (2010). "I'm not afraid to come into your world:" Case studies of teachers
facilitating engagement in urban high school English classrooms. The Journal of Negro
Education, 79(1), pp. 41-53.
Alim, S. (2004). Hearing what. In S. Kiesling & C. Bratt Paulston (Eds.), Intercultural Discourse
and Communication: The Essential Readings Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34(2), pp. 189-208. DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4.
Alvermann, D., O'Brien, D., & Dillon, D. (1990). What teachers do when they say they’re
having discussions of content area reading assignments: A qualitative analysis. Reading
Research Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 296-322. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747693.
Ares, N., & Peercy, M. (2003). Constructing literacy: How goals, activity systems, and text
shape classroom practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(1), pp. 633-662.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., 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), pp. 685-730.
Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
8312(200323)40:3<685:DATDUC>2.0.CO;2-1.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 116
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal
development. Literacy, 3(2), p. 1.
Boyd, M., & Kong, Y. (2015). Reasoning words as linguistic features of exploratory
talk: classroom use and what it can tell us. Discourse Processes, pp. 1-20.
Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1095596.
Bracey, G. (2009). Identify and observe effective teacher behaviors. The Phi Delta Kappan,
90(10), pp. 772-773. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/20533085.
Bubb, S. (2005). Helping teachers develop. US: Sage Publications.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach.
Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), pp. 585–614. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605054407.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), pp. 103-127. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/41229013.
Cazden, C. (2001). Variations in lesson structure. In Classroom Discourse The Language of
Learning and Teaching (2 ed., pp. 53-79). Portsmouth, NH: Harvard Education
Publishing Group.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and
instruction. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, 1, pp. 39-64.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 117
Christoph, J., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher's
transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(2), pp.
249-286.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J., Hanson, W., Plano Clark, V., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs:
Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), pp. 236-264 . DOI:
10.1177/0011000006287390.
Delpit, L. (2002). Chapter 3: No kinda sense. In L. Delpit (Ed.), The Skin that We Speak:
Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Classroom (pp. 34-48). New York: The New
York Press.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 30, pp. 169–192.
Enright, K., Torres-Torretti, D., & Carreon, O. (2011). Hope is the thing with metaphors: de-
situating literacies and learning in English language arts classrooms. Language and
Education, 26(1), pp. 35-51. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2011.609298.
Fialho, O., Zyngier, S., &Miall, D. (2011). Interpretation and experience: Two pedagogical
interventions observed. English in Education,45(3), pp. 236-253. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-
8845.2011.01103.x.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 118
Freire, P. (2005). The banking concept of education. In D. Bartholomae (Ed.), Ways of Reading
(7 ed., pp. 255-267). New York: St. Martin Press.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Discourses and literacies. In J. Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology
in discourses (3 ed., pp. 150-181). New York: Routledge.
Guthrie, J. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), pp. 1-
30. DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3601_2.
Hall, J., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 22, pp. 186-203.
Hoffman, M. (Dir.) (1999). A midsummer night’s dream. (W. Shakespeare & M. Hoffman,
Authors). Hollywood, CA: Fox Searchlight Pictures.
James, N. (2015). Using email interviews in qualitative educational research: Creating space to
think and time to talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, pp. 1-
14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1017848.
Johnston, K., & Hayes, D. (2008). "This is as good as it gets:" Classroom lessons and learning in
challenging circumstances. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), pp. 109-
127.
Johnson, L. (1992). Dangerous minds. New York: St. Martin’s.
Kutz, E., & Roskelly, R. (1991). An unquiet pedagogy: Transforming practice in the English
classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 119
Madrid , E. (2011). The Latino achievement gap. Multicultural Education, 18(3), pp. 7-12.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/926978300?pq-
origsite=summon.
Many, J., & Aoulou, E. (2014). Understanding literacy teacher educators' use of scaffolding.
Reading Horizons (Online), 53(3), 1-34. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/1644455832/fulltextPDF?accountid
=14749.
Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), pp. 522-525.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed., pp. 39-72).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of
thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. UK: Routledge. p.
98.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.
Great Britain: The Cromwell Press, Ltd. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of
knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press, Ltd.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 120
Miles, M. B., 8c Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, S. (2012). How literature discussion shapes thinking. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.
Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context ZPDs for
Teaching/Learning Habits of the Heart and Mind (pp. 289-316). DOI:
10.1017/CBO9780511840975.016.
Moje, E., Young, J., Readence, J., & Moore, D. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new
times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), pp.
400-410.
Munson, B. (1998). Peers observing peers: The better way to observe teachers. Contemporary
Education, 69(2), 108-110. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/233038307?pq-origsite=summon.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.
Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy and student performance.
American Educational Research Association, 2-44.
Noddings, N. (2007). The ethic of caring: Teaching themes of care. Character, 14(2), 1-5.
Oberg De La Garza, T. (2015). Using photovoice methodology to explore Latino students’
access to literacy. Engaging Cultures and Voices, 7, 21-45. Retrieved from
http://ecv.missouri.edu/Issue7.html.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 121
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 51–77. DOI:10.1093/applin/ami041.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and
Education, 12(4), 431–459.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:
Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language
Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.
Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. (2003). National center for postsecondary
improvement: Sample interview protocol form. Retrieved from
http://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/unspecified/student_assess_toolkit/sampleInterviewPr
otocol.html.
Street, B. (1997). The implications of the ‘new literacy studies’ for literacy education. English in
Education, 31(3), 45-59.
Tatum, A., & Muhammad, G. (2012). African American males and literacy development in
contexts that are characteristically urban. Urban Education, 47(2), 434-463. DOI:
10.1177/0042085911429471.
Thao, Y. J. (2012). Bicultural literacy curriculum. Creative Education, 3(2), 251-255. DOI:
10.4236/ce.2012.32039.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 122
Tharpe, R., & Gallimore, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate
discourse. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and
Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, E. (2013). Dilemmatic conversations: Some challenges of culturally responsive
discourse in a high school English classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24, 328– 347.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
London, England: Harvard University Press.
White, J. (2011). Resistance to classroom participation: Minority students, academic discourse,
cultural conflicts, and issues of representation in whole class discussions. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 10, 250-265. DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2011.598128.
Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-116.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 123
Appendix A
Pre-Interview Protocol
Teacher Interview Protocol
Institution: _____________________________________________________
Interviewee (Title and Name): ______________________________________
Interviewer: _____________________________________________________
Documents Obtained: _____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments or Leads:
________________________________________________________________
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Interviews
Introductory Protocol
I have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time, I have several
questions that I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt
you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as someone
who has a great deal to share about teaching, learning, and academic discussion on this campus.
The purpose of this study is to find out what working in developing students’ academic
discussion skills. I want you to be assured this is in no way evaluative, and will in no way be
shared with administrators or district personnel.
A. Interviewee Background
How long have you been at this school? Have you always held the position you have had now?
How you taught elsewhere, prior to teaching at this campus?
So, you have been teaching for ___ years?
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 124
Can you tell me about your educational background, and what brought you to teaching?
B. Academic Discussion
1. How do you describe academic discussion?
2. What do you see as the purpose(s) of academic discussion?
Probe: How does academic discussion encourage literacy/enhance textual
understanding?
3. Briefly describe your role as it relates to facilitating student participation and learning
through academic discussions.
Probes: How/In what ways are you involved in academic discussions? You
mention… Please tell me more about….
4. How do you motivate/encourage students to voluntarily participate in academic discussions?
5. How do you set up conversational/politeness norms for academic discussions?
a. Probe: You mention… Please tell me more about…
6. Please describe some scaffolding strategies for preparing students to participate in academic
discussions.
a. Probe: You mention… Please tell me more about….
b. Probe: How well is […] working?
7. Do you ever encourage spontaneous academic discussions?
a. Probe: Can you tell me about a successful instance of spontaneous academic
discussion?
8. How do you prepare students for participation in an academic discussion in which the
topic(s) include sensitive/controversial/offensive language (i.e. racist, sexist language or
themes….)
9. You have given me a good sense of how you plan and think about academic discussion. Can
you describe for me what it looks like in your classroom?
B. Faculty/Departmental Participation
1. What resources are available to faculty for improving teaching and learning through strategies/
techniques to facilitate academic discussion?
a. Probe: Do you see increases in teachers using academic discussion beyond checking
for understanding/assessment purposes?
b. Probe: What is being accomplished through collaborative/professional development?
2. What do you see as any possible challenges that your department faces in developing
academic discussions with students?
Probes: How are you all supported by each other? How are you supported by the
administration? How are you supported in professional development?
C. Assessment
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 125
1. Do you assess students’ participation in an academic discussion?
Probe: What is your rationale for that? Why have you chosen to/to not do so?
Probe: What do you do if there is imbalance in student participation?
2. What do you consider meaningful participation by a student?
3. How can you tell if students are learning during the discussion?
Probe: What might you do if you feel learning isn’t taking place during a discussion?
Post Interview Comments and/or Observations:
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 126
Appendix B
Follow-Up Interview Protocol
Script: I had the opportunity to observe your lesson and academic discussion again today.
Thank you very much, again. Now I have some questions for you about your class, specifically
about today’s lesson. You may skip any question if you do not feel comfortable answering.
Remember that your responses are strictly confidential, and none of your responses will be
associated with you by name.
This interview will last approximately thirty minutes. During this time, I have several questions
that I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you in
order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.
1. [How would you define the objective(s) of today’s lesson?
Probe: How would you describe the ways students met today’s learning
objective(s)?] Only ask if below was not apparent in the lesson.
2. [How will you follow up on today’s lesson, if at all?] Only ask if no sample lesson plans
were collected.
3. [In planning and teaching today’s lesson, what experiences and/or information sources
were you drawing upon?] I noted that you used [X text/textbook/ Y PowerPoint]; how do
you decide which resources and information sources to draw upon? Was this typical?
What others do you use frequently?
4. Today I noticed you used [group discussion, grand discussion, think-pair-share, etc.] in
your lesson which is [the same as/different from] my last observation. Can you describe
why you chose this/those particular strategies [again] today, and what you hoped to
achieve by using it/them? [Tell me more about what it is like to use this strategy in this
class with this group of students]. Only if it is a different strategy than what was observed
previously.
Probe: [Ask about each practice observed]
a. Probe: How frequently do you do this?
b. Probe: Do your students typically respond in this way? Can you tell me more
about using this strategy with this diverse group of students? What about this
strategy made you think it would work well with this group of learners?
c. Probe: What do you like about using this method/strategy?
d. Probe: What challenges does it present, if any?
e. Probe: What constrains you from using this method/strategy more often?
f. How do you see this strategy supporting and developing student learning?
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 127
5. What do you think these students learned from this lesson?
a. Probe: In what ways do you think students improve their understanding of
academic language from [activity] as I observed in this lesson?
b. Probe: In what ways do you think students improve their understanding of how to
participate in academic discussion?
6. Did this lesson go the way you thought it would? (Unanticipated outcomes)
Probe: Would you like to have used other methods/strategies? Can you
elaborate….?
Probe: How did you determine if students learned from this lesson? (Assessment)
Probe: What can you do specifically to guide and facilitate more participation?
7. What challenges do your students encounter in their learning [using this
strategy/method], and how do you modify instruction to address these needs?
Probes: How do you encourage/facilitate participation [with this particular
strategy] from students with different skill levels? With language issues? With
special needs?
Probe: I noticed when you prompted with [….], Student A responded with […]
and you had responded with […]. Can you tell me a little more about this?
Probe: I also noticed when Student B said/did […], you responded with […]. Can
you tell me more about this, please?
Probe: I noticed when student C and Student D were […], you said/did […].
Please tell me more about this [strategy/move].
8. (Free Question) [Interviewer follows up on anything else they noticed during classroom
observation]
Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your teaching experiences,
or about the lesson today?
Thank you very much for talking with me and letting me see your class. I hope that
you had as positive an experience as I did. Thank you once again.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION 128
Appendix C
Observation Protocol
Person being observed: Date: Time Arrived:
Location (describe space and surroundings)
General notes about participants
Time Observations Research Comments
For additional resources - http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/
DSC contact information – rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu or (213)740-8099
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty
PDF
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
PDF
The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms
PDF
Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation
PDF
The effects of being a voluntarily childless female educator
PDF
Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices
PDF
College academic readiness and English placement
PDF
College academic readiness and English placement
PDF
Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language
PDF
Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access
PDF
The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color
PDF
Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
PDF
The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hunter, Kathryn Rose
(author)
Core Title
The role of teachers in academic discussion
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/14/2017
Defense Date
01/19/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic discussion,academic language in secondary English,classroom talk,IRE,linguistic varieties other than Standard American English,OAI-PMH Harvest,socio-cultural theory and literacy development,ZPD
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Carbone, Paula (
committee chair
), Crawford, Jenifer (
committee member
), Maccalla, Nicole (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hunterkathryn021@gmail.com,krhunter@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-348347
Unique identifier
UC11255926
Identifier
etd-HunterKath-5140.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-348347 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HunterKath-5140.pdf
Dmrecord
348347
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hunter, Kathryn Rose
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic discussion
academic language in secondary English
classroom talk
IRE
linguistic varieties other than Standard American English
socio-cultural theory and literacy development
ZPD