University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 1

EXAMINING THE INTERSECTION OF IDEOLOGY, CLASSROOM CLIMATE, AND
PEDAGOGY IN CREATING OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN SECONDARY ENGLISH
CLASSROOMS

By

Jenn Wolfe

____________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Final Defense August 15, 2016

Degree Conferral Date: December 14, 2016

Copyright 2016 Jenn Wolfe
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 2

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence
plus character - that is the goal of true education.”
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

In loving memory of my father, Charles S. Wolfe, who, through his actions, showed me that a
life in pursuit of a just cause is a life well-lived.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 3

Acknowledgments
It does not just take a village to raise a child. It turns out that it takes a village to write a
dissertation, as well. This dissertation would not have been possible support of the following
people.
To Julie Slayton, my Dissertation Chair: There is no way that I will ever be able to thank you
enough for all the time, energy, thought, and heart you have put into supporting me through this
process. You have asked me to ponder difficult questions, helped me consider practice in new
ways, and gave me confidence to use my voice in a new (for me) way. You are one of the most
generous and dedicated educators I know. I think perhaps the best thank you that I can offer is
committing to paying it forward.
To Paula Carbone: You have a thoughtful, gentle way of pushing my thinking about the
teaching of English. Your insight and suggestions helped me to think about my approach to data
collection and analysis with different, wider eyes.
To Jamy Stillman: You tapped into my concern about presenting teachers as human, imperfect
and well-intentioned, and gave me helpful ways of how to approach this project with kindness.
To my committee, together: When I started this journey, I did not imagine the many ways in
which this dissertation would impact my life. I am grateful to all of you for being supportive
professionally and personally.
To Ilsebill Wolfe, my mother: Thank you for your constant guidance and for cheering me on
every step of the way. I am no marathon runner, but from you I learned to pace myself … and to
always look for the bright side. Both of these are gifts, not just while writing a dissertation, but
also for living life. Thank you also for being my first teacher of reading. There is no doubt that
you and Dad set me on a path inspired by a love of the written word.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 4

To my brother, Daniel, and sister-in-law, Byoung, my Omi, my aunts, uncles, and cousins: Thank
you for helping me keep my sense of humor, for checking in regularly, and for encouraging me
every step of the way. You really do not have read this, but thank you for offering.
To my friends: To Mary, for reliving your own dissertation experience in order to help me get
through mine and, more importantly, for more than two decades of friendship. To Jancy, for
randomly hanging out and reminding me that chocolate is a reasonable solution to many of life’s
problems. To Anahid, for listening, for letting me laugh and cry at the same time, and for your
thoughtfulness. To Hali, for reminding me that I often find my voice in action and reminding me
to stay creative.
To Debra Coaloa, my classmate and friend: We really did travel this journey together every step
of the way. Thank you for listening, encouraging, and always getting it. This kind of writing can
be a little isolating and I am grateful that we were able to travel this road together.
To my VAAS family, especially Kelly, Ron, Veronica, Malaika, and Darci: On many occasions
you made sure that I could get out the door and off to USC and encouraged me every step of the
way. Your support has meant the world to me.
To the Advisory class of 2016 Wolfe Pack: You traveled this journey with me for your entire
high school career and let me be a part of your journey. Your voices remind me why this work is
so important. All students deserve a place and space to be heard.
To Kathy, Pam, and Matt from the Writing Project at Cal State Northridge: Your commitment to
teacher education is epic. Thank you for reminding me to pay attention to the process of writing.
And while it may be a little silly, thank you to Ceba and Tashi, the #kittenswhocode, for keeping
me company while I analyzed data and wrote in the early morning hours and late into the night.
You can’t even read, but you made me laugh while I wrote.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 5

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................3

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .....................................................................9
Overview of the Study .......................................................................................................9
Background of the Problem ...............................................................................................9
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................10
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................12
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................15
Ideology ..............................................................................................................................15
Classroom Climate ..............................................................................................................30
Pedagogy .............................................................................................................................46
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................73

CHAPTER 3: METHODS .....................................................................................................79
Research Design ..................................................................................................................79
Sample and Population .......................................................................................................82
Site Selection ......................................................................................................................82
Participant Selection ...........................................................................................................83
Instrumentation and Data Collection ..................................................................................84
Interviews ............................................................................................................................85
Observations .......................................................................................................................86
Documents and Artifacts .....................................................................................................87
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................87
Limitations ..........................................................................................................................88
Delimitations .......................................................................................................................89
Credibility and Trustworthiness ..........................................................................................89
Ethics ...................................................................................................................................91
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................91

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .....................................................................................................93
Case Study 1: Mrs. Maggie Miller, Ninth Grade English ...................................................94
Research Question 1: Ideology ........................................................................................97
Asset Mindset: A Belief in the Capability of Students .................................................97
Research Question 2: Classroom Climate ........................................................................104
Emotional Scaffolding ..................................................................................................105
Collaborative and Non-Competitive Climate ...............................................................108
Authentic Care ..............................................................................................................109
Research Question 3: Pedagogy .......................................................................................116
Assisted Performance ....................................................................................................117
Metacognition and Reflection .......................................................................................129
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 6

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................135
Case Study 2: Ms Deanna Graham, 12
th
grade English ......................................................138
Research Question 1: Ideology ........................................................................................142
Low Expectations and a Deficit Mindset ......................................................................143
Research Question 2: Classroom Climate ........................................................................147
Authentic and Aesthetic Care .......................................................................................148
Relations of Reciprocity ...............................................................................................152
Research Question 3: Pedagogy .......................................................................................157
Assisted Performance ....................................................................................................158
Low Expectations and Level of Rigor ..........................................................................164
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................167
Cross-Case Analysis ...........................................................................................................169
Asset Mindset...................................................................................................................169
Authentic Care .................................................................................................................171
Assisted Performance .......................................................................................................173
School Context .................................................................................................................175
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................176

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION
TO PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH .....................................................................177
Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................................178
Implications and Recommendations ...................................................................................181

References ..............................................................................................................................185

Appendices
Appendix A: First Interview Protocol .................................................................................189
Appendix B: Observation Protocol .....................................................................................193
Appendix C: Final Interview Protocol, Mrs. Maggie Miller ..............................................195
Appendix D: Final Interview Protocol, Ms Deanna Graham .............................................197

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 7

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine English teachers who were considered
successful at encouraging the social exploration of literature. The rationale for this study was to
gain a greater understanding of the beliefs and ideologies of English teachers who were able to
create a classroom climate that support students open exploration and discussion of literature in
order to better understand the teachers’ beliefs and ideologies as well as the ways in which they
constructed their classroom climate and selected pedagogical tools to facilitate students’
participation in open-forum discussion. The following research questions informed my
dissertation study: What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of who have been identified as
successful at engaging students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making
meaning? What features of classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to
encourage the social exploration of literature through inquiry and reflection? What are the
pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create conditions for inquiry and reflection?
This multi-case study examined two English teachers identified as successful at creating a
classroom climates that supported the social construction of knowledge around literature for
students of historically marginalized backgrounds. Classroom observations were conducted of
each teacher in the study as well as two in-depth interviews of both teachers. Documents and
artifacts that were available from the lessons were collected.
The findings revealed that while both teachers held a reputation for successfully
implementing the social exploration of literature with their students, one teacher was more
successfully able to engage students in open forum discussions. The data also showed the
significance of holding an asset mindset, authentic care, relations of reciprocity, assisted
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 8

performance, and scaffolding in being able to successfully create a the conditions that supported
the social exploration of literature.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 9

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this chapter, I will explain the background of the problem in order to set the context for
the study. I will then present the statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of the
study, as well as limitations and delimitations of the study. The focus of this dissertation is the
way that teachers prepare students and position students to engage in the social exploration of
text.
Background of the Problem
The school population for the United States is increasingly diverse (Bartolomé, 2004;
Center for Public Education, 2012), though the population of teachers remains largely white
(Boser, 2014). Teachers approach instruction and working with diverse populations of students
with a variety of mindsets; some mindsets include a belief in the assets of their students and the
recognition that students from historically marginalized backgrounds must overcome a variety of
barriers to succeed in their education (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010). Other mindsets include
low expectations of historically marginalized populations and a deficit mindset, a focus on what
students may lack (Milner, 2010). Ideologies, reflective of and influenced by social systems,
influence the beliefs that individuals hold about how the world works (Pajares, 1992). Teachers’
mindsets, beliefs, and ideologies go largely unexamined (Philip, 2011) and yet teachers’
mindsets, beliefs, and ideologies influence their pedagogy, content selection, and the kind of
classroom climate that they create (Bartolomé, 2004; Davis, 2006; Hatt, 2011; Miller, 2003;
Philip, 2011; Rist, 2000).
Within this context, the content area of secondary English, evolving based on the
Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies in the late 1890s (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand,
& Gamoran, 2003 Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003), has included a wide range of
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 10

goals, “involving mastery of virtually every activity connected with the use of language, but
there has been a consistent emphasis on the development of high-level literacy skills (reading
and writing) in the context of the extended study of literature”(Applebee, et al, 2003, p. 687).
According to Heath (1991), being literate and developing literacy goes beyond the basic skills of
being able to read and write; literate behaviors include the ability to “compare, sequence, argue
with, interpret, and create extended chunks of spoken and written language in response to a
written text in which communication, reflection, and interpretation are grounded” (p. 3).
Additionally, Street (2003) proposes an “ideological model of literacy” (p. 77), suggesting that
literacy is a social act and not just a set of skills. Studying literature fosters developing a
particular way of thinking that allows students to “learn to explore possibilities and consider
options” (Langer, 2010). Langer (2010) argues that the study of “literature is both intellectually
provocative and humanizing, allowing us to use various points of view to examine thoughts,
beliefs, and actions” (p. 5). Without an asset mindset and the understanding of historically
marginalized backgrounds, it is difficult for teachers to support historically marginalized students
in achieving higher levels of literacy beyond the basic skills of reading and writing.
While teachers play a critical role in student learning (Darling-Hammond & Sykes,
2003), teachers often fail to create learning opportunities for students of all ability levels,
backgrounds, ethnicities, and demographics that enable students to engage in literate behaviors
that encourage and develop critical thinking around text and for students to be equally able to
achieve at the same level of their peers (Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997).
Statement of the Problem
According to sociocultural learning theory, cognition is a social process (Smagorinsky,
2013). Conversation and exploratory talk can be tools for learning (Smagorinsky, 2013).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 11

According to Smagorinsky (2013), exploratory talk can be defined as the kind of talk that allows
students to generate meaning; he explains that this kind of talking “can both represent an idea
and contribute to the formation of an idea” (p. 194, italics in original). Exploratory talk and
open-forum discussions have a positive impact on students’ literary thinking (Applebee et al.,
2003; Miller, 2003). Teachers can facilitate students’ ability to develop their literacy and literary
understandings through scaffolding and modeling ways of entering into collaborative discussions
with their classmates (Langer, 1998).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Speaking and Listening for English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Sciences, and Technical Subjects begins
with the anchor standard that students “Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of
conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing
their own clearly and persuasively” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, p. 48). The goals of this anchor standard are in
line with Smagorinsky’s (2013) definition of exploratory talk, talk that allows students to both
articulate and form ideas in conversation with others.
The traditional approach to classroom discussions of literature, however, does not
promote collaborative learning or critical thinking skills nor does it position students to
participate in exploratory talk. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found that a lot of what is
described as discussion in secondary English is recitation, whereby the teacher asks a question
with a pre-conceived answer, the students respond, and the teacher evaluates the answer. Typical
classroom discussions in secondary English classes tend to utilize an Initiation-Response-
Evaluation (I-R-E) pattern of discourse (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997) that follows the pattern of
the teacher initiating a question and then calls on a student to respond to the question; the teacher
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 12

evaluates the answer and then moves on to the next question. This type of discussion is also
referred to as recitation (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). In the I-R-E and recitation patterns of
discourse, the teacher has a set of questions with pre-determined answers and uses these
questions class by class, year by year (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). Nystrand and Gamoran
(1997) found more frequent occurrences of authentic discussion in higher track, honors level
English classes. Students who have not been enrolled in higher tracks have frequently been
denied these same opportunities, creating educational inequities and long-term disadvantages for
these students (Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). By not providing students of
historically marginalized populations the kinds of educational experiences that go beyond the
basic skills of reading and writing, teachers miss opportunities to support these students in
developing their critical and creative thinking in ways that facilitate their success in academic
settings (Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997).
Research shows that there are teachers who are successfully able to facilitate open-forum
discussions in secondary English classrooms (Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran,
1997). It is not clear what the ideologies and belief systems are of those teachers who are able to
create a classroom environment that fosters the social exploration of literature among historically
marginalized populations of students who are traditionally considered disadvantaged and more
targeted research is needed to understand the intersection of teachers’ ideologies, the classroom
climate that they create, and the pedagogical moves made by these teachers to support open-
forum discussion across demographics and ability levels.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which the elements of teacher
ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy came together and was expressed through the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 13

teachers approaches to the social exploration of literature for students of historically
marginalized backgrounds. I conducted case studies of two secondary English teachers with
reputations for facilitating students in open-forum discussions around text in order to better
understand their beliefs and ideologies and the ways in which they constructed their classroom
climate and selected pedagogical tools to facilitate students’ participation in open-forum
discussion.
The following research questions informed my dissertation study:
• What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of who have been identified as
successful at engaging students in the social exploration of literature for the
purpose of making meaning?
• What features of classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to
encourage the social exploration of literature through inquiry and reflection?
• What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create conditions for
inquiry and reflection?
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it makes concrete what it looks like when a teacher is
successful at building the discussion skills of students of diverse and historically marginalized
backgrounds as well as explores some challenges and barriers that can prevent a teacher from
supporting the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning. Currently,
there is a lot ambiguity around what it looks like to do this well. The case studies I conducted of
these two teachers provide rich portraits of open-forum discussions and instruction both when it
was working and when the instruction did not support the social exploration of literature.
Furthermore, this study will inform my own instruction as a practicing teacher of English at the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 14

high school level and will enable me to mentor future teachers in my work with student teachers.
This study will also inform the work I do in professional development with practicing teachers.
In the future, I hope to work in a teacher education program and this study should help inform
my practice there, as well.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 15

CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This dissertation looked specifically at English teachers who with a reputation of being
able to encourage the social exploration of literature and asked the following questions: What are
the underlying beliefs of teachers of who have been identified as successful at engaging students
in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning? What features of
classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to encourage the social exploration of
literature through inquiry and reflection? What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage
in to create conditions for inquiry and reflection? In order to answer these questions, I drew on
three bodies of literature in educational theory and research: teacher ideology, classroom climate,
and the pedagogy of discussion in secondary English.
The purpose behind examining teacher ideologies, classroom climate, and the pedagogy
of discussion in secondary English was to gain insight that would enable me to answer my
research questions. I also used the literature to build my conceptual framework.
Ideology
In order to understand the influence of ideology on teachers’ practices, I needed a clear
definition of ideology. According to Bartolomé (2008), ideology includes a complex web of
thinking that is built and used by society to “justify or rationalize an existing social order” (p.
xiii). Bartolomé (2008) defined ideology as the specific habits and customs of everyday life that
demonstrate and reflect “the unconscious lived experience and the influences of societal
institutions” (p. xiv). Furthermore, Cadeiro-Kaplan (2008) suggested that ideology influences
not just an individual’s knowledge, but also how he or she represents that knowledge in the
world.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 16

There is a difference between ideology and beliefs. Ideology is influenced by and reflects
social systems. Pajares (1992) explained that beliefs are grounded in how we examine the world
and the opinions we generate based on our examinations. Ideology shapes beliefs; the social
systems within which we exist influence the way we see the world and, therefore, the beliefs that
we develop (Bartolomé, 2004; Pajares, 1992). Dewey (1933) defined belief as covering “all the
matters of which we have no sure knowledge and yet which we are sufficiently confident of to
act upon and also the matters that we now accept as certainly true” (p. 6). Pajares (1992)
suggested that it is important to study the beliefs of teachers because teacher beliefs “affect their
behavior in the classroom” (p. 307). For the purposes of this dissertation, I am defining ideology
as the ideas expressed by the social system within which we exist and I define beliefs as the
expression of an individual’s ideology.
I have structured my examination of ideology to look first at ways in which ideologies
can interfere with teachers’ instructional choices and the ways in which they treat students. Next,
I look at two studies in which researchers examined with teachers who consciously worked to
examine their ideologies and beliefs and the impact that had on their instructional choices.
Finally, I look at two studies where researchers observed teachers who were not aware of how
their ideologies and beliefs were influencing instructional choices and the impact that this had on
instruction.
Teachers’ ideology impacts their instructional choices (Milner, 2010). Milner (2010)
offered a framework of five interconnected areas that he asserted constitute different forms of
ideology. The five areas include color blindness, cultural conflicts, the myth of meritocracy, low
expectations and a deficit mindset, and a context-neutral mindset. Milner (2010) named these
five areas as common ideologies that teachers may hold that interfere with student success and
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 17

argued that by recognizing them, teachers are able to act against them and create a counter
narrative.
According to Milner (2010), teachers demonstrate a color-blind mindset when they
choose to ignore their own race as well as the racial backgrounds of their students. When
teachers hold a color-blind mindset, they “may not recognize how their own race and racial
experiences shape what they teach, how they teach it, and how they assess what has been taught”
(Milner, 2010, p. 17). Furthermore, one consequence of ignoring the racial identities of students
can include unintentionally implementing Eurocentric instructional practices (Milner, 2010).
The second area is that of cultural conflicts. Milner (2010) asserted that those teachers
who do not recognize “cultural ways of knowing” (p. 23) other than their own create learning
environments that are both unfamiliar to students and difficult for them to navigate. The negative
consequences of a learning environment that is difficult for students to navigate can include
conflicts that lead to a “resistant, oppositional, or confrontational environment in which
educators are fighting to control students and to exert their power, and students do not want to
feel controlled” (Milner, 2010, p. 24). Milner (2010) suggested that at the heart of this conflict is
how we define normal. Different cultures define normal in different ways and it is the
responsibility of teachers, who are in positions of power, to make clear the ways in which the
dominant culture expects students to behave in order to help students navigate within and
negotiate the dominant culture (Milner, 2010). Teachers should also empower students to
“challenge and question oppressive structures” (Milner, 2010, p. 26) while still learning to
operate in the current system. By being explicit, teachers can build partnerships between
themselves and their students (Milner, 2010).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 18

The third area that Milner (2010) describes is the myth of meritocracy. According to
Milner (2010), many educators are willing to recognize the role that poverty and lack of
resources can have as well as the ways this creates barriers for their students. Nevertheless, there
is still a misconception about class and the influence and impact that class can have on the
opportunities of students. The myth of meritocracy is the belief that an individual’s status and
success came about solely from hard work, ignoring the ways in which opportunities for some
have been passed down over generations (Milner, 2010). Additionally, teachers may not see the
ways in which “systemic barriers and institutional structures” (Milner, 2010, p. 30) may impede
success or block opportunity for some students. Milner (2010) asserted that it is difficult for
teachers to support the educational needs of students when the teachers do not understand the
ways in which economic realities for some students influence their educational opportunities.
According to Milner (2010), a mindset of deficits and low expectations suggests that
educators specifically see students’ deficits and what they “do not bring to the classroom” (p.
15). This lens can “make it difficult for educators to develop learning opportunities that
challenge students” (Milner, 2010, p. 35). Milner (2010) argued that without a focus on the
assets and strengths of students, educators may have difficulty in designing scaffolds that bridge
student assets with opportunities to learn. Additionally, when educators hold low expectations
and a deficit mindset, they can transfer those beliefs and expectations not just into their lessons
and instructional practices, but they can transfer a message of low expectations to students
(Milner, 2010). Holding low expectations prevents teachers from engaging students in the types
of critical thinking that will push student learning, creating what Milner (2010) describes as “an
unending cycle: educators do not teach with rigor and high expectations; students do not learn;
students test scores suffer; and then all involved wonder why” (p. 36).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 19

The final aspect of Milner’s (2010) framework is that of a context-neutral mindset.
Milner (2010) argued that social contexts play a significant role for both teachers and students in
creating opportunities. A context-neutral mindset fails to recognize “the realities embedded in a
particular place” (Milner, 2010, p. 37). Milner suggested that it is important for teachers to
understand that social contexts both shape and influence opportunities. Without understanding
the social context within which teachers work, strong subject matter and content knowledge will
not be sufficient to meet the needs of students (Milner, 2010). This is true even in settings that
are largely White since all students will “experience matters of race and diversity in the world
they inhabit and inherit” (Milner, 2010, p. 40).
Bartolomé conducted a study, the purpose of which was to capture “how some teachers
figure out that teaching is not an apolitical undertaking” (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 101) and how these
teachers are able to both recognize and address the ways that uneven power structures exist in
order to support their students’ learning experiences and potential. Bartolomé (2004) argued that
teachers hold unexamined beliefs and attitudes about the existing social order that perpetuate
dominant ideologies that could be damaging to students. Bartolomé theorized that without
political and ideological clarity, teachers may not critically examine the status quo and accept it
as natural, possibly accepting and utilizing teaching and learning practices that are assimilationist
in nature and perpetuate views that are deficit-based rather than utilizing counter-hegemonic
practices that are “culturally responsive, integrative, and transformative” (Bartolomé, 2004, p.
100).
In this study, Bartolomé (2004) selected four educators to examine because they were
known to be successful in their work with minority students, specifically Mexicano/Latino
students. Bartolomé selected these educators from a high school in southern California that was
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 20

18 miles north of the Mexican border. The high school was diverse both culturally and
linguistically. The educators included the principal and three teachers and had a range of
experience from 8 to 25 years. Bartolomé (2004) interviewed each participant once and utilized
an interview protocol with open-ended questions.
There were four findings from this study. First, the educators believed the success of their
students could be attributed to the ability of the personnel at the school to both create and
maintain an environment that was caring as well as a “level playing field” for the students who
have been historically marginalized (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 102). Second, Bartolomé (2004) found
that all four educators were able to question, to varying degrees, dominant ideologies, like the
myth of a meritocracy; this included rejecting “deficit views of their students” (p. 102). The
teachers did not automatically believe that people got ahead only by hard work; they recognized
that there was an element of luck involved and that circumstances played a role in the success of
individuals (Bartolomé, 2004). Additionally, the four educators rejected a deficit view of their
students (Bartolomé, 2004).
Third, Bartolomé (2004) found that the educators in this study were able to question
views of dominant White, middle-class mainstream culture. Their ability to contest the dominant
culture included participating in what Bartolomé (2004) labeled “cultural border crossing” (p.
102). Bartolomé (2004) described cultural border crossing as having experiences with being
situated as low status or else a witness to “someone else’s subordination” (p. 102). Through the
experience of cultural border crossing and questioning the dominant culture, the educators did
not fall prey to the common trap of comparing poor minority students with a middle-class, White
standard (Bartolomé, 2004). In this study, Bartolomé (2004) found that the educators were not
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 21

just able to effectively empathize with cultural “Others,” but worked towards equalizing uneven
power relations.
Finally, the educators in this study viewed being advocates for students as a central part
of their role, which included assisting students in negotiating school in ways that helped them
succeed (Bartolomé, 2004). Bartolomé (2004) found that the educators in this study worked to
deliberately demystify mainstream culture for their minority students in order that students could
more successfully navigate mainstream culture.
Philip (2011) was interested in analyzing individual teachers’ learning and transformation
using an “ideology in pieces” framework. Thus, he studied a group of five high-school science
and math teachers in order to examine the way that they made sense of their world and their
transformation as they participated in a university research group. The research group that he
worked with, one first-year teacher and four second-year teachers, met every 2 weeks throughout
the school year, beginning in October and ending in May. The teachers explored their own
research questions, as well as issues and concerns that arose from their practice. The research
group had a focus on issues of social justice. In addition to conducting the study, Phillip
facilitated the group.
In this article, Philip (2011) focused on one second-year math teacher, Alan, after
observing Alan’s participation and interaction within the group. Alan was a White male from an
upper-middle class, suburban background. Philip (2011) selected Alan to focus on specifically
because Alan’s self-generated research question changed the most over the course of the research
group’s interactions throughout the year. Alan’s question first emphasized a focus on the system
of schooling, then evolved to a question that framed students with a deficit model, and then
evolved again to focus on his classroom practice as well as issues at the school level (Philip,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 22

2011). Philip (2011) selected four episodes by which to trace and analyze Alan’s evolving
ideology. The data analyzed by Philip (2011) included Philip’s field notes, transcripts of the
audiotaped bi-weekly meetings, one email exchange between Alan and Philip, and an exit
interview.
In his observations of Alan, Philip (2011) found that Alan was able to “recognize racism
at the systemic level” (p. 311), but it was much more difficult for Alan to apply this recognition
to the context of his own teaching practice and classroom. According to Philip (2011), Alan was
able to see systemic racism within the school setting while still using dominant naturalized
axioms, for example when he made statements like “kids would rather play than work”(p. 311),
to explain student behavior within his own classroom.
Philip (2011) also found that, through the course of the yearlong research group, Alan
could rearticulate his understandings. Philip, as facilitator, and the teacher participants
functioned as an external loop for Alan. This process allowed him to shift his question from a
deficit-model, which Philip (2011) described as “teachers blaming students,” to eventually
allowing Alan to reflect on his assumptions and actions and rethink his own role as a teacher.
Philip’s (2011) theoretical framework of ideology in pieces helped to explain that without an
opportunity to reflect, teachers might apply their own commonsense understandings and
explanations of student behavior.
Philip defined ideology as something that is “socially shared and exists in a reflexive
relationship with the social systems or structures of which it is a part” (p. 300). In his work with
this group of teachers, Philip (2011) noticed that individuals sometimes held what appeared to be
conflicting ideologies across contexts; he believed this was because the teachers were not usually
required to reconcile these contradictions.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 23

Philip’s (2011) theoretical framework included elements of commonsense and
naturalized axioms. He defined commonsense as the “elements of sensemaking that people use
as self-evident, or, as unnecessary or difficult to further justify” (Philip, 2011, pp. 301-302).
Philip (2011) asserted that people make sense of the world through the filters of what they
describe as commonsense, which includes “taking socially communicated assumptions or
experiences of others for granted” (p. 302). Philip (2011) utilized a term called naturalized
axioms (italics in original) to describe “the category of cognitive elements of commonsense that
people use in their social sensemaking” (Philip, 2011, p. 302). These are naturalized because
they are socially constructed and so seem “natural, inevitable, universal, and ahistorical” (Philip,
2011, p. 302); they are axioms because they are seen as self-evident and true.
Rist’s (2000) study was originally published in 1970 and reprinted in 2000. The purpose
of his study was to examine the ways in which teacher expectations of students could influence
the structure of the classroom environment and could “give rise to the social organization of the
class” (p. 140). This study sought to understand the role of the kindergarten teacher’s
expectations of the academic potential of her students based on their social status and its
influence on the students’ academic experience and success in subsequent grade levels.
The methodology that Rist (2000) used included two weekly visits of 1.5 hours in one
kindergarten class throughout the whole school year. He continued with four informal visits of
these students during their first grade year as well as formal visits during their second grade year.
The difference between the formal and informal visits was that the formal visits included
handwritten notes of the activities and interactions that took place in the classroom. There were
no notes taken during the informal visits. Rist (2000) conducted interviews with both the
kindergarten and second grade teachers.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 24

Rist (2000) collected his data in an urban school in the late 1960s. The school served
grades kindergarten through eight and included about 900 students. There were 26 teachers on
staff. All of the administrators, teachers, staff, and students were Black. The teacher of the
kindergarten class, Mrs. Caplow, was raised in a home that valued middle class values such as
neat appearance, education, religion, and the use of Standard American English (Rist, 2000, p.
150). The teacher was married and active both in the community and in a local church. The
researcher did not state how he was assigned to the kindergarten class. There were 30 students in
the kindergarten class, whose backgrounds varied between students whose families were on
welfare and students who had one or two parents who were employed and did not need to rely on
public assistance. The students’ family backgrounds also varied by educational experience and
included parents who had some grade school or high school to parents who had gone to college.
Additionally, the backgrounds varied based on the size of the family, including number of
siblings and whether both parents were present in the home.
Rist (2000) observed that the kindergarten teacher placed the kindergarten students in a
permanent seating arrangement by the eighth day of school and arranged students at three
different tables. Rist (2000) stated that the teacher used four sources of information that were
available to her prior to the start of school. These sources included a pre-registration form, a list
of students whose families were receiving funds from public welfare, information from an initial
interview of the mother and child that took place either before the school year began or within
the first few days of school, and experiences that the teacher or her colleagues had with older
siblings. Rist (2000) highlighted that none of these sources of information that the teacher used
include cognitive information, though IQ test results of the students administered at the end of
their kindergarten year showed no statistical difference between the students.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 25

In determining the placement of students at table groups, the teacher also used her
observations of the students in the first few days of school. Rist (2000) noted that these included
the students’ “behavior, degree and type of verbalization, dress, mannerisms, physical
appearance, and performance on the early tasks assigned during class” (p. 145).
Rist (2000) noted that the students at the three table groups varied in four ways. The
students at Table 1 were neatly dressed, whereas students at Tables 2 and 3 were poorly dressed
in old and often dirty clothes (Rist, 2000). The students also varied in the ways in which they
interacted with the teacher. Students at Table 1 demonstrated leadership qualities and were
comfortable in their interactions with the teacher (Rist, 2000). Students from Tables 2 and 3,
however, demonstrated that they were not as comfortable interacting with the teacher, as
evidenced by Rist’s (2000) observations of them lingering on the outskirts of the group of
students around the teacher.
The third way in which the students at the table groups differed was in how they used
language. Students at Table 1 were more likely to use Standard American English, which was in
line with the language use of the teacher (Rist, 2000). Furthermore, students at Table 1 were
more likely to respond to the teacher’s questions. Rist observed that the students at Table 1 were
three times more likely to answer the teacher’s questions than students at Tables 2 and 3. Finally,
the students at Table 1 differed from those at Tables 2 and 3 in terms of social factors, such as
the conditions of their family of origin, that were known to the teacher before school started
(Rist, 2000).
Rist (2000) concluded that these four criteria influenced the expectations that the teacher
held about her students’ likely academic performances. She used these expectations to group “the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 26

children according to perceived similarities in expected performance” (Rist, 2000, p. 148).
Again, she made these decisions by the eighth day of school.
Additionally, Rist (2000) found that the teacher used the students from Table 1 as
examples of good behavior and student success that students from Tables 2 and 3 should follow.
Rist (2000) also observed that the teacher focused her attentions and efforts on students at Table
1. For example, Rist (2000) noticed that the teacher typically utilized the chalkboard space
directly in front of the students at Table 1 to demonstrate problems of arithmetic as well as to
draw illustrations. Rist (2000) also noted in an hour long observation of the teacher with her
students that “not a single act of communication was directed towards any child at either Table 2
or 3 by the teacher except for twice commanding “sit down”” (p. 152). In Rist’s (2000) interview
with the kindergarten teacher, the teacher stated that
It seems to me that some of the children at Table 2 and most all the children at Table 3 at
times seem to have no idea of what is going on in the classroom and were off in another
world all by themselves. It just appears that some can do it and some cannot. I don’t think
that it is the teaching that affects those that cannot do it, but some are just basically low
achievers. (p. 152)
This statement by the teacher illustrated one way in which the teacher was dismissive of the
students from Tables 2 and 3. The teacher’s belief system shaped the way she treated the
students, which influenced the students’ academic experiences (Rist, 2000).
Rist (2000) also observed that the students “responded to the stimuli of the teacher” (p.
152). For example, he observed students at Table 1 ridiculing students at Tables 2 and 3. The
students at Table 1 sought to align themselves with the teacher and they encouraged the students
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 27

from Tables 2 and 3 to do the same. Rist (2000) found that students internalized the behaviors
and attitudes of the teacher towards the remaining students.
Rist (2000) found that the teacher ignored the students at Tables 2 and 3 so that she could
focus on the learning needs of the students at Table 1. In so doing, the teacher’s bias created a
disadvantageous learning environment for the students at Tables 2 and 3. Students at Tables 2
and 3 were observed interacting among themselves in order to make sense of the material the
teacher presented. Rist (2000) termed this “secondary learning” and described this as knowledge
that “was not gained in direct interaction with the teacher, but through the mediation of peers and
also through listening to the teacher though she was not speaking to them” (p. 153). Students at
Tables 2 and 3 had fewer opportunities to verbalize the knowledge they were acquiring. Rist
(2000) found that “from the teacher’s terms of reference, those who could not discuss must not
know” (p. 153). While the students began the school year with social differences and not
cognitive differences, Rist (2000) concluded that the teacher’s expectations, which were based
on non-cognitive factors, shaped the students’ learning experiences and eventual academic
performances. The students began to live up to the low expectations that the teacher set for them
(Rist, 2000).
In her study, Hatt (2011) investigated the way that smartness was defined and enacted by
a teacher and her teaching assistant. Her original research questions included “Who has power?
How is it enacted? What actions in the classroom constitute ‘privilege’ and how is privilege
negotiated” (Hatt, 2011, p. 7). In Hatt’s (2011) initial observations, however, she began to pay
attention to the way in which the teacher and teacher’s assistant interpreted the school readiness
of their students and shifted her study to focus on exploring the teacher and her assistant’s
interpretations of smartness. In this case, Hatt (2011) observed the ways in which a teacher and
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 28

the teacher’s assistant defined, enacted, and shaped smartness in a classroom of kindergarten
students. Hatt (2011) observed that while she defined smartness based on the ways in which
students showed their academic knowledge, she noticed that the teacher and the teacher’s
assistant appeared to connect smartness with “behavior and class- and race-based expectations”
(p. 8).
Hatt’s (2011) study was conducted in a kindergarten class in a school that was located in
a semirural town in the southeastern United States. The school was selected because the
population included a mix of students from working-class and minority backgrounds as well as
from the university community nearby. The demographic of students within the kindergarten
class included 15 White students and 10 Black students. The kindergarten teacher was a White,
middle-class teacher in her fourth year of teaching. Additionally, there was a female teaching
assistant in the classroom who was also a White and middle-class. The teacher and teaching
assistant had worked together for 3 years.
The author collected the data for the study (Hatt, 2011). Data collection methods included
observations, interviews, and a review of documents. Hatt (2011) conducted a total of 37
interviews, including both structured and unstructured interviews of “teachers, 10 parents, and all
students in the classroom” (p. 9). For the first 9 weeks of school, Hatt (2011) followed a similar
work schedule as that of the teachers. From the 10th week of school through the winter break,
Hatt (2011) followed the same hours as the teacher, but attended 3 days a week. After winter
break, Hatt (2011) observed 1 or 2 days a week. She spent over 865 hours in the classroom.
Hatt (2011) found that the teacher and the teacher’s assistant equated good behavior with
smartness. Both the teacher and teacher’s assistant reinforced good behavior by complimenting
students who demonstrated approved behaviors on how smart they were (Hatt, 2011). The
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 29

teacher instituted a “Shoe Tyer’s Club” for those kindergarten students who were able to tie their
shoes. Hatt (2011) noted that neither the teacher nor the teacher’s assistant taught the students
how to tie their shoes nor would they assist the students in tying their shoes. Both the teacher and
her assistant expected the students to learn how to tie their shoes at home. Hatt (2011) found that
“children able to tie their shoes were framed as smart” (p. 14). On the first day of school, Hatt
(2011) observed the teacher as she watched a girl tie her own shoes. When the student was done,
the teacher said, “You’re so smart! Did you tie your shoe by yourself? We have a Shoe Tyer’s
Club. You’re gonna be a part of it. Two thumbs up!” (Hatt, 2011, p. 14). This was one example
of the teacher framing a student who could tie her shoes as smart (Hatt, 2011).
Additionally, Hatt (2011) observed that there was a connection between those students
who were labeled by the teacher and her assistant as smart and those students who earned extra
rewards. Students who were labeled as smart for good behavior were rewarded with some power
within the classroom through classroom jobs, and additional autonomy in the classroom. Those
who were not identified and labeled as smart did not earn extra privileges (Hatt, 2011).
Identifying and labeling students as smart based on their behavior influenced the choices that
both the teacher and the teacher assistant made.
Hatt (2011) also found that smartness was linked not just with behavior but with being
White, as well. Hatt (2011) found that the teacher’s “race- and class-based stereotypes had
significant implications for which students were identified as smart” (p. 12). As an example, the
teacher and teacher’s assistant were looking for someone who made “good choices” (Hatt, 2011,
p. 11) and the assistant suggested a White girl by the name of Natalie. Hatt (2011) observed an
African American girl saying that she always made good choices; this girl was overlooked by the
teacher and her assistant. Additionally, White middle class boys who were misbehaving in class
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 30

did not get noticed by the teacher whereas the Black males typically got in trouble first and were
given the most severe punishments (Hatt, 2011).
In conclusion, teachers’ beliefs and expectations of students’ potential, whether they
believe their students have potential for success or teachers’ deficit mind-set, influences the
instructional choices that they make within the classroom (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010; Rist,
2000). Furthermore, the ideologies that teachers hold influence not just their instructional
choices, but the ways in which they structure the classroom environment and organize the
students and their learning experiences (Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2000). These choices, in turn, influence
the ways in which students interact with each other (Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2000). In order to
understand how teachers’ beliefs and expectations might influence their instruction, I needed to
understand the type of climate in which teachers could make students feel safe enough to take
intellectual risks that would allow them to collaboratively explore literature for the purpose of
making meaning. I also needed to understand the ways in which teachers could support students’
positive interactions with each other. In order to do this, I turned to the research on classroom
climate.
Classroom Climate
To be able to understand the features of classroom climate that would support the social
exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning of text, I needed to understand how
classroom climate had been explored and studied. Rosiek (2003) explained that the work of
teaching includes working with both the cognitive and the affective domains. Emotion is a part
of learning and, therefore, plays a role in the classroom climate. Education and learning are not
about memorizing facts and understanding concepts (Rosiek, 2003). According to Matsumura,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 31

Slater, and Crosson (2008), a positive classroom climate is “one that promotes respectful, caring
relationships, cooperation, and emotional safety” (p. 295).
In order to understand how a teacher might create a climate that fostered the social
exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning, I structured my examination of
classroom climate to look first at the connection between positive classroom climates, rigorous
instruction and intellectual risk-taking. Next, I examined the role of emotions in learning and
classroom climate to help me understand the way that emotions in learning might contribute to a
classroom climate that supported the social exploration of literature. Finally, I looked at the way
in which teachers influence classroom climate and student learning through creating positive
relationships with students.
Matsumura et al. (2008) examined the link between classroom climate and rigorous
instructional practices. This study focused specifically on the link between rigorous instruction
and positive learning environments, as well as the frequency and quality of the participation of
students in classroom discussions (Matsumura et al., 2008).
The researchers in this study defined a positive classroom climate as “one that promotes
respectful, caring relationships, cooperation, and emotional safety” (Matsumura et al., 2008, p.
295). In examining rigorous instruction, Matsumura et al. (2008) looked specifically for
instruction that invited students into classroom discussions around content that was academically
challenging; this was evidenced by the co-construction of knowledge between students and the
teacher, where students and their teacher built on and extended thinking and included evidence to
support their ideas.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 32

The research questions that guided Matsumura et al. (2008) were:
1. What are the relative contributions of classroom climate and the quality of
curriculum and instruction to the degree of respect that students exhibit toward
one another in the classroom?
2. What are the relative contributions of classroom climate and the quality of
curriculum and instruction to the rate and quality of students’ participation in
class discussions? (p. 297)
Matsumura et al. (2008) conducted their study in 34 sixth and seventh grade classrooms.
The classrooms were in middle schools in medium-sized urban districts on the East Coast. Each
district served predominantly low-income, minority families. Most of the students in the study
(81%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Matsumura et al., 2008). The 34 teachers
included 21 English language arts teachers and 13 teachers of mathematics. The students were
ethnically diverse, with 46.4% Latino, 23.2% African American, 18.7% White, 10.1% Asian,
and 1.1% Native American or other students (Matsumura et al., 2008).
The research team consisted of the first two authors of the article as well as two graduate
students in mathematics education (Matsumura et al., 2008). The research team conducted two
observations on consecutive days in all but four of the teachers’ classrooms; the other four
teachers were only observed once due to scheduling conflicts. Observations were conducted by
teams of two researchers. When conducting the observations, the researchers did not participate
in lessons, but rather took field notes on their observations of the interactions of the teacher and
students. They collected classroom documents for lessons, such as handouts of directions or
assignment criteria lists. Following the classroom observation, the researchers would analyze,
compare, and code their field notes, thereby resolving any dilemmas around coding on the same
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 33

day of the observation (Matsumura et al., 2008). The researchers used rubrics of four point scales
in order to code classroom climate, rigor of instruction, rigor of discussion, rigor of the
curricula/task materials, rigor of lesson activity, rigor of expectations for student learning, clarity
and detail of expectations for student learning, and access to expectations (Matsumura et al.,
2008).
Matsumura et al. (2008) found that there was an association between teachers showing
students respect and students showing each other respect. Additionally, the researchers found a
connection between visibly posting clear rules for prosocial behavior and the number of students
who participated in class discussion (Matsumura et al., 2008). The researchers also found that
there was a connection between the frequency with which teachers pushed students to offer
evidence to support their assertions and the quality of the rigor of class discussions (Matsumura
et al., 2008). Furthermore, Matsumura et al. (2008) observed that the rigor of discussions was
related to the degree in which students supported “their contributions with evidence” (p. 304).
In describing observations of two separate teachers and their interactions with their
classes, Matsumura et al. (2008) were able to demonstrate two ends of the spectrum, one with a
low level of rigor, as evidenced by a lack of focus on text in discussions, and a competitive, non-
supportive classroom climate and the other with a high level of rigor, as evidenced by student
contributions that focused on text and where students built on each other’s ideas as well as
demonstrated a positive, supportive classroom climate. Matsumura et al. (2008) demonstrated
that in the classroom with a high level of rigor and a positive classroom climate, the teacher had
explicitly taught as well as modeled student norms for positive classroom participation. Students
contributed regularly, building on and extending each other’s ideas. The students listened to each
other and were able to agree and disagree with one another respectfully (Matsumura et al., 2008).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 34

In the other classroom, however, Matsumura et al. (2008) observed that the teacher created a
competitive atmosphere and did not provide academically rigorous instruction. The teacher in the
other classroom teased students and implied that there were students who were not “smart”
(Matsumura et al., 2008, p. 307) and, therefore, the class activity would be difficult.
According to Matsumura et al. (2008), their research demonstrated that there was a
connection between the “quality of classroom climate and rigor of learning activities” (p. 309). A
positive classroom climate and rigorous learning activities seemed to strengthen each other,
thereby contributing to a positive student learning experience (Matsumura et al., 2008). The
researchers found that there was a correlation between the level of respect the teacher showed the
students and the types of interactions students had with each other; when teachers showed
respect to students, students showed respect to each other (Matsumura et al., 2008). They also
found that the students used the discourse style of the teacher and that “teachers serve as
exemplars of behavior” (Matsumura et al., 2008, p. 310). Additionally, Matsumura et al. (2008)
found positive classroom climates that had low level of rigor in academic instruction, but found
no negative classroom climates that also achieved a high level of rigorous academic instruction.
Meyer and Turner (2006) reexamined earlier research that they had conducted in
classrooms in order to offer new thoughts and insights into how teachers and students
collaboratively created “positive classroom climates for learning” (p. 378). Through their
reexamination they considered the role that emotions played in creating classroom climates and
suggested that emotions rose out of the classroom climate, helped to create the climate, and
affected learning and behavior (Meyer & Turner, 2006).
Meyer and Turner (2006) discussed the way their previous work taken together caused
them to draw the following conclusions: First, they determined that positive emotions were
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 35

identifiers for “highly supportive instructional interactions as well as positive classroom
climates” (p. 379). Second, Meyer and Turner (2006) concluded that motivating instruction was
associated by students with positive emotional support on the part of teachers, including caring
statements and a positive classroom climate. And third, Meyer and Turner (2006) determined
that students’ perceptions of positive teacher support and classroom climate as well as helpful
instructional interactions by teachers were connected to perceived mastery goal structures.
Rosiek (2003) examined work on teachers’ practical knowledge and asserted that the
work of teaching was not limited to the cognitive domain; it also included students’ affective
responses to learning. As such, he made three assertions. He began by asserting that it is
important to acknowledge that teachers have practical knowledge around students’ emotional
responses and that this has been empirically justified (Rosiek, 2003). Next, Rosiek (2003)
pointed out that scholars from a variety of educational fields have confirmed the role of emotions
in learning processes. Specifically, Rosiek (2003) drew on earlier work by Dewey (1931/1988 as
cited in Rosiek, 2003) as well as Bandura (1997 as cited in Rosiek, 2003), Vygotsky (1997 as
cited in Rosiek, 2003), and Noddings (1984, 1992 as cited in Rosiek, 2003) to support the
affirmation of the role that emotions play in the learning process. Finally, Rosiek (2003) asserted
that “teaching is a caring profession” (p. 400) and it was a moral imperative that teachers be
encouraged to respond to the emotional experiences of students. Rosiek (2003) asserted that it
was especially significant that teachers consider the emotional needs of students “who find
themselves on the cultural margins of school culture, pushed out, chronically unsuccessful, or
otherwise disadvantaged” (p. 400).
Rosiek (2003) drew on data from several teacher collaborative projects that occurred over
a 10 year span of time through the Stanford Teacher Education Program. During this period of
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 36

time, different groups of teachers met regularly, usually weekly over the course of a year’s time.
In these meetings, they examined various ways in which they, as teachers, scaffolded student
learning. The initial research group of teachers determined a variety of ways in which they
scaffolded student learning; one aspect of scaffolding that they identified across content areas
was a form of emotional scaffolding (Rosiek, 2003). They based this analysis on the work of
Vygotsky (1997 as cited in Rosiek, 2003). After the initial group of teachers identified emotional
scaffolding as a part of their work, future teacher research groups examined the data and
continued to build on the concept of emotional scaffolding (Rosiek, 2003).
Using Vygotsky (1997 as cited in Rosiek, 2003), Rosiek defined scaffolding as “the ways
teachers help students cognitively frame their learning experienced” (p. 401). He then drew on
the data gathered through the use of four separate examples to demonstrate that there were four
intersecting and related ways in which teachers provided emotional scaffolding (Rosiek, 2003).
Teachers could provide either implicit or explicit scaffolds; additionally, they could reduce
unconstructive emotions or increase constructive emotions (Rosiek, 2003). Teachers could
implicitly encourage a particular emotional response to a lesson by connecting the lesson to
things that students would recognize or find engaging (Rosiek, 2003). Alternatively, Rosiek
(2003) suggested that teachers could explicitly facilitate an emotional response by calling
attention to ways in which engaging in an activity could be beneficial to the students’ learning.
In describing constructive and unconstructive emotions, Rosiek (2003) articulated that
unconstructive was not meant to refer to emotions that might make a student uncomfortable; he
asserted that sometimes uncomfortable emotions could be used to facilitate constructive learning
experiences. Rather, unconstructive emotions, according to Rosiek (2003), were emotions that
could somehow serve to distract or deter students from the learning experience.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 37

Rosiek (2003) cautioned against oversimplifying human emotions and the learning
experience and suggested that characterizing emotional scaffolding through implicit or explicit
and constructive or unconstructive methods was a way of understanding and describing
emotional scaffolds, but that context was critical in understanding how emotions were shaped in
learning experiences within classrooms.
Allen et al. were interested in the qualities of instructional support and features of
positive classroom climates that supported the learning of adolescents (2013). They sought to
examine the features of interactions that occurred between teachers and students in order to
determine if features of interactions were predictive of student achievement (Allen et al., 2013).
The goals of the study were to:
1. Examine whether a broad, molar, observational measure of the quality of teacher-
student interactions could predict achievement in classrooms at the secondary level
across diverse content areas.
2. To the extent the first goal was met, examine the 10 individual dimensions of the
Classroom Learning Assessment Scoring System-Secondary tool (CLASS-S)
observation tool to try to identify specific qualities of teacher-student interactions
linked to future student achievement and to do so at a level of granularity sufficient to
guide future research on specific teaching practices.
3. Provide a balanced picture to school personnel by assessing not only qualities of
teacher-student interactions that predicted student performance (after accounting for
prior performance levels), but also to identify the extent to which certain qualities of
teacher-student interactions appeared largely determined by student academic skills
upon entry into the teacher’s classroom. (Allen et al., 2013, p. 80)
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 38

This study was conducted in classrooms in 11 schools throughout six school districts. It
included 37 classrooms comprised of a total of 643 students. Students could participate only if
their parents gave informed consent and students gave informed assent. Teacher participants also
gave informed consent as well as selected a class that they felt was challenging to teach. The
classes that participated included the content areas of math, science, history, social studies, and
English. All classes in the study were at the secondary level, though specific grade levels were
not stated (Allen et al., 2013).
Researchers utilized the CLASS-S to focus on “broad patterns of interactions” (Allen et
al., 2013, p. 78). The CLASS-S tool was modified from an earlier version used at the elementary
level in order to precisely examine the interactions that the researchers hypothesized were
specifically significant to adolescent academic achievement (Allen et al., 2013). The tool was
used to observe emotional support, classroom organization, instructional support, student
achievement, and the characteristics of students, teachers, and classrooms (Allen et al., 2013).
The observations of emotional support were broken down into observing for features of positive
climate, such as a “sense of connectedness” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 81) and negative climate.
Observations of emotional support also included examining “Teacher Sensitivity” and “Regard
for Adolescent Perspectives” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 81). Classroom organization observations
were organized into “Behavior Management,” “Productivity,” and “Instructional Learning
Formats” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 81). The observations of instructional support were broken down
into observing for features of “Content Understanding,” “Analysis and Problem Solving,” and
“Quality of Feedback” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 81). For the purposes of this dissertation, I focused
specifically on the findings of Allen et al. (2013) in relation to the emotional support and
instructional support domains.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 39

Observations occurred between the fourth and eighth week of school to capture the
interactions between teacher and students so that they could observe the way the interactions
looked before they were influenced by the cycles of interaction between the students and the
teachers (Allen et al., 2013). The participating teachers videotaped a 40 minute class session in
which they were teaching and interacting with students, as opposed to administering a test (Allen
et al., 2013). There was a team of undergraduate and graduate students who were trained to code
the observed lessons using the CLASS-S system. Training involved a 2-day workshop and
coders were required to pass a reliability test by scoring master-coded tapes and achieving a
score that was within one point on 80% of five scored videoed lesson segments (Allen et al.,
2013).
The researchers found that each of the three domains of teacher-student interaction
(emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support) were “predictive of higher
student achievement test scores at the end of the year” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 86); this was true
across content areas. The researchers also found that positive classroom climate, the sensitivity
of the teacher, and the regard that the teacher held for the perspectives of adolescents
demonstrated “significant predictions of achievement” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 88).
Additionally, Allen et al. (2013) found that in the domain of Emotional Support, several
elements interacted and were tied to student achievement. These elements included the ability of
a teacher to create a positive classroom climate; the sensitivity of the teacher to addressing the
needs of the students; and the ability of the teacher to structure the classroom climate and the
lessons “in ways that recognize adolescents’ needs for a sense of autonomy and control, for an
active role in their learning, and for opportunities for peer interaction” (Allen et al., 2013, p. 92).
Furthermore, Allen et al. (2013) also found that the interaction between teachers creating
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 40

learning experiences that engaged adolescents both emotionally and intellectually were most tied
to achievement.
Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) considered the connection between cognition and
emotion by examining advances in neuroscience and current understanding of the brain and
emotion. Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) drew on their existing brain research and used
this to theorize about how the connection between emotions and learning is relevant in an
educational context, specifically in the way that teachers construct the classroom climate for
student learning. They suggested that educators do not consider carefully, if at all, the connection
between the types of learning required in school, “including reasoning, decision making, and
processes related to language, reading, and mathematics” (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007,
p. 3), and the role of emotions in learning. They illustrated that the types of higher level
cognitive functions that are the focus of education, such as language processes and reasoning,
cannot be separated from emotion (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). Immordino-Yang and
Damasio (2007) asserted that if teachers better understood the connection between emotions and
learning, they would be able to use that understanding in order to create classroom climates that
facilitate learning. The authors further argued that emotions provide support for cognition and
application (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007).
Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) found that the types of cognitive demands that
were most frequently required in school “are both profoundly affected by emotion and in fact
subsumed within the processes of emotion” (p. 7). Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007)
acknowledged that learning in sociocultural contexts was not a new idea and offered research in
neurobiology that demonstrated the relationship between emotions and learning. Immordino-
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 41

Yang and Damasio (2007) asserted that educators must recognize and utilize the connection
between emotions and learning in order to facilitate learning in the classroom.
According to Davis (2006), teachers play a critical role in shaping students’ “social and
intellectual experiences” (p. 193). By creating supportive relationships, teachers could design a
classroom climate that promotes intellectual risk-taking (Davis, 2006). The purpose of this article
was to focus specifically on four intersecting elements that created what Davis (2006) called a
“press on teacher-student relationship dyads” (p. 195). These intersecting elements included the
teacher, the individual student, student peer relationships, and the connected relational culture
between the classroom and the school (Davis, 2006). Davis (2006) used these four elements to
create a “framework for understanding relationship quality” (p. 195) between teachers and their
students at the middle school level.
Davis (2006) and her research team conducted a mixed-methods study in a rural
elementary school that included 903 students and 45 teachers. The mixed-method study included
case studies of six teachers and six students as well as surveys of two teams of students per grade
level, grades 6, 7, and 8 (Davis, 2006). The teams of students included five core academic
classes per team with approximately 150 students in each team. Survey data were collected from
students four times per year (Davis, 2006). The teachers were surveyed three times per year
(Davis, 2006). The author and her research team interviewed six students and six teachers as well
as collected journal data from 28 homeroom teachers within the school. The author and her
research team drew from theories of attachment, motivation, and sociocultural theory in their
inductive analysis of the journal and interview data.
Through this research, Davis (2006) found that teachers varied in their level of valuing
and attending to both the classroom climate and the development of relationships with students;
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 42

to some teachers, classroom climate and building relationships with students was a central
component of their role as teachers, but other teachers saw this as superficial. The six teachers
who were interviewed had been identified by their principal for their ability to relate to students.
Davis (2006) found that these teachers viewed their students with optimism and believed that
their role as teacher was central to nurturing student potential (Davis, 2006). In contrast, Davis
(2006) found in the journals of teachers who had not been identified by the principal as being
effective at developing rapport with students that several of these teachers were conflicted about
whether interpersonal relationships with students were “central or superficial to their tasks as
teachers” (p. 210).
Additionally, Davis (2006) found that the teachers who valued building relationships with
students believed that they were better able to challenge students to attempt more rigorous work
because they had good relationships with students. Davis (2006) believed that the value that the
teachers held for building relationships with students was likely to influence the type of
classroom climate that the teachers were able to create and that this, in turn, was likely to
influence the students’ learning experiences. Furthermore, Davis (2006) found that the beliefs
that teachers held about their abilities as teachers as well as the expectations that they held for
students impacted both their instruction and the interactions that they had with students.
Valenzuela (1999) examined schooling, which she argued was not the same as education.
Schooling, according to Valenzuela, was a process that occurs when schools are “organized
formally and informally in ways that fracture students’ cultural and ethnic identities, creating
social, linguistic, and cultural divisions among the students and between the students and staff”
(p. 5). The purpose of Valenzuela’s study was to explore the connection between student
achievement and the academic orientation of students, particularly in Mexico-born immigrants
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 43

and U.S. born Mexican American students, and schooling. Valenzuela (1999) drew on literature
in the areas of social capital theory, subtractive assimilation, and caring and education.
Valenzuela (1999) explained the difference between two types of teacher caring. First, there was
aesthetic caring, which was an expectation on the part of teachers that students show that they
were committed to the abstract concept of schooling. Authentic caring, on the other hand, was a
type of caring that focuses on “relations of reciprocity between teachers and students”
(Valenzuela, 1999, p. 61).
Valenzuela (1999) conducted a mixed method study and utilized a “modified
ethnographic approach” (p. 6) over a 3 year period. The purpose of collecting both qualitative,
ethnographic data and quantitative data was to produce “a rich, multilayered account of the
relationship between schooling and achievement” (Valenzuela, 1999, p. 7). She collected data at
a high school in Houston, Texas. Valenzuela (1999) operated as a participant observer in the
school. Additional qualitative data included field notes as well as informal, open-ended
interviews with parents, students, teachers, administrators, and community members. Interviews
with students occurred both individually and in group formats. Quantitative data collection
methods included a survey that Valenzuela (1999) administered to the entire student body of
2,281 students. She augmented this data with school and district data.
Valenzuela (1999) found that for adolescents, relationships were key in finding a way to
connect with their education. According to Valenzuela, teachers “play a decisive role in
determining the extent to which youth find the school to be a welcoming or an alienating place”
(p. 7). Valenzuela (1999) observed that some teachers expected that students showed that they
care about school, for example by dressing in a certain manner such as not wearing baggy
clothing. Students, on the other hand, expressed a preference for being treated as an individual
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 44

and shown respect and care (Valenzuela, 1999). Valenzuela (1999) found that when teachers and
students did not have the same understanding of school, then “a mutual sense of alienation
evolves” (p. 62) between teachers and students.
In her observations of classes, Valenzuela (1999) noticed many students who did not
participate in discussions and asked one of the students about it. The student, Susana (all
participant names were pseudonyms) explained that it was easier to act like she did not care
rather than get treated as if she were dumb, either by her classmates or by the teacher. Susana’s
experiences with teachers in the past had made her feel unheard and stupid; for example, a
previous teacher had told her to stop asking questions. This type of experience led Susana to stop
participating in classes (Valenzuela, 1999). Valenzuela (1999) told Susana’s current teacher
about her experience and the current teacher, Mrs. Hutchins, expressed frustration and explained
that she had not been trained as a “social worker” (p. 72). Valenzuela (1999) noted that in this
case that both the teacher, Mrs. Hutchins, and the student, Susana, resisted entering a caring
relationship with each other. Valenzuela (1999) asserted that this resistance is not equal since a
lack of connection with the teacher would reinforce Susana’s sense of alienation and “her
willingness to remain even marginally mentally engaged will steadily erode (p. 73).
Valenzuela offered an additional example of a 12th grade student, Rodrigo, who elected
to take a regular track of classes rather than honors classes, though he had participated in honors
classes in his previous school and was extensively well read. At the time that Valenzuela
interviewed Rodrigo, as a senior, he was preparing to teach a class to 10 of his classmates in
multicultural literature because they had expressed interest in it and he was interested in teaching
the class and had obtained permission from the principal to do so. While Rodrigo could have
participated in honors classes, he chose not to participate because of his disappointment in high
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 45

school. Rodrigo expressed frustration with teachers’ low expectations, stating that certain
teachers did not hold high standards for “these kids” (Valenzuela, 1999, p. 98).
Valenzuela (1999) found that,
Whereas teachers demand caring about school in the absence of relation, students view
caring, or reciprocal relations, as the basis for all learning. Their precondition to caring
about school is that they be engaged in a caring relationship with an adult in school (p.
79).
One teacher, Mr. Lundgren, who was observed and interviewed by Valenzuela (1999),
demonstrated a positive model of authentic caring. He offered students multiple avenues for
demonstrating their knowledge, including allowing Spanish speaking students the opportunity to
turn in assignments in Spanish. Mr. Lundgren’s goal was to get students to write and he was
unconcerned which language students demonstrated their knowledge and writing in. Mr.
Lundgren also suggested that students need teachers who could show them the ways in which
what they learn in school could connect with their future and their expectations for their life
(Valenzuela, 1999).
In conclusion, in classrooms with positive climates, teachers are explicit about classroom
norms and model these norms in the way that they treat students (Allen et al., 2013; Matsumura
et al., 2008). There is a connection between the level of respect that the teacher demonstrates
toward his or her students and the level of respect that students show to each other (Matsumura
et al., 2008). Classroom climate, positive relationships between teachers and students, and
authentic care in which teachers’ demonstrate reciprocity are critical to students’ academic
achievement (Allen et al., 2013; Davis, 2006; Matsumura et al., 2008; Valenzuela, 1999). The
literature around classroom climate helped me to understand the kind of environment a teacher
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 46

had to foster in order to create the conditions for the social exploration of literature for the
purpose of making meaning, but it did not give me insight into the types of specific pedagogical
moves the teacher needed to make to create these conditions. I turned next to research in
pedagogy.
Pedagogy
In order to understand the role of discussion in secondary English, I needed to understand
the ways in which content area specialists scaffold students’ learning and participation in
learning activities. Additionally, I needed to understand how the pedagogy of discussion had
been studied and applied in the instruction of secondary English.
I structured my examination of pedagogy in secondary English to look first at ways that
the Zone of Proximal Development and then, more specifically, at the ways in which
sociocultural learning theory had been researched and applied to secondary English instruction. I
then examined how metacognition and reflection can be used to support student learning. Next, I
examined how students develop literary understanding and the ways in which teachers can
support students’ opportunities to develop literary understanding. I also examined the impact of
open-forum, dialogic discussion as a pedagogical tool for developing students’ literary
understanding.
In a chapter entitled, “A theory of assisted performance, Tharp and Gallimore (1988)
defined and explained four stages of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and the role of
the ZPD in assisted performance. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) assert that in all cultures and
societies, young children learn complex thinking and language skills before they ever attend
formalized schooling. They learn these skills through interactions with “more capable members
of the household to assist and regulate child performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 27).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 47

Through the assistance of more capable others, young children are able to complete tasks
that they would not be able to complete on their own. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) define the
area between what the child can do by him/herself and what he/she can do with the assistance of
a more capable other as the Zone of Proximal Development. According to Tharp and Gallimore
(1988), there are four stages in the ZPD. The four stages are:
1. Stage 1: Performance is assisted by more capable others
2. Stage 2: Performance is self-assisted
3. Stage 3: Performance is developed and automatized
4. Stage 4: Performance is de-automatized and the stages of the ZPD are repeated
For the purposes of this study, I will review the first two stages of the ZPD. The first
stage of the ZPD is the stage in which the performance of the child or learner is assisted by a
more capable other or others (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In this stage, the more capable other (a
parent or teacher) begins by modeling or offering directions to the child or student. Once the
child or student gains some competency with the activity, then the more capable other offers a
different kind of assistance, such as “questions, feedback, and further cognitive structuring”
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 33). Tharp and Gallimore (1988) describe various ways in which
the expert or more capable other can assist performance, perhaps by determining a way to
structure or break down the task into smaller goals and sub-goals and by “selecting appropriate
tools and materials” (p. 34) in order to structure the task so the child will achieve success.
In stage two of the ZPD, the child or learner is able to independently complete the task or
activity by self-directing or self-guidance through the task (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988), this stage is marked by self-speech; the child can be
observed overtly verbalizing the steps to accomplish the task.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 48

In addition to the stages of the Zone of Proximal Development, Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) describe the role of responsive assistance. They assert that earlier phases in the ZPD may
need frequent, more complex forms of assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and that the
assistance needs to be adapted to the needs of the child, in response to the level that the/she is
performing at and his/her needs as a learner. Furthermore, the capable other needs to assess the
needs of the learner, offering more independent responsibility when the learner is ready. Tharp
and Gallimore’s description (1988) of the first two stages of the Zone of Proximal Development
and the role of responsive assistance are useful when examining how English teachers
successfully enculturate students into the social exploration of literature. It is useful to examine
teacher instruction and modeling to determine the specific ways in which the teacher assists
performance in the social exploration of literature.
Smagorinsky (2013) theorized how sociocultural learning theory could be applied to
English classrooms to consider 1) how talking can be used “as a tool for thinking” (p. 193), 2)
the way in which emotion and thinking are connected, 3) that thinking is social in nature, and 4)
ways in which the zone of proximal development can be used within the English curriculum.
With respect to using speech as a tool for thinking, Smagorinsky (2013) argued that
teachers do not typically afford students sufficient opportunities to engage in exploratory talk,
the type of speech that allowed students to explore ideas without worrying about how the ideas
sound. This type of talk enabled students to generate and express meaning. He suggested instead
that teachers frequently require students to use “final draft speech” (p. 193) in school settings.
The use of final draft speech necessarily tended to produce less talk, therefore limiting students’
opportunities to “mov[e] inchoate thinking into a public, articulated form” that allows “the
thinking [to] undergo change” (Smagorinsky, 2013, p. 194). Smagorinsky (2013) asserted that
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 49

teachers could foster critical thinking by using “speech as a tool for generating new ideas” (p.
194).
Next, Smagorinsky (2013) asserted that emotions are a part of cognition and cannot be
separated from cognition. Therefore, if students have negative learning experiences, such as
being corrected for not speaking in final draft speech, then this may shut down students’ future
participation in the classroom. Thus, teachers should structure their classroom environments in
ways that promote and encourage empathy as well as respect for multiple perspectives
(Smagorinsky, 2013). This can be done by modeling and deliberately teaching students “how to
treat others respectfully” (Smagorinsky, 2013, p. 196).
Next, Smagorinsky (2013) asserted that cognition is a social process. Smagorinsky
(2013) explained that different cultures value different ways of thinking and that no culture’s
ways of thinking are superior to another, though certain culture’s ways of thinking are privileged
in schools. Smagorinsky (2013) argued that teachers should work to “create more hybrid
classrooms spaces that allow for broader legitimate participation in classroom activities” (p.
197). Smagorinsky (2013) asserted that building hybrid spaces is a meaningful way of promoting
a bridge between the experiences of home and the academic work in classrooms.
According to Smagorinsky (2013), just being in school was not enough to guarantee
academic growth; teachers needed to make activities personally meaningful as well as useful in
order for students to learn. Additionally, Smagorinsky (2013) argued that in order to build
meaning, teachers needed to facilitate students’ opportunities to engage in a dialogue that
connected personal experiences with their academic experiences. By grounding academic
experiences in personal experiences, “knowledge becomes refined as students learn in school
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 50

how to take what they know and create abstractions that they can then apply to new situations”
(Smagorinsky, p. 199).
Finally, Smagorinsky (2013) explored and connected the zone of proximal development
(ZPD) to the teaching of language arts. The ZPD is defined as “what the child is able to do in
collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 211, as
cited in Smagorinsky, 2013, p. 199). Smagorinsky (2013) explored a variety of contributing
factors that help teachers build the types of relationships that lead to successfully using the ZPD
as a scaffold. Some of these factors include:
• the learner’s prior experiences and framework for viewing the world;
• the history of the collaborator in grasping the purpose and process of the task;
• the degree of intersubjectivity between the two—i.e., the degree to which teacher and
learner agree on the definition of the task and one another’s roles in carrying it out;
• the specific actions of the collaborator in relation to learner and task;
• the degree to which the teacher and learner share an understanding of the cultural
tools employed to undertake the task;
• the social context that each constructs for the situation, and the history of activity that
each has had in prior social contexts that in turn frame their understanding of the
present circumstances;
• the cultural history of the school site that suggests the appropriateness of particular
ways of conducting school business. (Smagorinsky, 2013, p. 199)
Considering all of these contributing factors together, Smagorinsky (2013) argued that
the ZPD is more complicated than focusing solely on an “individual’s cognitive zone of
potential” (p. 200). Without considering these additional factors that help teachers to successfully
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 51

meet students in the ZPD, there could be a mismatch between the way teachers construct the
classroom as compared to the way in which students construct the classroom (Smagorinsky,
2013). Smagorinsky (2013) further argued that for teachers to effectively utilize the ZPD, they
must bridge the classroom dynamic to incorporate multiple perspectives. Smagorinsky (2013)
advocated that teachers position themselves as learners in the classroom and that they work to
learn and adapt to the needs of their students.
Pintrich (2002) examined the role and implications of metacognition in teaching,
learning, and assessing learning in the classroom. Pintrich (2002) asserted that metacognitive
knowledge encompasses an understanding of different general learning strategies so that the
learner can look at various tasks in order to determine which strategy would work for each task;
furthermore, the development of metacognitive knowledge would allow the learner an
understanding of the usefulness of each strategy and would incorporate an understanding of the
self as a learner. Pintrich (2002) then explored the ways in which strategic metacognitive
knowledge, an understanding of cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge could be used in teaching,
learning, and assessment.
First, Pintrich (2002) defined strategic knowledge as “knowledge of general strategies for
learning, thinking, and problem solving” (p. 220). Having knowledge of general strategies allows
students to determine which strategy to apply to a given cognitive task (Pintrich, 2002). Pintrich
(2002) suggested that there were three types of strategic knowledge involved in metacognition:
rehearsal, elaboration, and organizational knowledge. Furthermore, strategic metacognitive
knowledge offers learners a way for them to plan their approach to a cognitive task, monitor their
progress, and regulate “their learning and thinking” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 220).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 52

Next, Pintrich (2002) examined the importance of knowledge about cognitive tasks.
Pintrich (2002) asserted that it is not enough to have an understanding of the types of learning
strategies; learners also need to develop an understanding of the cognitive tasks so that they
know which learning strategy to apply to a specific task. Additionally, the learner also needs to
be able to recognize the situation, social context, and the cultural norms in order to determine
when to apply different strategies (Pintrich, 2002). Pintrich (2002) pointed out that strategic
knowledge is “knowledge that reflects the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the different strategies” (p. 221)
and asserted that knowing which strategies and how to utilize them might not be sufficient. He
asserted that learners also needed to know both when to use a strategy and why a particular
strategy would be more appropriate to a given cognitive task (Pintrich, 2002).
The third aspect of metacognitive knowledge that Pintrich (2002) examined was self-
knowledge. He suggested that learners need an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses
(2002). Additionally, Pintrich (2002) asserted that “if students do not realize they do not know
some aspect of factual, conceptual, or procedural knowledge, it is unlikely they will make any
effort to acquire or construct new knowledge” (p. 222). Without accurate self-knowledge and
awareness of the self, it is difficult to make adjustments (Pintrich, 2002) in how to approach to a
cognitive task. When students have an accurate understanding of their strengths and weaknesses
as learners, they can use that knowledge to approach their learning in different contexts and
adapt their approach based on their learning needs (Pintrich, 2002).
After examining strategic knowledge, knowledge of cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge
in metacognition, Pintrich (2002) discussed the implications for teaching, learning, and
assessment. First, Pintrich (2002) asserted that teachers need to explicitly teach for
metacognition. Rather than teaching metacognitive skills and strategies in isolation, however,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 53

Pintrich (2002) suggested that it would be more useful for teachers to identify the types of
metacognitive tools that they could integrate into their plans and then “teach and assess for the
use of this type of knowledge as they teach other content knowledge” (p. 223). Furthermore,
Pintrich (2002) stated that in addition to teaching metacognitive strategies and skills, it is
important to label these strategies and skills for students. His point was that “explicit labeling
and discussion helps students connect the strategies (and their names/labels) to other knowledge
they may already have about strategies” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 223). Pintrich illustrated that too
often, teachers embed metacognitive strategies and skills within their lessons but do so in an
implied way. When the instruction of metacognitive strategies and skills is implied rather than
explicit and transparent, some students may lack the recognition and understanding of the
strategy or skill and will not know or understand its use or efficacy (Pintrich, 2002).
Rodgers (2002) demonstrated that there is a call for systematic and reflective thinking
within education. She pointed out that there have been references in the literature, for example in
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), that refer to reflection, but
there has been no clear articulation of the difference between systematic and reflective thinking
from other kinds of thinking. There are four problems with not having clearly defined what we
mean by reflection (Rodgers, 2002).
First, Rodgers (2002) suggested that without clearly defining what was meant by
reflective thinking, it was hard to separate reflection from other kinds of thinking. What made it
different? Second, Rodgers (2002) asserted that without knowing exactly what was meant by
reflective thinking, how would we know when there was evidence of reflective thinking? She
pointed out that the difficulty in assessing a concept not clearly defined. The third problem that
Rodgers (2002) suggested was that without a clear definition of reflection, we have overlapping
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 54

terms that refer to reflection and it can be difficult to figure out if the terms mean the same thing
or something different. Finally, Rodgers stated that “without a clear sense of what we mean by
reflection, it was difficult to research the effects of reflective teacher education and professional
development (p. 843). Using the work of Dewey, Rodgers (2002) articulated the qualities of
reflective thinking as they applied to learning.
Rodgers (2002) explained that there are four criteria of reflection. First, reflection was “a
meaning-making process” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 845). Second, reflection was both systematic and
rigorous. Rodgers (2002) explained that in order for reflection to be both systematic and
rigorous, it must include being present to the experience, a description of the experience, an
analysis of the experience, and intelligent action/experimentation based on the experience. Third,
community and interaction with others were necessary elements of reflection. Rodgers (2002),
drawing on the work of Dewey, explained that the process of having to express one’s thoughts in
a community helped to illustrate “both the strengths and the holes in one’s thinking” (p. 856).
Fourth, in order to engage in reflection, there needed to be an attitude that valued the “personal
growth of oneself and others” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 845).
Rodgers (2002) asserted that engaging in the act of reflection created a bridge that helped
the learner transition from a state of disequilibrium to equilibrium. To be able to engage in
reflection, the learner must be present to the experience and open to the many ways in which the
experience could be interpreted (Rodgers, 2002).
Over the course of 8 years, Langer (1998) pursued two research strands within the area of
literary thinking and English instruction. The first strand of research focused on understanding
“the processes involved when people develop their literary understandings” (p. 17). The second
strand of research focused on exploring how teachers can use this understanding of the types of
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 55

processes that people use in literary thinking to strategically support students as they build their
literary understanding. For the purposes of this review, I will describe the data collection process
for both strands of research. I will then describe the first strand of research, including the
research questions and findings, and then the second strand of research, also including the
research questions and findings. Langer (1998) provided a “chronicle of studies and findings”
without detailing specifically how data were collected in the individual studies.
Langer conducted a series of related studies in both strands over the course of 8 years.
Besides Langer, there were 10 field researchers who collaborated in the classrooms of
approximately 50 teachers (Langer, 1998). The classrooms spanned grade levels from pre-
kindergarten through adults, though the majority of the work was done with teachers and
students in middle and high schools (Langer, 1998). The teachers and classrooms came from
schools in both inner cities as well as suburban communities “and included students from diverse
cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds” (Langer, 1998, p. 17). The researchers
collaborated with most of the teachers for a minimum of 2 years and some teachers participated
in the research for all 8 years (Langer, 1998). Data collected included transcripts from classroom
observations as well as interviews (Langer, 1998).
In the first research strand, Langer (1998) sought to understand the processes underlying
how people develop “literary understandings” (p. 17). The research questions for this strand
included:
1. How do people “make sense” when they engage in literary experience, and how do
these ways of reasoning differ when the purpose is primarily discursive (to gain or
share ideas)?
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 56

2. How do these ways of “making sense” (of envisionment building) play themselves
out in everyday classroom activities (reading, writing, discussing)?
3. What kinds of knowledge do students call upon to gain ideas?
4. What is the role of literary understanding in other course work?
5. How do “better” versus “poorer” readers (as judged by their teachers) engage in
literary experience? (Langer, 1998, p. 17)
By examining the transcripts of classroom discussions as well as interview data, Langer
(1998) found what she described as two “modes of thinking” (p. 17) in literary experiences.
These two modes are literary thinking and discursive thinking. Langer (1998) asserted that these
modes of thinking are “socially situated in that they’re related to the activity a person is engaged
in” (p. 17).
Langer described the first mode of thinking, literary thinking, as “exploring horizons of
possibilities” (p. 17). In the mode of exploring horizons of possibilities, Langer (1998) found that
people “explore emotions, relationships, motives, reactions” (p. 17). In the second mode of
thinking, discursive thinking, the purpose is to get or give ideas and information (Langer, 1998).
Langer (1998) referred to this as “maintaining a point of reference” (p. 17). Langer (1998) found
that in discursive thinking, people maintain a point of reference in order to focus on the topic of
the text, including relating the questions and ideas that they have to the text to the point of
reference. Langer (1998) asserted that “both modes help shape thinking because they affect the
kinds of ideas people consider as well as the kinds of meanings they might come away with” (p.
18). Langer (1998) found that understanding the two different modes of thinking as well as being
able to recognize shifts in students’ orientations towards literary text supported teachers in
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 57

making instructional decisions, including decisions about the types of questions they ask
students, in order to stimulate students thinking.
Through the earlier research studies, Langer (1998) and her team found four specific
stances that people use in exploring literary thinking. According to Langer (1998), each stance
offers “different perspectives on meaning” (p. 18). The four stances include “Entering in” the
story, “Moving through” the story, using the text as a way of “Examining what we know,” and
finally, “Taking a critical stance” (p. 18). Langer (1998) stated that each of the stances is
important in developing students’ literary understanding because the four stances “cooperatively
help enrich and complicate students’ understandings” (p. 18). Furthermore, Langer (1998)
asserted that understanding the stances is critical for teachers in order to recognize that students,
as readers, need “room to shift among their own knowledge and histories, the text, social
realities, the multi-voices of others, and their own imaginings” (p. 18). According to Langer
(1998), teachers can use this understanding to make pedagogical decisions that support moving
through the stances in order to develop literary understanding.
Langer (1998) observed that there was not one best way for teachers to develop this type
of meaning-making in students. Langer (1998) found that the students who were considered
better readers by their teachers made different meaning-making moves, such as examining and
reexamining their understandings of the text and related their examination to an evolving sense
of the whole text. On the other hand, the students who were not rated as highly by their teachers
as readers generally examined the texts in bits and pieces and did not seem to have a sense of the
text as a whole (Langer, 1998). Langer (1998) found that when participating in activities around
literature that students found to be “personally meaningful” (p. 19), the meaning-making abilities
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 58

and processes of the lower-rated students were more aligned with those students who were
considered higher-performing.
Additionally, Langer (1998) also looked at the ways in which students who participated
in these kinds of meaning-making activities in English classes were able to take these skills and
apply them in other disciplines. In order to do this, the researchers followed these students and
observed them in both science and social studies classes. Langer (1998) found that the students
who practiced exploring horizons of possibilities in English sometimes attempted to explore
horizons of possibilities in other disciplines as a way to make meaning of the concepts. The
students were usually stopped by the teachers in other disciplines (Langer, 1998).
In the second research strand, Langer (1998) sought to examine how knowing the
processes that underlie how people develop literary understandings can be used by teachers to
“support students’ thoughtful literary experiences” (p. 19). The research questions included:
1. What characterizes the classrooms where students think deeply and richly about
literature?
2. How do the teachers help students develop their own understandings, and how do the
students help each other? What does the instructional support look like?
3. What indices or knowledge do teachers rely on to make day-to-day decisions when
interacting with their students-as well as in doing long-range planning?
4. What is the role of traditional literary knowledge (e.g., literary elements, genres,
terminology) in these classes? What gets taught and learned? How?
5. How can notions of the thought-provoking literature classroom be used to support
literacy development in classes of linguistic and culturally diverse students?
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 59

Based on this strand of research, Langer (1998) described what she called an
“envisionment-building classroom” (p. 19). An envisionment-building classroom is one in which
. . . students have room to form and develop their own understandings, where they use
interactions with each other to explore ideas of their own, and where mutual support is
offered by students as well as teachers as part of the support network.” (Langer, 1998, p.
19)
Through the studies in this research strand, Langer (1998) observed how a classroom culture
develops in an envisionment-building classroom that allows students to have thoughtful
discussions and interactions around literature. Langer (1998) identified four critical features in
the culture of an envisionment-building classroom. These included:
1. Students are treated as lifelong meaning-makers
2. Questions are treated as part of the literary experience
3. Class meetings are treated as a time to develop understandings rather than receive
“right” answers
4. Multiple perspectives are used to enrich interpretation. (Langer, 1998, p. 20)
Langer (1998) found that in envisionment-building classrooms, conversations between
teachers and students were used collaboratively to explore ideas and build meaning.
Furthermore, Langer (1998) found that while this type of meaning making supported different
opinions, when differing opinions occurred, these were seen by students and teachers “as a way
to stimulate their thinking and suggest potentially interesting ideas to consider” (Langer, 1998, p.
20).
Langer (1998) found two kinds of instructional support that could make an envisionment-
building classroom work. These two types of support included support for participating in
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 60

discussion and support for literary thinking (Langer, 1998). Langer (1998) observed that
instructional support for participating in classroom discussions assisted students in the routines
of discussion. These supports made clear how to take turns and how to agree or disagree with
their classmates (Langer, 1998). Instructional support for literary thinking, on the other hand,
assisted students in “making themselves understood and sharpening, focusing, and extending
their ideas” (Langer, 1998, p. 20).
Langer (1998) explained that while the teachers in the project were open to building a
classroom culture that fostered this kind of thinking, she found that they were challenged to
sustain this type of classroom culture because they “were held back by well-established teaching
routines” (p. 20). Langer (1998) found that teachers needed access to different routines as well as
other options for student interaction in order to create and sustain an envisionment-building
classroom. The goal of these new routines and options, according to Langer (1998), was to focus
on ways that teachers could offer students to keep students engaged so that they were developing
their own individual understandings rather than accepting someone else’s understanding of the
text.
Langer (1998) identified five specific ways that teachers could foster this understanding
within the classroom. These included: “1) easing access before reading; 2) inviting initial
understandings; 3) supporting the development of interpretations; 4) inviting critical stances; and
5) stocktaking” (Langer, 1998, p. 21).
Langer (1998) also explored whether traditional literary knowledge would develop in an
envisionment-building classroom and found that literary elements and terms became “part of the
fabric of ongoing thought and communication” (p. 20) in an envisionment-building classroom.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 61

Teachers and students incorporated literary terms and elements as they became necessary and
useful in furthering the students’ discussions and understanding of the text.
Finally, Langer (1998) found that envisionment-building classrooms supported the
developing literacy of second language learners because these classrooms were language rich
environments that offered language learners a personally meaningful way of using language as
well as building literary understandings.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) conducted a 2 year study in order to examine how
discussion helps students to understand and connect to literature. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997)
were interested in examining “what teachers and their students do together” (p. 30) in secondary
English classrooms. They asserted that the curriculum as it is actually enacted is negotiated
between teachers and students (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). Specifically, they looked at
dialogic instruction and defined dialogic instruction as “a negotiation of meaning by and between
teacher and students” (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997, p. 30). The research questions included:
• What is instructional discourse generally like in eighth- and ninth-grade English and
language arts classes?
• How much instruction is recitation? How much consists of discussion and small-group
work?
• How much instruction is organized dialogically? Monologically?
• How does classroom discourse vary from middle to high school? By ability group? By
subject? Among urban, suburban, and rural schools?
• How do these practices affect student learning about literature? Which interactions are
appropriate and productive? (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997)
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 62

For the purposes of this dissertation, I will focus on their findings around instruction that is
dialogically organized rather than monologically organized as well as how these practices affect
student learning about literature.
In the first year of the study, the researchers (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997) studied eighth
grade English classrooms and in the second year they studied ninth grade English classrooms.
The researchers collected data in the mid-west in rural, suburban, and urban schools; mostly
from public schools, but also from private schools. The study included 16 middle and junior high
schools as well as 9 high schools (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). Typically, the researchers
collected data in four English classes per school, with observations in a total of 58 eighth grade
classes and 54 ninth-grade classes (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). They also observed classes by
track (high track or honors and lower track classes). There were a total of 1,041 eighth grade
students and 1,100 ninth grade students. Each class was observed twice in the fall semester and
twice in the spring semester for a total of four observations. The observers took notes, recording
and coding the questions of the teacher and students. The researchers also conducted surveys of
all students and teachers as well as interviews of teachers regarding their instructional methods,
including the context of the instruction.
The researchers utilized statistical techniques to examine effects of classroom practice
and how the instruction was organized on student achievement. Additionally, they administered a
literature-based test to each class in the spring. The literature tests for each class were designed
to ask the same types of questions to each class in the study, addressing five types of literature
the individual class had studied over the course of the year. These tests asked questions that
ranged from recall through depth of understanding.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 63

In examining how instruction was dialogically organized rather than monologically
organized, Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) began by asserting that classrooms were social
organizations and explored the ways in which people made sense of ideas, concepts, and
interactions in relation to their interactions with each other. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997)
theorized that our thoughts and understandings develop in relation to our responses to other
people, including how we predict and expect other people to respond. Nystrand and Gamoran
(1997) described a tension that occurred in the dialogic discussions that they observed in this
study; the tension did not have to be a conflict, though it could include conflict. The tension was
demonstrated when participants were responding to one another, building the dialogue together
(Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). The utterances and responses in a dialogic exchange built upon
each other and meaning was co-constructed (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997).
In contrast, Nystrand & Gamoran (1997) described the role of recitation and monologism
in classrooms, including the I-R-E structure. In the I-R-E structure, the teacher initiated (I) the
discussion, the students responded (R), and then the teacher evaluated (E) the students’ response.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) likened the I-R-E structure with Freire’s descriptions of banking
education since the I-R-E structure promotes the teacher as the holder of knowledge and the
students as the receivers of knowledge. In contrast to the traditionally organized I-R-E structure,
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) observed that “dialogically organized instruction” was instruction
where teachers intentionally made space for the voices of students, thereby balancing the
discourse between teacher and students. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found that this type of
instruction was characterized by fewer teacher-initiated questions; instead, there were more
conversational turns between teacher and students, with students naturally influencing the
direction of the discussion and knowledge and meaning became co-constructed.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 64

Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) also asserted that the I-R-E sequence could be considered
a behavioral sequence, whereas dialogical instruction was not a behavioral or procedural
sequence, but rather was characterized by what Heath (1978 as cited in Nystrand & Gamoran,
1997) described as substantive engagement; it was more like a conversational exchange between
teacher and students. Participants did not just respond to the question at hand, but also to each
other. The purpose of this type of instruction was to deepen and develop the understanding of the
learner, not the teacher (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997) and questions were authentic. Nystrand and
Gamoran (1997) found that in dialogic discussion, the purpose of questions was not so the
teacher could evaluate what the students knew, but rather so the teacher could facilitate the
students’ investigation of the topic at hand.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found that recitation, or monologic instruction, was
characterized by teacher initiated questions. The teacher typically had a series of questions with
pre-determined answers that he or she was looking to get through. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997)
asserted that these questions would likely remain the same with different class periods, year after
year, whereas dialogically organized instruction was difficult to duplicate since the students
influenced the direction of the discussion and the participants changed not just year to year, but
class period by class period.
In examining how dialogically organized instruction affected students learning about
literature, Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) first examined the amount of time spent in discussion
as well as the use of both authentic questions and uptake. Questions were considered authentic if
the teacher did not have a prespecified answer in mind when he/she articulated the question
(Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). They defined uptake as when the answer of a previous question
was incorporated into the next response or question. Additionally, Nystrand and Gamoran (1997)
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 65

found that when instruction was dialogically organized in the eighth grade, it had positive effects
on achievement. Initially, Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found no effect of discussion on
learning in the ninth grade, until they separated out the data by high track and low track classes.
Once the data were separated, they found that authentic questions had a positive effect on the
high track classes, but a negative effect on the low track classes (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997).
Upon closer inspection, they discovered that 68% of authentic questions at the higher track levels
were around literature, contrasted with 25% of literature-based authentic questions at the lower
track level (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). The authentic questions at the lower track levels were
more around students’ feelings rather than based in a discussion about literature.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found that most teacher questions “(a) are test questions,
(b) get a response, (c) do not involve uptake, and (d) elicit a report of what is already known” (p.
37). Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) coded over 23,000 questions and examined the questions as
they related to the context of the lesson as a whole. They looked for instances of uptake in order
to examine the ways in which the students influenced the direction of the discussion (Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1997). Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) asserted that when uptake occurred, either
through the teacher or the students, the discussion became negotiated between the teacher and
students and was less predictable. They asserted that the use of uptake was an essential element
of dialogic discussion since it demonstrated that “conversants listen and respond appropriately to
each other” (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997, p. 39).
Nystrand and Gamoran explained that discourse became dialogic when there was a
tension between the participants in the conversation and when there was an exchange of ideas
that involved different “perspectives and struggle among competing voices” (Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1997, p. 8). Discourse became dialogic when there is a struggle over determining
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 66

meaning. When there is the use of multiple voices to build meaning, then “a dialogic perspective
on instruction highlights the role that intersecting multiple voices play on individuals’ learning
and the development of their understandings” (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997, p. 10).
Miller (2003) synthesized ethnographic research that she conducted of several
ethnographic case studies over the course of a decade and used three specific case studies to
demonstrate “how constructivist literature study - particularly open-forum discussion - shapes
students’ knowing and thinking” (p. 290). Specifically, Miller (2003) looked at how teachers
mediated discussions of literature in order to foster students’ “habits of mind” (p. 290). When
teachers mediated literary discussions that encouraged and allowed multiple “cultural and critical
perspectives” (p. 290), students learned different habits of mind than they did in contexts that did
not allow for multiple perspectives. In her research, Miller (2003) was interested not just in the
impact of open-forum discussions on students’ thinking, but also how teachers mediated open-
forum discussion for students, creating a zone of proximal development where students could
collaborate with their teacher and fellow students on “both how to make meaning from literary
texts and how to reflect on possible meanings” (p. 290).
Miller’s (2003) case studies typically involved weekly observations of whole class
discussions held in secondary English classrooms in three urban schools over the course of an
academic year. Miller took descriptive field notes and audiotaped each observation. Miller
(2003) collected classroom artifacts and the writings of students, when appropriate. Additionally,
she conducted semi-structured interviews of teachers and select focus students (Miller, 2003).
After analyzing the field note data and transcripts of the interviews, Miller (2003) looked for
themes and categories related to each student’s engagement in thinking and brought these back to
the focus students for “verification or confirmation” (p. 292).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 67

In her research, Miller (2003) observed both traditional literary instruction as well as
open forum discussions. She described traditional instruction of literature in secondary English
classrooms as one in which teachers think they are holding discussions, but are instead
transmitting their literary interpretations to students (Miller, 2003). Miller cited earlier research
that classroom talk is typically recitation that cuts “students off from their own responses and
reflections” (p. 289). Miller (2003) explained that this discussion format “marginalizes students”
(p. 289), privileging the teacher’s position. In contrast, Miller (2003) observed that classrooms
that utilized an open-forum format for discussion invited a variety of perspectives and could
function as a scaffold for students as they participated in supported discussions that allowed them
to explore, process, and articulate these differing viewpoints.
In the open-forum discussion format, the teacher served as the supportive adult,
modeling, scaffolding, and facilitating the exploration of literature (Miller, 2003). Miller (2003)
likened this to creating “an assistive space” (p. 290), a zone of proximal development based on
the work of Vygotsky (1986; 1978 in Miller, 2003). Within the open-forum discussion, students
moved back and forth from positions of novice to that of a more knowledgeable peer (Miller,
2003).
In one case study, Miller (2003) found that the teacher, Linda, demonstrated distributed
authority within her classroom in two ways. First, she arranged the desks in a circle so all
students faced each other, which did not physically position the teacher in a place of authority.
Second, the teacher had facilitated her students’ creation of ground rules for discussion, which
she enforced (Miller, 2003).
In this case, the teacher utilized casual language that was not evaluative in order to invite
students into the conversation (Miller, 2003). Additionally, the teacher modeled discussion
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 68

strategies that the students began to assume, utilizing similar phrases and discourse moves as
they participated in open-forum discussions (Miller, 2003). Miller (2003) observed that the
students “began ‘talking with each other’ rather than ‘talking at each other’” (Miller, 2003, p.
294).
By contrast, Miller (2003) illustrated a case in which the teacher overtly expressed
enthusiasm for discussion, but in practice facilitated a discussion that promoted her interpretation
of the literature under discussion. Miller (2003) noted that students were initially excited by the
possibility of a discussion, but quickly realized that the teacher wanted a specific response.
Miller (2003) cautioned that there are both explicit and implicit messages about the roles that
teachers and students play. In the first case study, the teacher implicitly modeled strategies for
participation in open-forum discussions and encouraged multiple perspectives and interpretations
by students (Miller, 2003). In the second case study, however, the teacher did not provide
strategies for participation in discussion nor did she invite or encourage students to offer multiple
perspectives or interpretations.
Miller (2003) asserted that teachers can mediate students’ ability to socially construct
their understanding of text by scaffolding strategies that facilitate students’ interpretive and
evaluative abilities. One way in which Miller (2003) observed this type of scaffolding practice
was by observing teachers who drew on students’ personal experiences and then linked these
experiences to the text, thereby facilitating the students’ ability to interpret or evaluate the text
through their experience. Additionally, by using this scaffolding move, students could move
from personal experience connections to the ability to articulate interpretations independently
(Miller, 2003). In an interview with Miller (2003), one student stated that, “We’re kind of taught
how to think, which is not taught what to think…. You have to catch everything, you have to put
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 69

it all together … everything connects to something else” (p. 305). Miller (2003) stated that
teachers were able to scaffold interpretive and evaluative thinking through open-forum
discussions.
Over the course of her observations in an at-risk senior English class, Miller (2003)
observed an increase in student participation in Linda’s class, the teacher who distributed
authority and modeled how to enter and participate in class discussions. They began the year
with 58% of students taking a turn in discussion. Over the course of weekly observations,
participation rose to a high of 88% of students taking a turn in open-forum discussion (Miller,
2003). Furthermore, Miller (2003) observed an increase in “student-initiated substantive
questions, probing questions, explanation, and text-based comments” (p. 299).
Miller (2003) found evidence of students using the strategies they acquired in open-forum
discussions in classes of different disciplines when the teachers of different disciplines allowed
the joint construction of knowledge. In those cases, the students articulated that the strategies
were useful in helping them articulate questions and build meaning (Miller, 2003). These
strategies did not work in classrooms that operated with the teacher as transmitter of knowledge
(Miller, 2003). Miller (2003) suggested that students figured out when their questions and
interpretations were not valued; students stated that in those classrooms, “thinking was not
required” (p. 311).
Finally, Miller (2003) demonstrated that in open-forum discussions, teachers provided
sequences of support rather than pre-conceived and pre-determined answers. These teachers
successfully created a community of learners that valued the social construction of knowledge in
a safe environment (Miller, 2003).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 70

Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, and Gamoran (2003) collaborated in research that
combined their earlier work exploring the teaching of writing, the relationship between writing
and reading, the teaching of literature, the structure of curriculum, tracking, and teacher and
student roles in effective classroom interactions. Applebee et al. (2003) used this study to further
examine “dialogic interaction, support for envisionment building, and extended curricular
conversations” (p. 693), including examining how each element functioned under conditions of
tracking Applebee et al. designed this study using quantitative methods in order to determine if
their earlier findings were supported with different methods (2003).
In this study, Applebee et al. (2003) selected schools in California, Florida, New York,
Texas, and Wisconsin. In each state, the researchers chose to study an urban and a suburban
district and both a middle and high school in each district. The initial study included 5 urban high
schools and 5 urban middle schools as well as 5 suburban high schools and 5 suburban middle
schools. The urban middle school from Texas withdrew, resulting in 19 schools in the study,
rather than 20.
There were a total of 64 participating classes in 19 middle and high schools, consisting of
7
th
, 8
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
, and one 12
th
grade classrooms. The classes were tracked as either honors,
remedial, or regular English. There were 1,412 students in the 64 classes and 1,111 agreed to
participate in the assessments and survey (79% response rate). There was missing data for either
the fall or spring test, which further reduced the sample to 974 students.
Data were gathered by a team of five field researchers who made initial visits to explain
the study and distribute consent form. The data consisted of an initial literacy performance
assessment, which was typically given in October. A follow-up assessment and student
questionnaire was administered in May or June. Teachers also completed a questionnaire. Field
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 71

researchers conducted four lesson observations for each classroom, consisting of two
observations in the fall and two in the spring. Teachers gave input on the selection of the lessons
observed and were asked to pick a class that included literature discussion, however that might
typically look in their class. Field researchers used the CLASS computer program in order to
record what was going on in class and observations were audiotaped so that the field researcher
could go back through the audio tape to augment the real-time observations. Also, additional data
editors could review the audiotapes and compare with the CLASS data for rater consistency.
After analyzing the data, Applebee et al. (2003) found that there was an average of 1.7
minutes of open discussion per 60 minutes of class time. The authors acknowledged that this
might seem low, but that this was double the time found in Nystrand’s 1997 study for the eighth
grade and “7 times higher than he found in 9th-grade classes” (Applebee et al., 2003, p. 707).
Furthermore, Applebee et al. (2003) found that teachers offered higher track students
more opportunities to engage in open discussion (3.3 minutes) than low-track students (42
seconds). The researchers also found that there was higher engagement in extended curricular
conversations at the high school level than the middle school level (Applebee et al., 2003).
When examining the data at the lower track levels, Applebee et al. (2003) found that
teachers placed less emphasis on envisionment-building activities at the lower track, as well as
created fewer extended curricular conversations. They observed that there were fewer
connections among reading, writing, and discussion activities, and that teachers gave students
fewer revising activities and less homework at the lower tracks, as well. For example, Applebee
et al. (2003) gave an example of a high school English class where the teacher utilized tightly
scripted review questions of the plot of the Iliad. Of the 13 questions that were observed by the
researcher, only one of the teacher questions was authentic and only one of the student questions
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 72

was authentic (Applebee et al., 2003). In this case, Applebee et al. (2003), found that “students’
envisionments of the text are treated as right or wrong, complete or incomplete, rather than as
dynamic constructions reflecting the students’ evolving understanding of this complex and
potentially interesting work of literature” (p. 711). Notably, Applebee et al. (2003) suggested that
it was hard to determine the effect of discussion-based approaches on students in lower-tracks
when, as they found, “to some extent, they have not been tried” (p. 719).
As a counter example, however, Applebee et al. (2003) offered an example of a
classroom in which the teacher facilitated a more open discussion of the text. In this case, the
teacher scaffolded students’ responses by asking the students how they came to their
interpretations (Applebee et al., 2003) and then allowing the students to continue their discussion
collaboratively as a group. In this discussion, Applebee et al. (2003) described the teacher’s role
as one of “directing conversational traffic, focusing issues, and guiding students through the text
to answer their own questions” (p. 712). In this discussion, the researchers observed that 26% of
the teacher questions were authentic and 57% of the questions involved uptake, incorporating the
previous speaker’s comment into the question (Applebee et al., 2003). In this case, the focus of
the teacher was on developing the students’ envisionments of the text rather than reviewing the
plot of the text.
In conclusion, teachers who are able to promote open-forum discussions and encourage
collaborative dialogue with their students do so by asking authentic questions of their students
(Applebee et al., 2003; Miller, 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). Furthermore, these teachers
model ways for students to enter into discussions that includes students’ articulating their own
questions and responding to each other in collaborative conversations (Applebee et al., 2003;
Miller, 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). Teachers who are successfully able to promote open-
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 73

forum discussions encourage students to draw on their outside experiences to support their
understanding of texts, valuing students’ language and interpretations (Applebee et al., 2003;
Miller, 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997; Smagorinsky, 2013). Teachers can facilitate students
in the process of learning by assisting student performance through the use of scaffolds,
questioning techniques, and by the ways that they structuring cognitive and academic tasks
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Additionally, a critical aspect of supporting students as developing
learners is the ability on the part of teachers to provide deliberate opportunities to engage
students in the processes of reflection and metacognition (Pintrich, 2002; Rodgers, 2002).
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I will present my conceptual framework, which provided the overall
framework for this study. According to Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework functions as
the researcher’s understanding of phenomena that the researcher plans to study; this
understanding serves as a “tentative theory” (Ch. 3, para 3). My conceptual framework guided
how I collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data and evolved through the analysis of analysis
and interpretation of the data.
The concepts that emerged as significant through data analysis and informed the
conceptual framework were reflection and metacognition. My understanding of the significance
of scaffolding developed from the time that I constructed the conceptual framework through the
analysis of the data. I returned to the literature to more deeply develop my understanding of
scaffolding and guided assistance and to construct a thoughtful picture of the role of reflection
and metacognition in supporting students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of
making meaning. I have integrated these concepts within my conceptual framework, described
below.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 74

My conceptual framework is built on three connected concepts: teacher ideology,
classroom climate, and pedagogy. A particular kind of teacher ideology, classroom climate, and
pedagogy operate together and are each essential for secondary English teachers to be able to
create classroom contexts where students are actively engaged in articulating questions and
building upon each other’s ideas in authentic talk that serves as a foundation for the social
exploration of literature, which I refer to as exploratory talk or open-forum discussions. Figure 1
serves as a model of the three connected concepts. When all three connected concepts are in
place, we should see exploratory, open-forum discussions occur.

Figure 1. The interaction between teacher ideology, climate, and pedagogy that produces
exploratory talk.

First I will individually describe teacher ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy of
discussion in secondary English. Then I will discuss the ways in which they interact in order to
produce exploratory talk.
Ideology is our conscious and unconscious ways of understanding the world that are
expressed through our stated beliefs as well as our actions (Bartolomé, 2008). As ideology is
expressed through words and actions, it is inextricably intertwined with the ways in which
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 75

teachers enact pedagogy and create classroom climates. Thus, there is some necessary overlap in
my description of ideology and classroom climate and of ideology and pedagogy.
In order to create the kind of classroom environment that allows students to participate in
exploratory, open forum discussion, the teacher’s ideology would include the belief that
exploratory talk is possible not just with honors students or middle class or upper-middle class
students or White students, but with all students. This belief overlaps with what I would expect
to see a teacher do from a pedagogical perspective since it would be enacted in the classroom by
the teacher providing opportunities for students to engage in open-forum discussion.
Furthermore, the teacher would have an asset mindset (Milner, 2010) and high expectations for
all students, believing all students are capable of critical and creative thinking. The teacher’s
belief in the students’ ability to think critically and creatively is demonstrated through
observations and artifacts and through the kinds of rigorous texts, tasks, activities, and
assignments that the teacher creates and provides for students. This would also be evident in the
types of scaffolding provided by the teacher to help support students with rigorous tasks and
assignments. The teacher would not provide busy work, but rather texts, tasks, activities, and
assignments that challenge and intellectually engage students.
The teacher’s ideology would also include the recognition that he or she is not the holder
of all knowledge in the room and recognize his or her role as a facilitator of learning. The teacher
would listen to students and encourage students to ask their own questions as well as value the
students’ experiences from outside the classroom (Applebee et al., 2003; Miller, 2003; Nystrand
& Gamoran, 1997; Smagorinsky, 2013). This is also apparent through observations of the
language that the teacher uses with his or her students (Miller, 2003; Rist, 2000). This would also
be evidenced by the teacher’s ability to create a hybrid space (Miller, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2013)
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 76

where students’ perspectives and prior knowledge are acknowledged and incorporated in
classroom discussions.
The teacher’s ideology would also be expressed through the type of affective
environment that the teacher creates, which I will describe below when I discuss classroom
climate. Furthermore, the teacher has to authentically care about students, rather than
aesthetically care (Valenzuela, 1999). Valenzuela (1999) defines authentic care as a “form of
caring that emphasizes relations of reciprocity between the teachers and students” (p. 61)
whereas she defines aesthetic caring as a “commitment to ideas or practices that purportedly lead
to achievement” (p. 61). Another way in which this would take place is through the level of rigor
and academic tasks that the teacher would require of students. For example, if the teacher fosters
discussions that focus more on students’ feelings rather than their academic interpretations of
texts, this would be aesthetic care (Valenzuela, 1999; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997); by contrast,
if the teacher fosters discussions that encourage students to ask questions and draw on their
personal experiences while still remaining focused on interpreting and understanding the text,
this would be authentic care (Valenzuela, 1999; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997).
In terms of classroom climate, students would be engaged in academic tasks and
participating in discussions. The teacher would treat students with respect and the students would
treat the teacher and each other with respect. I would expect to see a collaborative, non-
competitive environment (Matsumura et al., 2008). The teacher has to create an environment that
is safe for students to take intellectual risks. This would be evident in the teacher demonstrating
that he or she is sensitive to the needs of adolescents and recognizes their need for autonomy,
interactions with peers, and their desire to participate in the direction of their own learning (Allen
et al., 2013). This would also be evident in the ways in which students interact with each other,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 77

including ways that they deal with the tensions of disagreement in open-forum discussions
(Matsumura, et al., 2008; Miller, 2003). The teacher would also provide emotional scaffolds with
his or her students. Rosiek (2003) describes emotional scaffolds as approaches that teachers use
to reduce unconstructive emotions or increase constructive emotions. This is evident through
observations of the teacher’s interactions with students and the ways in which the teacher
supports and fosters constructive emotions as well as the ways in which the teacher addresses
emotions that could serve to distract students from the learning experience (Rosiek, 2003).
In this environment, the teacher cannot say he or she wants the students to participate in
class discussions of and around literature and then look for particular responses and shut down
other responses. There should be little, if any, of the I-R-E pattern of discourse (Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1997). In order for the social exploration of literature to occur, the teacher will have to
utilize pedagogical strategies that allow for exploratory speech and open-forum discussions. In
this case, the teacher would act as a supportive adult and would model how to participate in the
discussion as well as facilitate the discussion (Langer, 1998; Miller, 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran,
1997). In terms of facilitating the discussion, the teacher might moderate turns for entering the
discussion, making certain that multiple student voices are heard. The teacher might utilize
scaffolding strategies, such as modeling, question stems, and cognitive structuring (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988) to help support students so that they can articulate their own questions and then
incorporate their questions into the discussion, which would be evident through observation as
well as interview as the teacher characterizes his or her approach to teaching and learning as well
as to implementing and facilitating discussions. The teacher would also incorporate elements of
metacognition and reflection in order to support the students in their approach to challenging
cognitive tasks and problem solving.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 78

In identifying exploratory talk, also known as open-forum discussion, I would expect to
observe students engaged in a discussion. In exploratory talk, the teacher might facilitate the
discussion through open-ended questions, but would not dominate the discussion by articulating
questions with a pre-conceived answer. Instead, the teacher would ask open questions and would
allow students to also articulate their own questions. In this type of discussion, I would expect to
observe that the students would influence the direction of the discussion by the questions that
they articulate as well as their responses to the questions and to each other’s responses. The
teacher and the students would utilize uptake (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997), incorporating each
other’s questions and responses into their own responses.
In order for an English teacher to create a classroom context where students are
intellectually actively engaged in the social exploration of literature through open-forum
discussions, certain key features of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy must be in place.
When a teacher’s ideology includes an asset mindset (Milner, 2010) and a belief that all students,
including students of historically marginalized backgrounds, can learn and when that teacher
actively strives to create a collaborative, non-competitive learning environment where all
students can learn as well as implements pedagogical strategies designed to model, scaffold, and
facilitate exploratory talk and support students to use metacognition and reflection to solve
problems and take intellectual risks, then we should see open-forum discussion.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 79

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methodologies that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine
English teachers who were able to encourage the social exploration of literature. Specifically, I
looked to examine English teachers who were able to create a classroom climate that supported
students in the open exploration and discussion of literature. This qualitative case study was
informed by the following research questions: What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of who
have been identified as successful at engaging students in the social exploration of literature for
the purpose of making meaning? What features of classroom climate do teachers actively
facilitate in order to encourage the social exploration of literature through inquiry and reflection?
What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create conditions for inquiry and
reflection?
Research Design
I conducted qualitative research in the form of case studies. According to Merriam
(2009), a case study approach provides a way of creating boundaries around what the researcher
will study. The case can be an “example of some phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40). The
bounded system, in this case, was two English teachers who had been identified as successful at
creating a classroom climate that supports the social construction of knowledge. My purpose in
identifying and selecting teachers who were considered to be successful in creating this specific
type of classroom climate was to understand how teachers create and facilitate classroom
cultures that foster exploratory talk and open-forum discussions, both through small and large
group interactions, and how these discussions might influence the development of thinking
around literature.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 80

In defining qualitative research, Merriam (2009) explains that “qualitative researchers are
interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense
of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (p. 13, italics in original). In order to
understand the meaning that teachers had constructed around discussion in their classroom, I
needed to collect both interview and observational data. My goal in selecting both interview and
observational data was, as Maxwell (2013) suggests, to be able to look at my questions from
different viewpoints. Maxwell asserts that the methods that a researcher selects are chosen
specifically to answer the research questions. Interviews provided the teachers’ perspectives that
informed my understanding of the role of teacher beliefs and ideology in shaping classroom
discussions, creating and maintaining a safe classroom environment, and understanding the
teachers’ pedagogical goals and choices. While it is possible to see through observation how
teacher beliefs are enacted in the classroom, I could more specifically learn about a teacher’s
beliefs and ideology through targeted conversation, specifically in the form of interviews.
Observations allowed me to see what happened as it happened (Merriam, 2009), which helped to
inform the follow-up interviews that I conducted with both teachers.
For this study, the case study approach was appropriate as case studies are, according to
Merriam (2009), both particularistic and descriptive. The case study approach is particularistic
because it seeks to understand “a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 43). This approach is descriptive because it uses “rich, ‘thick’ description of
the phenomenon under study” (Merriam, 2009, p. 43). Observations and interviews allowed me
to observe teachers in action and to understand the teachers’ perspectives on how they created
their classroom community, as well as to understand the pedagogical choices that they made and
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 81

the beliefs that they held about teaching and learning in the English classroom. Observations and
interviews helped me in both being particularistic and descriptive in my research.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 82

Sample and Population
Site Selection
The case studies for this research took place at the high school level. I used purposeful
sampling. Merriam (2009) asserts that the researcher must determine criteria that are essential for
selection and that “reflect the purpose of the study” (p. 78). Additionally, Maxwell (2013) asserts
that purposeful sampling or selection allows the researcher to select sites and participants in
order to deliberately inform their research questions. To that end, I selected teachers who taught
in school site sites that met the following criteria.
In order to understand how teachers are able to create the conditions for open forum
discussions to occur in urban settings with historically marginalized students, the first criterion
for the school sites was that the schools were public high schools in urban communities that
serve historically marginalized students. While it was important that the school be in an urban
setting that served historically marginalized students, the size of the school was not important.
Prior to conducting the study, I determined that the composition of the student body be between
at least 60% to 70% Latino and/or African American students. My intention was to look at
teachers who worked with students in non-affluent neighborhoods, as well. In order to assure
this, I looked for teachers who worked in school communities where at least 60% to 70%
qualified for free or reduced lunch. The student population could include a large number of
English language learners, but this was not a requirement. I did not look at school performance
data.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 83

Participant Selection
In addition to purposeful selection, I also utilized Foster’s “community nomination”
(Cooper, 2003) to select teacher participants for my research. Through this method, I gathered
nominations of potential teachers based on a set of guidelines. I reached out to educators who
were knowledgeable in this area and gave them the set of criteria to help me narrow down to a
set of teachers who I could approach to participate in my study. Since this study was focused on
English teachers who were able to facilitate the social exploration of literature, particularly
through exploratory talk and open-forum discussion, it was necessary that I select teachers who
met a set of criteria. Based on the research of Nystrand and Gamoran (1997), Miller (2003), and
Applebee et al. (2003), most discussion in secondary English classrooms follows a typical I-R-E
format, rather than the exploratory, open-forum discussion that I hoped to observe; therefore, I
believed that I would be looking for a unique sample, rather than a typical sample, of English
teachers who regularly utilized open-forum discussions and the social exploration of literature.
The first set of criteria for teacher selection was that the teacher was fully licensed, with a
minimum of 3 years of teaching experience, and had a reputation for creating a positive
classroom climate with rigorous instruction as well as being good at facilitating discussion.
Given the focus of this study on the social exploration of literature, I initially selected two
teachers with a reputation among their colleagues for using pedagogical practices that facilitated
and encouraged exploratory talk and open-forum discussion and for being exceptionally effective
in creating a positive classroom climate and working with students from historically
marginalized backgrounds. I preferred to see teachers who were working with regular track
students rather than students who were identified as honors or were participating in magnet or
advanced placement programs; to that end, the selected teachers both worked with regularly
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 84

tracked students and classes. There has been more evidence of teachers successfully
implementing open-forum discussions with higher track students (Applebee et al., 2003;
Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997). I chose to observe teachers who had a reputation of successfully
being able to implement open-forum discussions with students who were not participating in
specialized programs in order to understand how these teachers were able to successfully create
the conditions for implementing open-forum discussions and to understand their ideology and the
instructional choices that they make.
Initially I selected two teachers from one school, but dropped the second teacher after the
first interview and two observations because he combined his class with another teacher’s class
to work on a project and the other teacher was facilitating the project. I conducted two
observations of this teacher and his class in conjunction with the other teacher and her class; one
occurred in her classroom and the second occurred in his classroom. As I was unable to see the
second teacher’s direct interactions with his own class, I sought and found an additional teacher
at a nearby high school who met the criteria for the study and began the data collection with the
additional teacher, beginning first with the protocol for community nomination and then by
conducting the initial interview with this teacher before beginning observations and then
continuing through to conducting the final interview.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The purpose of this study was to describe and gain a greater understanding of teachers
who were successful at facilitating the social exploration of literature, specifically through
exploratory talk and open-forum discussion.
I collected data from teacher interviews, direct classroom observations, and
documentation.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 85

Interviews
I interviewed two teachers for this case study and conducted two separate semi-structured
interviews of each teacher participant prior to the observations, as well as informal interviews
after observations, as appropriate. The initial interviews of both teachers were about 40 minutes.
The final interviews ranged from 30 minutes to an hour. The informal interviews were usually
only two to three minutes and typically took place during the passing period before or after class.
The purpose of using a semi-structured interview format was for the interview to be guided by
my conceptual framework, but sufficiently open so that I could “respond to the situation at hand”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 90) as necessary. The focus of the first interview was on understanding the
teachers’ ideology and to begin to understand how the teachers’ ideology influenced the way in
which the teacher had structured the classroom climate as well as how the teacher’s ideology
influenced her pedagogical choices. The purpose of the first interview was to help me to
understand the expectations and goals that the teacher had for her students. Furthermore, the
initial interview also gave me insight into the ways in which the teachers designed her lessons
and the level and rigor of the reading and tasks that the teacher anticipated her students could do.
The focus of the second interview, which occurred after I conducted the classroom observations,
helped me to further understand the teachers’ pedagogical choices. I used two separate interview
protocols, one for the first interview that was focused on teacher ideology, classroom climate,
and pedagogy and a different protocol for the second interview that was a follow-up of my first
interview and the classroom observations and was focused more specifically on the teachers’
practice and pedagogical choices. I used the informal interviews to clarify questions that
emerged at the end of observations.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 86

Observations
I conducted five or six classroom observations of each of the teachers in this case study; I
observed six lessons for one teacher and five lessons, which included a block period, totaling six
hours per teacher. Merriam (2009) suggests that there are two benefits to observations. First,
observations allow the researcher to observe “the phenomenon of interest naturally” (p. 117).
Furthermore, observations give the researcher “a firsthand encounter” (Merriam, 2009, p. 117) of
the topic of study rather than relying on someone else’s account. According to Merriam (2009),
the research questions and conceptual framework should drive the observations. I designed an
observation protocol that allowed me to observe and record the physical setting, participants,
activities and interactions, conversation, and any subtle factors that I noticed, such as nonverbal
communication (Merriam, 2009). Given my research questions and conceptual framework, I
specifically observed the pedagogical moves that the teachers made to facilitate open-forum,
exploratory talk within each English lesson. Furthermore, I looked for ways in which I could see
the teacher’s ideology in action, through the ways in which she interacted with students and the
types of lessons and tasks she designed. The quality of student talk and interaction can be key
indicators of the climate of the classroom. (Matsumura et al., 2008; Miller, 2003; Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1997). I also observed the quality of the talk of the students, including the ways in
which the students interacted with each other. I recorded the number of students participating in
the discussion and observed and tried to capture the types of questions that the teacher and
students articulated as well as the ways in which student questions were taken up in
conversation.I also observed and recorded ways in which I saw how the classroom climate
supported or inhibited open-forum, exploratory talk as well as any indicators of the teachers’
ideology.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 87

Documents and Artifacts
I also collected documents and artifacts that were available from the lessons that I
observed of each teacher. When possible, I asked for copies of any text and assignments that the
teachers used with students to see the level of rigor of the reading and tasks assigned in class.
Documents and artifacts from the lesson provided “information or insights relevant to the
research question” (Merriam, 2009, p. 153). These were documents that were produced
specifically for the purpose of the lesson and not intended for research; Merriam (2009) cautions
that documents are not always useful for the researcher, but can be used as descriptive
information as well as a springboard that is useful for “theory building” (p. 155).
Data Analysis
Based on the data collected through interviews, observations, and documents and
artifacts, the data collected for this study included transcripts from the interviews, observation
field notes, and documents and artifacts collected from the observed lessons. According to
Creswell (2009), “the process of data analysis involves making sense out of text and image data”
(p. 183). Creswell (2009) points out that data analysis is on-going and is a recursive process of
analysis that involves ongoing reflection and questioning. After each observation, I wrote
reflective notes and analytic memos to document what I saw and, consistent with Bogdan and
Biklen’s admonitions (2007), to attempt to check my own biases along the way. I also used these
reflective notes and analytic memos to ask questions about the data that I collected and to make
adjustments in the ways that I recorded my observational notes. I began my analysis during the
data collection, examining the data as I collected it as well as more intensively after I had
collected all the data. Through the process, I used a “combination of predetermined and
emerging codes” (Creswell, 2009, p. 187) such as codes that related to exploratory talk, uptake
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 88

of student questions and responses into the discussion, and evidence of authentic care. I began
with axial coding for codes that evolved from my conceptual framework around ideology,
classroom climate, and pedagogy. Creswell (2009) defined open coding as codes that emerge
from the data. Multiple cycles of coding allowed me to see themes as they emerged from the data
and I used open coding for codes that emerged through examining the data through data
collection and analysis. The open and axial codes helped me to see the data and to analyze the
data for interactions between the codes. In my second phase of coding, I combined my open and
axial codes and created pattern codes that allowed me to find patterns/themes and resulted in
findings that answered my research questions. The interactions between the codes helped me
make sense of the data and the story.
Limitations
The following limitations include factors that were beyond the researchers control and
may affect the results of the study and/or how the study was interpreted. These limitations
include:
1. Truthfulness: Data collected through interviews relied on the truthfulness of the teachers
interviewed, which could not be controlled.
2. Student Perceptions: The lack of student perceptions of teacher beliefs, classroom
climate, and pedagogy is a limitation of this study. This study focused specifically on the
teachers’ ideology and role in the creation of classroom climate as well as the selection of
pedagogical moves.
3. Teacher educational backgrounds: This study focused specifically on teacher ideology,
type of classroom climate the teachers created, and the teachers’ pedagogical moves.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 89

While interview data uncovered some of the teachers’ educational background, there was
not a focus on the teachers’ content area knowledge, which is a limitation of this study.
4. School context and culture: The focus of this study was specifically on the teachers and
their classrooms and did not directly explore the school context and culture. The
information learned about the school context and culture was indirect and limited.
Limited understanding of the school context and culture is a limitation of this study.
Delimitations
A delimitation of this study is a time limitation. The duration of this study was chosen by
the research and by the availability of the teacher participants. Interview and observation times
were determined by the availability of the teacher participants. An additional delimitation was
that my protocols limited what I focused on and, therefore, learn. Furthermore, I am a novice
researcher, which is also a delimitation. A further delimitation is that I controlled what was
learned because I created the interview and observation protocols.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As the primary instrument of data collection in this research, my own research biases act
as a limitation in my research since the understandings I constructed from the observations and
interviews are constructed from my own viewpoint and may not align with what the participants
might have been thinking in their responses or actions. Merriam (2009) explains that reflexivity
is the process by which researchers consider their role as the instrument of research. I am an
English teacher who believes in the power of the social exploration of literature. I was once a
graduate research assistant for the Center of English Learning and Achievement at the State
University of New York under the direction of Judith Langer and Arthur Applebee and
conducted field observations in middle school English classrooms to observe instances of
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 90

dialogic instruction. Maxwell (2013) explains that one challenge in qualitative research is that of
the researcher’s own subjectivity, which can be defined as the ways in which what the researcher
values and expects may influence his or her interpretations. In order to counter my own
subjectivity, I had to acknowledge and reconsider the ways in which I understood the purpose of
the making meaning and building literary understanding as well as the ways in which this could
be enacted. Maxwell (2013) suggests that a crucial aspect of determining the validity or
credibility of qualitative research is for the researcher to consider the ways in which he or she
might be wrong. In order to do this, I had to seek out ways in which to reconsider my own
understandings by exploring additional explanations for how students might make meaning of
text. To that end, I engaged in specific practices to ensure credibility and trustworthiness in my
findings. First, in creating interview protocols, I made certain to address the three areas of my
conceptual framework. After observations, I wrote analytic memos, asking questions about the
data and my observational notes of the data. Merriam (2009) argued that researchers can increase
the reliability of their findings by using triangulation. I triangulated the data by examining
evidence from interviews, observations, and artifacts from the observed lessons. This process
helped me to check across points of data for validity and reliability. I did enough data collection
to reach saturation, conducting observations until I did not think that I would learn something
new. Additionally, I used thick, rich, and descriptive data, working to convey to the reader a
sense of the setting. Through the process of analyzing the data, I returned to the literature to
supplement my understanding of themes and patterns that emerged from the data, which
influenced and helped my conceptual framework grow and evolve.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 91

Ethics
Merriam (2009) asserted that the quality of qualitative research is dependent upon the
integrity and “ethical stance of the researcher” (p. 229). In order to collect data ethically, I made
certain to have approval of the study and protocols by the Institutional Review Board of the
University. I sought informed consent of those educators who participated in the community
nomination of the study participants and used a protocol for speaking with the educators who
nominated the participants. I sought informed consent from the participants and provided each
teacher with an informed consent document and explained the purpose of the study. I explained
that there were no anticipated risks nor were there direct benefits to the participants. I informed
the participants that the study would help me to understand the ways in which teachers facilitate
the social exploration of literature through open forum discussions. I maintained confidentiality
of the school sites and participants.
An additional challenge I confronted was that of the dilemma of liking both participants
and wanting to represent them truthfully. I struggled with making sense of both teachers and
representing them fairly in writing. In particular, I found it challenging to write about Ms
Graham, who I liked very much as a person; I had to acknowledge and recognize my desire to be
nice and to also be present to what I observed in her classroom.
Conclusion
Through my research, I sought to understand the influence of ideology, classroom
climate, and pedagogy in English teachers who were known to be able to encourage the social
exploration of literature through exploratory talk and open-forum discussion. The unit of analysis
for this dissertation included two experienced high school English teachers with a reputation for
being able to facilitate authentic classroom discussion with predominantly historically
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 92

marginalized students. I collected data through semi-structured interviews and direct
observations as well as documents and artifacts collected from the observed lessons. I used my
conceptual framework to guide both the data collection and the data analysis.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 93

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to gain insight into the ways in which the elements
of teacher ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy come together to help teachers facilitate
the social exploration of literature for students of diverse backgrounds. The first three chapters of
this dissertation discussed the research literature around some of the ways in which teachers’
beliefs and expectations influence the instructional choices that they make; the role that
classroom climate can play in contributing to students’ academic achievement; and ways in
which teachers have successfully implemented open-forum discussion. In this chapter, I present
the findings of the study.
This dissertation is a qualitative study that utilized the multiple case study method of
examining two high school English teachers’ classes in two separate sites in similar, neighboring
communities. For both cases, I began with an interview and then conducted five observations,
including one double-blocked period, in one classroom and six observations in the second
classroom for a total of six hours of observation; the classroom observations served as the
primary method of data collection. Brief informal interviews occurred at the end of some of the
observations, whenever possible. After all of the observations had been conducted, I returned and
met with each teacher to conduct a follow-up interview. During the classroom observations, I
collected artifacts related to the lessons, such as handouts or photographs of notes on the board. I
will address each case separately, including a brief description of the community in which the
schools resided and then will present the findings and analysis of each case study. Once I have
presented the findings and analysis of each case, I will conclude with a cross-case analysis of the
case studies. The data collected from this study will address the following research questions:
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 94

• What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of who have been identified as successful at
engaging students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making
meaning?
• What features of classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to encourage
the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning of text?
• What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create the conditions for the
social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning of text?
Case Study #1: Mrs. Maggie Miller, Ninth Grade English
Mrs. Miller was a teacher at Inspiration Academy High School. Inspiration Academy
High School was located in an urban neighborhood. This was a charter high school that was
adjacent to a partner charter middle school. Students who attended the middle school typically
attended the high school. Both the middle and the high school campuses opened in 2004. The
students attended six 55 minute class periods a day plus a 40 minute advisory period in the
morning. The Tuesday schedule was shorter, with a half hour advisory period and 45 minute
class periods to accommodate teacher professional development time after school.
The 2014-15 school year was the most recent year for which student and teacher
information could be extracted. During the 2014-15 school year, there were 441 students
enrolled in the school in grades 9-12. The racial composition of the student body consisted of
94.1% Hispanic or Latino, 2.6% Black or African American, .5% Asian, 1.5% Filipino, and 1.2
% White (Ed.gov, 2016). During that school year, the number of students eligible for free or
reduced lunch was 81%; the number of English Language Learners was 7.5% and the number of
students designated Fluent English Proficient was 68% (Ed.gov, 2016).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 95

Mrs. Miller was an English teacher with 5 years of full-time teaching experience, all of
those years served teaching at Inspiration Academy High School. After getting a Masters in
English, Mrs. Miller worked several jobs before finally deciding to pursue becoming an English
teacher. She expressed some frustration with her credentialing program, stating that,
I didn’t really find the credentialing program to be that helpful. There were three great
professors that I had, but most of it felt very rubber stamp-like. The adolescent psych
class is an on-line class, which is like, check the box, read the thing. It was not very
interesting.
In the end, Mrs. Miller felt lucky to find a position at the high school because, “Our charter
values are very much aligned with mine, just in terms of constructivism and letting kids discover
their own passions and their own knowledge in their own way.” Mrs. Miller recognized an
alignment in her own beliefs in her students and about how students learn with that of the school
and the charter organization that she worked in. She actively saw herself connected with the
culture of the school.
Mrs. Miller saw her role as one of facilitating student success. Mrs. Miller said this about
her role in the classroom:
I definitely am wanting every student to come out of my classroom proficient in reading,
writing, listening and speaking and having those sort of fundamental solid
communication skills so that they can function in the world as we experience it. I always
have a standard focus driven to achieve what I’m supposed to achieve with them in mind,
but at the same time, mom, counselor. I keep extra food in my desk for when they are
hungry. I feel like you have to meet them wherever they are on whatever day it is.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 96

In considering her teacher credentialing experience, Mrs. Miller felt that, “most of the
way that I developed as a teacher was just on the ground in the classroom.” Mrs. Miller felt that
she did a lot of developing “on the ground in the classroom.” She was reflective and saw herself
as growing in the profession. The summer prior to the school year in which the data were
collected, Mrs. Miller had participated in a program for newer teachers at the university that she
earned her Masters’ degree, which was at a different university from the one in which she earned
her credential.
Mrs. Miller’s classroom was on the second floor of the high school building, at the end of
the hall. At the first observation, the tables were set in a circular manner around the room. For
the second through the fifth observations, the tables were set in four rows facing forward, with
the two outer rows angled towards the center of the room. Students sat in partners, two students
to a table. Along the walls, student work was posted, as well as a yearlong question that all ninth
grade English classes were investigating: “Is a person’s identity shaped by forces within their
control or by forces outside of their control?” Underneath the posted question, there were
student-created definitions of identity, forces within your control, and forces outside of your
control from Mrs. Miller’s four ninth grade English classes. Mrs. Miller viewed this yearlong
question as an anchor point and used it to ground the work the students did in analyzing text.
Period 1, the class that I observed, defined identity as “who you are and what sets you apart from
others.” They defined forces within your control as “the power to change who you are” and
forces outside of your control as “not having the power to change something.” Period 1 was
designated as a regular English class and the demographics of the class were reflective of the
school as a whole.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 97

For the remainder of this section, I am going to provide the answers to my research
questions. First, I offer the answer to the first research question about the underlying beliefs.
Then I turn attention to the second question around classroom climate. I will then offer the
answer to the third research question around pedagogy. Finally, I show that this teacher
demonstrated an asset mindset and was able to create a classroom climate that was safe for
students to take intellectual risks. Furthermore, I will show that the teacher used pedagogical
strategies that supported her students in their social exploration of literature.
Research Question 1: Ideology
What are the Underlying Beliefs of Teachers of Who Have Been Identified as Successful at
Engaging Students in the Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning?
The data showed that Mrs. Miller believed that her students were capable of critical
thinking and participating in the social exploration of literature, while recognizing that the
students needed support to successfully engage in discussion. Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset
mindset in the way that she expressed her beliefs about her role as a teacher, in the goals she
articulated for her students, and in the rigorous tasks she designed and prepared her students to
accomplish.
Asset Mindset: A Belief in the Capability of Students
Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset in the way that she expressed her beliefs about
the capabilities of her students and in the way that she designed rigorous tasks, and supported her
students in participating in the social exploration of literature through open forum discussions.
Milner (2010) defined an asset mindset as one in which the teacher holds high expectations for
all students as well as a belief in the capacity for creative and critical thinking of all students.
The data showed that Mrs. Miller recognized the strengths and cognitive abilities of her students,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 98

valued their contributions, and designed lessons and activities that centered around student
learning in ways that allowed the students to find evidence from text and collaboratively make
meaning from text. For example, Mrs. Miller stated that,
The more discussion focused activities that I would do would be the student-
driven stuff where the kids will ... It is Socratic Seminar but that term is loosely applied.
The students will develop some questions. Usually what I do is I will have them, over a
series of days, generate the questions. Depending on the level of the class, we’ll either
practice deepening the questions or not. My advanced class just write great questions.
Some of the other kids need to get in pairs of two or pairs of six, groups of six, “Make
these questions better.” Then we take those student-developed questions and put them up
on the board. The students vote on them. The top eight questions become our prep
questions. They prepare those with text evidence so that they have an opinion one way or
the other. Then they have some evidence and how to address a counter-argument. Then
I’ll just seat them in a group and say, “All right. Go!” They facilitate their own
conversation.
Here Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset because she expected all of her students,
irrespective of their performance level, to be able to construct questions and engage in the social
exploration of literature. As stated in my conceptual framework, a teacher with an asset mindset
would see all students, not just honors or average performance students, as capable of
exploratory talk and the social exploration of literature. Milner (2010) asserted that in order to
build scaffolds that support students’ learning, teachers need to be able to see that students bring
assets and strengths to their learning experiences. In order to prepare students to participate in the
social exploration of literature, Mrs. Miller had the students articulate the questions. She stated
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 99

that, “The students will develop some questions.” This statement, “The students will develop
some questions,” also revealed an asset mindset because she believed the students were capable
of developing questions and she stated clearly that they would do so. In describing how she
prepared her classes for participating in the social exploration of literature, she explained that she
had all of her classes, the advanced class as well as the general ninth grade English classes,
participate in articulating questions for discussion. Furthermore, Mrs. Miller explained that
“Depending on the level of the class, we’ll either practice deepening the questions or not. My
advanced class just write great questions. Some of the other kids need to get in pairs of two or
pairs of six, groups of six, ‘Make these questions better.’” Mrs. Miller asked all of her classes,
regardless of designation, to articulate discussion questions. In this way, Mrs. Miller
demonstrated an asset mindset consistent with the work of Milner (2010) because she recognized
the students’ capacity as well as the need to support some students and classes in order to
develop their potential in strengthening and developing how their questions were articulated, but
she still believed that all students were capable of doing the cognitive work that it would take to
articulate questions for discussion. By pressing students to engage in the cognitive work of
articulating their own questions around the literature they studied, Mrs. Miller made the process
of asking questions part of the experience of analyzing and interpreting literature. This is
consistent with the work of Langer (1998) who explained that in envisionment building classes,
teachers support students in articulating questions and that “questions are treated as part of the
literary experience” (p. 20).
Another indication of her asset ideology was evident in her approach to using the student-
generated questions for discussion. Mrs. Miller described that they would “take those student-
developed questions and put them up on the board. The students vote on them. The top eight
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 100

questions become our prep questions.” In addition to providing students the opportunity to
design their own questions for discussion, Mrs. Miller also expected the students as a class to
select the student-generated questions to use as questions to prepare for the larger discussion.
This was evidence that Mrs. Miller believed that the students were capable of critical and
creative thinking and valued the students input in selecting the direction of the topics that they
would prepare as they got ready for larger group discussions, which is consistent with an asset
mindset. Milner (2010) explained that an asset mindset allows teachers to see that students are
capable of rigorous work and that view helps the teacher to design opportunities for students to
engage in challenging tasks. Additionally, Mrs. Miller stated that, “They prepare those with text
evidence so that they have an opinion one way or the other. Then they have some evidence and
how to address a counter-argument.” Mrs. Miller recognized that the students had the cognitive
capability to find textual evidence to support their responses to the questions that they developed
as well as to respond to counter-arguments.
Mrs. Miller’s description of how she supported students in their preparation for the social
exploration of literature in larger group discussions demonstrated that she believed that all of her
students were capable of critical and creative thinking and that she recognized that many of the
students needed the opportunity to prepare to participate in discussions. Furthermore, she
recognized the students’ ability to find evidence to support their opinions as well as to make
meaningful connections. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) argued that teachers in a dialogically
organized classroom, meaning is negotiated between the teacher and students. The language of
Mrs. Miller’s description of how she prepared students for discussion also demonstrated that she
valued a student-driven exploration of text rather than a teacher-driven discussion. When I began
the study in Mrs. Miller’s classroom, she and her students were beginning their study of
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 101

Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Her ultimate goal in their exploration of the play was for all
the students to engage in a Socratic Seminar style discussion, which would include two rounds of
discussions; each student would participate once in the inner circle discussion and once as an
observer in the outer circle for the alternate round.
In addition to expressing her asset ideology in the way that she described her work with
her students, this was also evident in Mrs. Miller’s lessons in action and the way that she
interacted with her students. Mrs. Miller intentionally designed and implemented interactions in
a way that required students to collaboratively explore, interpret, and analyze the text. Below is
an example of the kinds of discussion in which the students engaged. The example occurred
during a Socratic seminar style discussion in which they engaged in their final analysis of
“Romeo and Juliet.”
Anthony: Romeo was rejected by Rosaline. He goes to the party and meets Juliet. It
is a love that comes out of nowhere and is outside of their control.
Nobody responds. Everyone looks around, including Aianna, who is leading the first
inner circle discussion. Brandon whispers to Aianna.
Kimberly: I think it is both outside and within her control. Her father nagging her is
what pushes her to kill herself.
Aianna: I agree with that. Killing herself is within her control, but she was nagged
by her father.
Louis: I agree and disagree at the same time. She threatens to kill herself a few
times.
Jocelyne: (can’t hear = c/h).
Aianna cites a part of the text and responds (c/h).
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 102

Kimberly: To add on to what Aianna says… (she reads a quotation from Act 3).
Teacher: Are you saying that her father made her do it?
Kimberly: No, but her father gives her the extra push in Act 3.
Aianna: I think it is because of the family feud. [Refers to Faith’s idea, which is a
reference to a discussion from a previous class meeting.]
Kimberly: Since we’re already talking about their deaths, why don’t we move on to
who is responsible for their deaths?
Dante asserts that it is Tybalt’s fault.
Anthony agrees with Dante and explains that if Tybalt didn’t kill Mercutio, then Romeo
wouldn’t have had to kill Tybalt.
This exchange between the students demonstrates Mrs. Miller’s asset mindset because it
reveals that she did not just articulate a belief in the cognitive capabilities of her students; her
stated beliefs and the way she intentionally designed activities allowed students the opportunity
to collaboratively explore, interpret, and analyze text. The exchange above was representative of
the kinds of discussions that the students engaged in throughout both inner circle discussions as
well as in their small group and partner work in preparation for larger discussions.
At the beginning of the first inner circle, Mrs. Miller had called for a student leader to
facilitate the discussion and one of the students, Aianna, volunteered. In handing responsibility
for the discussion to the students, Mrs. Miller indicated that she believed that they were capable
of leading and sustaining a discussion. Moments after Aianna began the discussion by
establishing a learning goal, the above exchange began when Anthony disagreed with another
student, Dante (whose statement was inaudible). Anthony articulated his disagreement as,
“Romeo was rejected by Rosaline. He goes to the party and meets Juliet. It is a love that comes
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 103

out of nowhere and is outside of their control.” When he was done, none of the students were
immediately able to respond to Anthony’s position. Mrs. Miller did not step in and allowed the
silence. She stayed silent and left it to the student leader and the students to respond to Anthony.
It appeared as if at least one student, Brandon, looked to the student leader, Aianna, for next
steps. He whispered to her. Mrs. Miller’s absence in this initial moment of silence was a
representation of her asset mindset. As stated in my conceptual framework, a teacher with an
asset mindset ideology would provide students both with the opportunity to engage in open
forum discussions and the social exploration of literature and would also recognize that she was
not the only holder of knowledge in the room. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) explained that
instruction that is dialogically organized, the teacher creates spaces for the voice of students,
which provides a balance in the discourse between teacher and students, unlike traditional
instruction in the I-R-E format, which privileges the knowledge of the teacher. By stepping back,
asking a student to facilitate the conversation, and allowing the students a moment of silence that
might lead to or allow for intellectual struggle, Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset. Her
actions suggest that she believed that the students had the cognitive ability to participate in the
conversation and trusted them enough to allow them the space to figure it out when they got
stuck. She reinforced the message that she believed that they were capable of carrying out the
discussion through to the end, which the students were able to do. The silence was broken by
Kimberly, who incorporated Anthony’s statement, “It is a love that comes out of nowhere and is
outside of their control” into her own statement, “I think it is both outside and within her control.
Her father nagging her is what pushes her to kill herself.” The students’ actions suggest that they
did not expect Mrs. Miller to step in when there was a moment of silence. Kimberly broke the
silence and continued the discussion, which continued to develop and unfold. Mrs. Miller did
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 104

step in shortly thereafter to ask a clarifying question, “Are you saying that her father made her do
it?” Kimberly responded to Mrs. Miller’s question and the discussion continued amongst the
students. This exchanged demonstrated dialogically organized instruction, as described by
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) because Mrs. Miller was able to create a space that valued the
students’ voices and knowledge. Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset and a belief in the
students’ cognitive capabilities to conduct a discussion and the students conducted a student-
driven exploration of the text.
In my conceptual framework, I argued that in order to create the conditions for the social
exploration of literature, a teacher’s ideology would acknowledge that he or she was not the sole
holder of knowledge in the classroom and would recognize his or her role as a facilitator of
learning. Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset in the high expectations that she held for her
students, in her belief that her students had the cognitive capability to collaboratively engage in
analysis and interpretation of text, and in her pedagogical choices that supported the students’
active social exploration of literature.
Research Question 2: Classroom Climate
What Features of Classroom Climate do Teachers Actively Facilitate in Order to Encourage the
Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning of Text?
The data showed that Mrs. Miller created a climate in which it was safe to not know; not
knowing and being confused were seen as part of the learning process. Mrs. Miller demonstrated
authentic and aesthetic care, and emotional scaffolding, and creating a climate that was safe and
supported students’ social exploration of literature. I am defining safe as a place in which
students can take intellectual risks without feeling stupid (Valenzuela, 1999) or foolish.
Emotional scaffolds, as described by Rosiek (2003) are approaches that teachers intentionally
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 105

employ in order to reduce unconstructive emotions and increase constructive emotions. Mrs.
Miller utilized emotional scaffolds in order to make students feel safe about making mistakes and
to show them that making mistakes was part of the learning process. Allen et al. (2013) and
Matsumura et al. (2008) asserted that in classrooms with positive climates, teachers explicitly
modeled norms for participation. Mrs. Miller’s classroom also safe because Mrs. Miller
explicitly taught and modeled norms for participation and learning. Finally, Mrs. Miller
demonstrated a focus on supporting students in their own analysis, interpretation, and meaning
making of text. Davis (2006) and Valenzuela (1999) asserted that relations of reciprocity, the
students’ ability to be cognitively engaged, make meaning, and solve problems, was a critical
aspect of authentic care.
The themes that emerged from data around the features that Mrs. Miller facilitated in
order to encourage the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning of text
were creating a safe and supportive environment through the use of emotional scaffolds, creating
a collaborative, non-competitive environment, and demonstrating authentic care and relations of
reciprocity.
Emotional Scaffolding
Mrs. Miller demonstrated the use of emotional scaffolding in ways that enabled students
to take intellectual risks. Emotional scaffolds are the ways in which teachers provide either
implicit or explicit supports to build on constructive emotions that help students further their
learning or else lessen unconstructive emotions that get in the way of learning (Rosiek, 2003).
Mrs. Miller consistently used both implicit and explicit emotional scaffolds to make students
comfortable enough to take intellectual risks. One example of the way in which Mrs. Miller used
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 106

emotional scaffolds was the approach she took in celebrating mistakes and explicitly teaching
students about growth mindset. Mrs. Miller stated that,
I spend a lot of time asking kids to celebrate each other. I spend a bit of time talking
about growth mindset. I spend a lot of time talking about mistakes and uncertainty and
how important and good those are. We do a little routine around making mistakes and
how that’s so exciting. If you don’t understand, oh my gosh! Congratulations! You’re
about to learn. It’s very much like this is a space where this is how we do things.
Mrs. Miller intentionally regularly spoke to the students about mistakes in order to
reassure them that this was part of the learning process, which was an explicit emotional scaffold
designed to lessen the unconstructive emotions of embarrassment over making mistakes; her
purpose was to make the students feel as comfortable as possible and not too afraid or
embarrassed about making mistakes. As Rosiek (2003) asserted, students’ affective response to
learning is an important part of the learning process. Mrs. Miller inserted the idea that making
mistakes is a part of the learning process so that the students would be emotionally prepared
when they actually made a mistake. She anticipated that making a mistake can undermine
learning, for example, by creating embarrassment, and in order to avoid that undermining act,
she set the students up to see making mistakes as positive.
Mrs. Miller responded with an explicit emotional scaffold to students’ apparent
confusion. Emotional scaffolds reduce unconstructive emotions, like confusion or
embarrassment, by reducing the way in which an emotion, such as confusion, can get in the way
of learning (Rosiek, 2013). The following is an example that took place when the students were
working in small groups.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 107

After introducing an assignment, Mrs. Miller began circulating around the room. The
students remained relatively quiet. In response to that, Mrs. Miller made a comment that she did
not hear a lot of voices. She then responded to a student’s request for clarification on external
conflict. Through my observations, this silence among the students and the question articulated
by the individual student was inconsistent with the way students typically interacted during
partner work time. Mrs. Miller’s stated interpretation of this silence and the type of question the
student asked was that the students were confused. She stopped the groups and asked, “How
many of you are feeling a little confused?” Four students raised their hands. Mrs. Miller followed
up by asking, “Only four kids? Really?” The tone of Mrs. Miller’s voice was skeptical. In
response, more students raised their hands. Mrs. Miller then asked, “Can we say it together?”
She and most of the students said in unison, “ta da!” After that, Mrs. Miller asked, “If you’re
feeling confused, what’s happening?” Faith quietly said, “we’re learning.” Mrs. Miller did not
hear her and asked the whole class again, “If you’re feeling confused, what’s happening?” More
students said in unison, “we’re learning.”
When, after circulating through the room, Mrs. Miller paused the group work and asked,
“How many of you are feeling a little confused?” and followed up with “Only four kids?
Really?” she was acknowledging the confusion she was observing in her interactions with the
small groups and provided an explicit emotional scaffold. Her questions were an
acknowledgement of the confusion that they were expressing and her belief that acknowledging
confusion was an important thing to do as a learner. Moreover, when she asked, “Can we say it
together?” she furthered the scaffold to demonstrate that knowing they were confused was
important but not enough. Her question was a call to the students to embrace their confusion.
When she went on to ask, “If you’re feeling confused, what’s happening?” she scaffolded their
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 108

confusion to the idea of learning, as demonstrated by Faith’s statement that “we’re learning” and
additional students’ statements that “we’re learning.” Through her actions, she brought them
from confusion in silence to connecting confusion to an act of learning, thus making public that
confusion and learning were intertwined in important ways.
Collaborative and Non-Competitive Climate
An additional way in which Mrs. Miller provided a safe and supportive environment was
by maintaining a collaborative, non-competitive climate within her classroom (Matsumura et al.,
2008). On more than one occasion, Mrs. Miller said that she would “use the Dojo to call on
someone,” referring to using a digital application called Classroom Dojo in order to randomly
select students to answer questions, similar to drawing popsicle sticks with students’ names
written on them out of a cup. Mrs. Miller’s goal was that each student would be prepared and
that the students would collaborate with each other in order to help each other prepare. In this
way, Mrs. Miller maintained a collaborative and non-competitive environment.
Mrs. Miller stated that, “When you have a moment in class where everyone’s just kind of
like silence, I’m like, ‘All right. I’m going to go Dojo.’ Then they’re okay, because they know
that I’m not going to let them go.” She saw this process as a way of holding students
accountable. Mrs. Miller held students accountable for learning and expected students to socially
explore the text to make meaning and prepare for further participation. She stated that “I may
say, ‘Okay, turn to your neighbor. Talk it through. Have someone get you ready or whatever, but
if I’ve got that out, that means you’re answering this question.’ I don’t know that it makes them
(excerpt shortened) more engaged or more excited or more liking me, but it definitely, I think,
makes them feel like they’re accountable.” Allen et al. (2013) stated that adolescent students
need opportunities to collaborate with peers as well as a need for autonomy. Mrs. Miller
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 109

understood her students’ need for interactions with peers and promoted collaboration by having
students work together to make meaning of text.
Authentic Care
In the conceptual framework, I explained that in a classroom where students were
actively engaged in the type of talk that would serve as a foundation for the social exploration of
literature, the teacher would need to demonstrate authentic care of students by encouraging
students to both ask questions and draw on personal experience while still remaining focused on
both making meaning and analyzing text (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997 ; Valenzuela, 1999).
Valenzuela (1999) defined authentic care as the kind of caring that focuses on the “relationships
of reciprocity between teachers and students” (p. 61). Matsumura et al. (2008) found a
connection between the degree to which teachers pressed students to offer evidence to support
their ideas and the quality of the rigor of class discussions.
In my conceptual framework, using the work of Valenzuela (1999) as well as Nystrand
and Gamoran (1997), I argued that a teacher would demonstrate authentic care by encouraging
student driven questions and offering students the opportunity to draw on their own personal
experience as a lens through which they would interpret and understand the text. Mrs. Miller
demonstrated authentic care by facilitating students’ use of their personal experiences as a way
into analysis and through her use of rigorous academic tasks, activities, and approaches in order
to support students as they collaboratively made meaning and analyzed text.
The first excerpt below shows how Mrs. Miller described her efforts to approach
academic tasks and activities to allow students to make meaning and analyze text. In the first
example, Mrs. Miller stated that:
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 110

The other thing as far as the classroom environment during class, the thing that I have
been focused on most in my growth goals over the past couple of years has been student
voice and trying to incorporate ... I think incorporate falls very short of what I’m trying to
say. It’s not incorporate student voice. It’s the classroom should be student voice.
The student voice should be the engine of the classroom. I’m trying to give them some
structure and some texts to play with, but I’m wanting them to be able to take the material
and put their own spin on it. I want them to be able to do the hunting for evidence or
putting the meaning together or figuring out how it connects to, not so much their own
lives, but how things connect to their interpretations.
Mrs. Miller demonstrated authentic care first by stating her focus on going beyond
incorporating student voice and the recognition that “the classroom should be student voice.”
Having student voice be the engine of the classroom was a way of privileging their ability to
engage in social exploration; it actively positioned them to ask questions and draw on personal
experience. Mrs. Miller’s stated goal included analysis and interpretation of the text, “I want
them to be able to do the hunting for the evidence or putting the meaning together or figuring out
how it connects to, not so much their own lives, but how things connect to their interpretations,”
which is consistent with authentic care because she encouraged students to articulate questions,
analyze, and interpret the text (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999). While she
acknowledged that student interpretation may include a recognition of feelings or their personal
lives by stating, “how things connect to their interpretations,” her focus was not solely about
exploring their feelings. She allowed students to ask questions and draw on their personal
experience as a lens by which they could interpret and analyze the text. Mrs. Miller facilitated
the students’ focus on building their own interpretations and analysis of text. Mrs. Miller’s goal
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 111

was to go beyond having students make an affective personal connection to the text, and to use
their personal connections as a lens through which they interpret text. The students’ personal
lives and the connections they made to the text became a vehicle through which they interpreted
the text.
In this next example from a class interaction, Mrs. Miller showed authentic care by
positioning students to listen and respond to each other in order to support their interpretation
and analysis of the text and then facilitating the interactions between the students so that they
listened and responded to one another.
Mrs. Miller: (bringing up question 6 from the handout) This is the hardest question on
the page. I suggest not jumping to conclusions, listening to each other.
Take the first part of it. What is Juliet’s perspective? No, what is Lady
Capulet’s perspective?”
Mrs. Miller: Masi.
Masi: I don’t really understand it, but I think that Lady Capulet doesn’t like
Romeo because he killed Tybalt.
Mrs. Miller asks for someone to add on to what Masi said and calls on Ignacio (both
Aianna and Melissa raised their hands).
Ignacio begins.
Mrs. Miller pauses Ignacio.
Mrs. Miller: Look at Masi.
Ignacio turns towards Masi.
Ignacio: Lady Capulet thinks that Romeo is a villain.
Ignacio points to the text when he says this.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 112

Mrs. Miller calls on Faith and asks for Juliet’s perspective.
Faith: Speaks quietly [inaudible].
Mrs. Miller wonders aloud if someone can add on.
Mrs. Miller: David?
David: This one, I felt lost when I was reading it.
Mrs. Miller asks David to turn to Faith to speak.
David: [Points to the text.] I’m guessing that that means that he should be
pardoned, but at the same time it is still upsetting.
Mrs. Miller: This is a really tricky situation.
Aianna: This is just my opinion. Maybe Lady Capulet sees Romeo as a villain
because he killed Tybalt, but maybe Juliet feels like he’s a villain because
he left.
Mrs. Miller asks a follow-up question about whether or not Juliet is angry with Romeo
(referring to their discussion from yesterday). Mrs. Miller rereads the scene.
Mrs. Miller to Aianna: Are you trying to say that something has changed between when
Romeo left and she wasn’t angry and now?”
Aianna: She feels, not betrayed, she didn’t want him to leave and he left her and
now she doesn’t know what to do.
Mrs. Miller: Does it make sense that her feelings would change so dramatically in like
a minute?
Several kids simultaneously say yes.
Mrs. Miller looks back at when Romeo leaves and the students look in the book.
Andres: She cares about him.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 113

Mrs. Miller: Have you had a situation where you know what the other person (parent,
grandparent, friend) thinks, you don’t want to upset them, but you don’t
agree?
Mrs. Miller gives a hypothetical situation about when you tell the truth, but you say it in a
way that the listener draws your own conclusions. She rereads the section between Lady
Capulet and Juliet.
Mrs. Miller: Does Juliet know her mom’s perspective?
This exchange illustrated ways in which Mrs. Miller demonstrated authentic care by
facilitating the students’ exploration of literature in a way that allowed them to ask questions,
draw on their personal experience, and pressed them both for evidence and to support their ideas.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) argue that dialogic instruction occurs when people collaboratively
make sense of ideas; they further suggest that instruction that is organized by recitation
privileges the teacher’s knowledge and positions students as receivers of knowledge. Mrs.
Miller’s approach demonstrated authentic care because she intentionally supported students as
they explored the text for the purpose of building meaning. To begin with, Mrs. Miller asked that
the students not jump to conclusions and that they listen to each other. In this way, listening and
responding to each other were cognitive acts that positioned the students to ask questions of each
other and the text and to make meaning of the text. In beginning by encouraging students not to
jump to conclusions but to listen to each other, Mrs. Miller’s message implied that they should
listen to each other as well as listen for evidence in order to build a potential argument.
Mrs. Miller asked the students to consider both Juliet and Lady Capulet’s perspectives.
After getting the first contribution from Masi, who stated that “I don’t really understand it, but I
think that Lady Capulet doesn’t like Romeo because he killed Tybalt,” Mrs. Miller called for
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 114

someone to add on to what Masi said. In the traditional I-R-E (initiation-response-evaluation)
structure, Mrs. Miller would have evaluated the response and asked an additional follow-up
question or asked for additional, independent responses. By asking for another student to add on
to Masi’s comment, Mrs. Miller reinforced her initial request that students listen and respond to
each other by directly seeking a student response to Masi’s statement. Davis (2006) suggested
that teachers demonstrate authentic care by supporting students’ as they construct their own
understanding. Additionally, by asking students to listen and respond to each other, Mrs. Miller
positioned students to move through the text and examine their understanding, which is
consistent with authentic care and relations of reciprocity.
From the request for someone to build on Masi’s statement, Mrs. Miller called on
Ignacio, who began speaking. Mrs. Miller interrupted Ignacio and asked that he turn to “look at
Masi.” The instruction by Mrs. Miller to Ignacio to “look at Masi” further facilitated a direct
interaction between the students and demonstrated to students specifically how they should listen
and talk to each other. Davis (2006) stated that another way in which teachers show care was by
creating what she called, “a shared intellectual space with their students” (p. 201). By reminding
students to address each other when speaking, Mrs. Miller reinforced the exchange between the
students, and encouraged them to address each other about their interpretation of the text, rather
than going off topic to another point. When Ignacio responded to Masi and said, “Lady Capulet
thinks that Romeo is a villain,” he pointed to the text. While he did not directly use evidence
from the text, pointing to the text indicated an attempt on the part of the student to respond to his
classmate, Masi, as well as to acknowledge the text. Matsumura et al. (2008) found that there
was a connection to the quality of the rigor of the class discussion and the level with which
teachers pressed students to use evidence in support of their assertions. This interaction
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 115

demonstrated authentic care because Mrs. Miller supported the students in their collaborative
exploration of text by focusing students on both their analysis of the text as well as how they
participated in the conversation and how they interacted with each other.
After this initial exchange between Masi and Ignacio, Mrs. Miller returned to the
question that they were exploring and asked another student, Faith, for Juliet’s perspective. Faith
replied (the content of Faith’s reply was inaudible) and Mrs. Miller asked if “someone could add
on.” By asking for someone to add on, Mrs. Miller pressed Faith’s classmates for further
evidence. David responded that, “This one, I felt lost when I was reading it.” Again, Mrs. Miller
directed the responding student, David, to turn to Faith when he spoke, further reinforcing the
message that students should listen to each other and build on each other’s responses. David
continued by pointing to the text and stating, “I’m guessing that that means that he should be
pardoned, but at the same time it is still upsetting.” Mrs. Miller did not ignore David’s comment
to move to another idea nor did she save him or let him off the hook. At this point in the
discussion, Mrs. Miller commented that “this is a tricky situation.” Mrs. Miller’s comment did
not serve to function as a traditional evaluative comment on the discussion. Instead, her comment
that the situation is “tricky” demonstrated that the situation in the text was tricky and it was
challenging to interpret it. When she said that “this is a tricky situation,” Mrs. Miller
acknowledged the complexity of the text and gave the students the freedom to struggle by
implying that the text was tricky and, therefore, not straightforward and there was no one right
answer. In this way, in addition to asking questions and pressing for evidence, Mrs. Miller
supported the students’ ideas as they wrestled with the text.
Following this, Aianna said, “This is just my opinion. Maybe Lady Capulet sees Romeo
as a villain because he killed Tybalt, but maybe Juliet feels like he’s a villain because he left.” In
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 116

stating that “this is just my opinion,” Aianna demonstrated that she was interpreting the text
through her own lens. Mrs. Miller asked Aianna, “Are you trying to say that something has
changed between when Romeo left and she wasn’t angry and now?” The follow-up question that
Mrs. Miller asked served to press Aianna to support her idea.
Matsumura et al. (2008) looked at classrooms that had both positive climates and
rigorous instruction and found evidence of the co-construction of knowledge between teachers
and students; students and their teachers used evidence to support their ideas and students and
their teachers built on and extended each other’s’ ideas. Mrs. Miller showed authentic care by
continuing to ask students to slow down to attend to the discussion, to listen with the goal of
building an argument, and to draw on their personal experiences as a lens to interpret text,
thereby deepening their understanding of the text.
Research Question 3: Pedagogy
What Are the Pedagogical Acts that the Teachers Engage in to Create the Conditions for the
Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning of Text?
In my conceptual framework, I explained that in order to see the social exploration of
literature through open forum discussions, a teacher would have to act as a supportive adult by
providing scaffolds that allowed students to enter a conversation to build meaning and interpret
text. Furthermore, the teacher would have to model how to participate in a discussion, including
moderating turns for students entering the discussion in order to make certain that multiple
voices are heard. Mrs. Miller engaged in several specific pedagogical acts in order to create the
conditions that allowed students to socially explore literature for the purpose of making meaning
of text. Smagorinsky (2003) explained that exploratory talk is a way in which students are able to
explore ideas without having to be concerned with being evaluated; exploratory talk can be used
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 117

to help the speaker figure out what he or she thinks, as opposed to final draft speech where the
speaker must already be certain about his or her idea. Mrs. Miller employed a variety of scaffolds
that offered students multiple ways of socially engaging in engaging in exploratory talk as they
analyzed and interpreted the text. Mrs. Miller did not require the students to engage in what
Smagorinsky (2003) described as final draft speech; she facilitated using exploratory speech and
engaged discussion in order for students to figure explore and analyze text. She had students
work in small groups in order to prepare for larger group discussions. In order to help prepare
students for discussions, she modeled how to engage in interpreting text so that students came to
larger group discussions with questions and observations that they could contribute to the
conversation.
In order to adequately prepare the students to internalize the set of skills required to
participate successfully in the Socratic Seminar discussion of “Romeo and Juliet,” Mrs. Miller
broke the hard tasks of discussion preparation into manageable, smaller chunks that would allow
the students to internalize the skills required to engage in the act of discussing the text through
the Socratic Seminar, which is consistent with the first stage of the ZPD, that of the assisted
performance, as described by Tharp and Gallimore (1988). In the section below, I will describe
and analyze the ways in which Mrs. Miller used and organized a variety of scaffolds and
modeled how to participate in discussions as she prepared students for the eventual Socratic
Seminar discussion.
Assisted Performance
Mrs. Miller stated that she believed that, “The unprepared discussion, I’ve found, in ninth
grade does not feel authentic.” To that end, Mrs. Miller utilized several pedagogical acts,
including setting learning targets and utilizing partner and small group structures, that guided and
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 118

assisted students in preparation for larger group discussions. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) explain
that the first stage of the ZPD is that of assisted performance. In this stage, the teacher provides
support to break down the task and guide the learner so that he or she will be successful in the
task. The purpose of the guided assistance that Mrs. Miller provided was to support students in
grappling with the text in order for students to explore possible meanings, suggest
interpretations, analyze the characters and plot, and draw conclusions in order to assist students
in developing their literary thinking, analysis, and interpretation of text.
Mrs. Miller recognized that many of her students needed support in order to successfully
navigate academic conversations exploring their interpretations of text. One example in the way
that Mrs. Miller recognized her students’ need for support was demonstrated in the following
statement:
I don’t stand in front of the classroom and say, “So what do we think?” very much or
very often. The unprepared discussion, I’ve found, in ninth grade does not feel authentic.
When I’m trying to get them talking, I’m getting them talking in some group form.
Usually it’s groups of four or groups of two or these slightly bigger groups. If what
you’re looking for is brilliant college group discussion with a group of 30, I don’t think
that is really realistic. The 15s have actually been amazing.
Mrs. Miller’s statement regarding the unprepared discussion demonstrated her
recognition of the need for support in order for her students to successfully participate in the
social exploration of literature. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) suggested that in order to organize
instruction dialogically, students need the opportunity to collaboratively make sense of ideas and
to build off of each other’s interpretations. This is similar to the exploratory talk that
Smagorinsky (2003). To that end, Mrs. Miller used responsive assistance; she set up activities,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 119

often in small groups, that allowed students to successfully participate in activities that engaged
them in interpreting the text. The groups functioned as a form of assisted performance. Tharp
and Gallimore (1988) explained that “Assisted performance defines what a child can do with
help, with the support of the environment, of others, and of the self” (p. 30, italics in original).
When Mrs. Miller “wants to get them talking,” one approach she used was the small group
structure to assist the performance of students as they collaboratively explored text.
As an example, on one occasion Mrs. Miller had the students work in small groups and
assigned each group a passage from “Romeo and Juliet” to annotate in a shared Google
Document. Mrs. Miller assigned the groups and each group had a different passage. Mrs. Miller
selected the passages and groups strategically in order to create groups that could support each
other and to match the students with a piece of text that was appropriately challenging. She
began the exercise by explaining the learning target to the students. She stated that, “The
learning target today is to identify and develop the themes/motifs over time.” Mrs. Miller had
articulated eight specific “Topics to Track” that the students were exploring in connection with
“Romeo and Juliet.” At the start of the group annotation, she reminded students that they would
be annotating the text in light of the “Topics to Track.”
Furthermore, Mrs. Miller provided three options for the groups in their annotation of the
passage. The options included:
Option A
• Read out loud
• Tag topics/motifs
• Summarize
• Tag topics/motifs
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 120

• Answer questions
Option B
• Read out loud
• Summarize
• Tag topics/motifs
• Answer questions
Option C
• Your choice!
In beginning the activity, Mrs. Miller pointed to the three options for the group text
annotation and reviewed them. Option A began with reading aloud, tagging topics and motifs,
summarizing, and then continuing to tag topics and motifs. The second option, Option B, began
with reading aloud a section and then summarizing; from the summary, students would then tag
topics and motifs. The main difference between Options A and B was a recursive element to
Option A with the directions of tagging topics and motifs, summarizing, and returning to the text
to continue tagging topics and motifs. The third option, Option C, was left open for students to
determine how they would approach the annotation. According to Mrs. Miller’s directions to the
students, “some of the passages will have obvious connections to the Topics to Track.” She
further explained that Option A was the one that she recommended because it was a very
scholarly approach. She went on to explain that Option B was to read, summarize, tag motifs,
answer questions, which was, according to Mrs. Miller, “perfectly good.” The third option was a
student choice option. Mrs. Miller did not make it clear to the students why she thought Option
A was more scholarly or what made Option B “perfectly good” rather than scholarly. For some
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 121

students, Option B might fit more directly in their ZPD since the process of summarizing the text
might help support the students in identifying the topics or motifs to tag.
The structure of this activity included several aspects of guided assistance. First, Mrs.
Miller chose the groups based on their previous levels of performance, determining which
students were at approximately the same level. Mrs. Miller stated that for this activity, she
intentionally grouped the kids by ability to allow the students who needed a challenge the
opportunity to tackle a harder passage and those students who needed something a little more
accessible an easier passage. This was evident in the passages the students were reading; some of
the passages were more complex than others. By organizing the groups prior to the activity, Mrs.
Miller was able to select specific passages for each group and, in so doing, to match the level of
complexity of the text to within the ZPD of each group.
By providing specific approaches to annotating the text as well as choices for engaging
with the text, Mrs. Miller offered scaffolds and allowed groups the choice to select an
appropriate scaffold. Furthermore, by structuring this as a group activity, students were able to
collaborate and share the experience. Smagorinsky (2013), drawing on the work of Vygotsky,
explained that “thinking is social in origin: we learn not only words, but ways of thinking,
through our engagement with the people who surround us” (p. 197). Mrs. Miller stated that
“When I’m trying to get them talking, I’m getting them talking in some group form.” She used
the groups as a social support, which is an appropriate scaffold. The activity was structured so
that the students could engage in a particular type of academic talk and exploration of the text
with the support of their peers.
Before starting the group activity, Mrs. Miller provided specific instructions in how to
approach the activity. Miller (2003) suggested that teachers can facilitate students’ participation
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 122

in the collaboratively analyzing and interpreting text by using scaffolding strategies that support
interpreting and evaluating text. Mrs. Miller used questioning as a form of metacognition, asking
students to think about the type of thinking they would be doing during the activity. For example,
after explaining ways in which the groups could approach annotating the text, she asked them to
consider, “What would be a level 5?” Level 5 was the term for a high evaluation or score for an
assignment. In asking the students to determine what a level 5 response would look like, she used
questioning to help them consider the qualities of the annotation and to conceptually organize the
activity prior to beginning.
David: You connect that love and hate are connected.
Mrs. Miller: Level 5 has annotations connect to the topics. Would tagging it be enough
for a level 5?
Jasmine: Maybe the tag has to show and explain how the tag fits the topic.
Mrs. Miller notes this on the board:
Level 5:
Annotations CONNECT 2+ topics
Tag the topic AND describe or explain connections
Mrs. Miller: What is the point of this? What do I hope you’re going to get out of this?
Turn and talk to your neighbor. I’ll call on someone randomly.
The students turn and talk to their neighbors about what a level 5 response might look
like.
After a moment, Mrs. Miller looks at her phone.
Mrs. Miller: Using the dojo to call someone at random. Anthony?
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 123

Anthony: Are you serious? [The tone was sarcastic.] To become familiar with the
text and to see the connections. [The tone was even.]
In this exchange, Mrs. Miller utilized questioning techniques as a form of guided
assistance. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) defined this form of questioning as assistance questions
and suggested that assistance questions could be used “in order to produce a mental operation
that the pupil cannot or will not produce alone” (p. 60). The initial question, “What would be a
level 5?” elicited a concrete response from David, who pointed out that “love and hate are
connected.” David’s response demonstrated the cognitive act of making meaning of the topics to
track in relation to the text of “Romeo and Juliet.” His statement that “love and hate are
connected” showed that he recognized that the purpose of the act of tagging topics and motifs
was to bring together different ideas to show their relationship to each other. When Mrs. Miller
responded to David’s statement, she was acknowledging that he had performed the cognitive act
of analyzing the skills needed in this activity and she broke down that act, unpacking David’s
specific response, that “love and hate are connected,” and articulating the skill involved in the
activity, “Level 5 has annotations connect to the topic.” In this case, the skill involved used the
action of annotating as a way to support students in the cognitive act of making a connection
between two concepts.
After articulating the skill of annotations connecting to the topics, Mrs. Miller further
pressed the students to build on identifying the skills involved in the cognitive act of annotating
by asking if tagging is enough for a level 5. Jasmine tentatively suggested that “Maybe the tag
has to show and explain how the tag fits the topic.” Jasmine’s suggestion took David’s concrete
response that “love and hate are connected” and Mrs. Miller’s question of whether “tagging is
enough for a level 5” and synthesized both the response and the question by taking the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 124

suggestion of specific topics and connecting it to the abstract. Mrs. Miller’s question, “if tagging
is enough for a level 5,” served as a prompt for Jasmine and her classmates to imagine the
activity prior to attempting to carrying out the activity. By imagining it first and being asked to
articulate the steps, the students built a frame of reference to guide them in carrying out the task
at hand. Mrs. Miller took Jasmine’s response and added it to the board as a visual reminder of the
steps of the activity and the qualities of a level 5 annotation. With the support of Mrs. Miller,
David and Jasmine helped to build a frame of reference that served as a form of cognitive
structuring, which Tharp and Gallimore (1988) defined as a “provision of a structure for thinking
and action” (p. 63). In this case, the structure included the cognitive act of connecting two or
more topics and the action included the act of annotating the text and explaining how the text
connects to two or more topics.
Furthermore, after adding the qualities of a level 5 annotation to the board, Mrs. Miller
asked the students, “What is the point of this? What do I hope you’re going to get out of this?
Turn and talk to your neighbor. I’ll call on someone randomly.” Initially, two students
participated in the exchange with Mrs. Miller about the qualities of a level 5 annotation response.
In asking students to talk to a partner to discuss the purpose of the activity, Mrs. Miller created
the conditions for students to engage in an intentional cognitive action that would activate their
prior knowledge. The partner discussion served two purposes; first, it gave the students a chance
to review the steps of the activity so that they could consider the objective behind the activity.
The second purpose was to activate their prior knowledge; by activating their prior knowledge,
Mrs. Miller could then facilitate building on what the students already knew.
After giving the students a chance to speak with their partner, Mrs. Miller announced that
she would “use the dojo” to call on a student. After looking at the Classroom Dojo application,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 125

Mrs. Miller called on Anthony, who was able to explain that the purpose was “to become
familiar with the text and to see the connections.” Additionally, when first called on, Anthony
began his response with “Are you serious?” before clearly articulating the purpose of the
activity. His initial response, “Are you serious?” and quick, clear explanation indicated both that
he had internalized the process of reviewing activities in order to clarify the learning goals and
also indicated both his awareness of the procedure and that he was aware that she was
reinforcing the procedure within the classroom community. His sarcastic response, which was
indicated in the tone in which he asked, “Are you serious?” may also have been evidence that
Anthony was further along in his ZPD and he may not have needed this type of reinforcement.
Anthony’s response that the purpose was “to become familiar with the text and to see the
connections,” however, served as scaffold for those students who still needed clarification of the
objective of the learning activity.
After specifically preparing students for the group annotation activity, Mrs. Miller placed
the students into groups. In observation, the groups appeared to be randomly selected and all
groups were assigned different passages of the same act in “Romeo and Juliet.” After the
observation, Mrs. Miller explained that the groups were deliberately selected into level alike
groups in order to provide students with an appropriately challenging text. In this way, Mrs.
Miller both deliberately designed the structure of the activity to support students in their
interaction with each other and the text and selected text in order to challenge the students and
meet them within their ZPD.
In the exchange below, I will examine how the small groups served as a form of guided
assistance. This exchange occurred shortly after beginning the group annotation. The exchange
also demonstrates the social exploration of literature. I will focus my analysis more specifically
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 126

on the ways in which Mrs. Miller incorporated guided assistance to support the students as they
collaborated to make meaning and analyze the text.
Dante asked the group, “Did they say coz back then?” Dante quietly says, “Come on,
coz.” This group was talking about whether Romeo thinks love is a sin and exploring the
idea that society thinks love is a sin. Javier said that in nature, love is a sin and pointed to
the text on the screen. The group was examining the text and annotating it in a Google
Document. Dante replied that he was not sure. At this moment, Mrs. Miller walked by
and suggested to Dante that he tag it in the comment and add that he was not sure
because, “at least then you have a record of it.” Dante smiled.
Bridgette then asked the group, “Can we use our own annotations.” Priscilla nodded yes
in response. They start looking for contrasts.
Priscilla noted, “There are a lot of contrasts in here!”
Bridgette, “There’s a lot of everything in here. We just have to find it.”
Bridgette then read aloud. “Identify a line with a feather in it and discuss how it contrasts
a feather of lead, a heavy feather, cold fire … everything that’s being described is
opposites [sic].”
During the initial part of the group interaction, when Dante both asked and answered his
own question and Javier suggested that love was a sin, it appeared as if the students were not yet
working collaboratively. The conversation was disjointed and seemed as if the students were
participating in parallel play. When Dante asked his question, he was thinking aloud. He did not
appear to expect an answer and responded to himself. This was evidenced by his quiet response,
“Come on, coz.” The students were analyzing a passage in Act 1, scene 1 of “Romeo and Juliet;”
and both Romeo and his cousin, Benvolio, used the phrase “coz” to address each other. At the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 127

moment, Dante was looking at the text and stating both a question and a potential response. The
articulation of both the question and a response are indicators that Dante may have been
transitioning from Stage 1 of the ZPD to Stage 2. Based on the work of Vygotsky, Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) asserted that the onset of children using speech to guide their own behavior
marks a transition in control; the transition is marked when the learner begins to guide and direct
for him/herself. The question that Dante articulated aloud and then answered indicated a use of
exploratory speech. Smagorinsky (2013) argued that exploratory speech could be used as a tool
for thinking. Additionally, Dante’s question has characteristics of Langer’s (1998) second stage
of envisionment building, maintaining a point of reference. In maintaining a point of reference,
according to Langer (1998), the reader focuses on an idea within the text to use as a point of
reference. Dante, in asking if people used the word coz “back then,” uses the language as a point
of reference and a way into the text.
At the beginning of the exchange, Javier did not respond to Dante’s question; instead, he
began to verbalize a potential interpretation of the passage by suggesting that love was a sin. In
this way, Javier also used exploratory speech. Dante was uncertain about this suggestion and
stated that he was unsure about it. Dante’s initial response to the text demonstrated that he was
considering the text in wondering if they used the phrase “coz” back then. By responding to
Javier’s suggestion that love was a sin, Dante further demonstrated a willingness to consider both
the text and to consider Javier’s suggested interpretation in relation to his own thinking about the
text. Both Dante and Javier were engaging in exploratory speaking as a way of considering and
building meaning.
As Mrs. Miller passed by the group, she overheard Dante’s response of uncertainty and
suggested that he tag the passage that he was not sure about because then, “at least you have a
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 128

record of it.” In this way, while the small groups were interacting, Mrs. Miller continued to
provide some guided assistance; the suggestion to tag a piece of text with not being sure
provided a strategy for the group to approach the text and also demonstrated that they did not
need to be certain right away about their interpretation. The students could use the activity,
tagging or annotating the text, as a placeholder for their interpretations and a record of their
responses.
While Mrs. Miller did provide some guided assistance during the group interaction, the
students were interacting with the text, utilizing exploratory speech, and beginning to build some
momentum as they began to come together to discuss the text. Her suggestion provided support
that the students could take up. Dante smiled at her suggestion, which indicated that the
suggestion was not unwelcome. The group did not discuss Mrs. Miller’s suggestion and
continued to move forward as they began their interpretation and analysis of the text.
After Mrs. Miller’s suggestion, Bridgette asked the group if they were allowed to use
their own annotations and Priscilla nodded yes in response. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) suggest
that a more capable other can guide the learner by modeling and giving feedback. In this way,
Priscilla served as a knowledgeable other and helped to assist Bridgette in her approach to
annotating the text; she verified the appropriate use of bringing in Bridgette’s earlier and
individual annotations of the text. After this, Priscilla noted, “There are a lot of contrasts in
here!” Bridgette responded that, “There’s a lot of everything in here. We just have to find it.”
While Dante, Javier, Bridgette, and Priscilla were grouped together, the group operated as
partners. Mrs. Miller intentionally grouped students together by picking texts and organizing the
students in groups that matched their ability. Her stated goal was to “group the kids by ability to
allow the students who needed a challenge the opportunity to tackle a harder passage and those
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 129

students who needed something a little more accessible an easier passage.” In observation, Dante
and Javier appeared to partner together to interpret and analyze and Bridgette and Priscilla did
the same. Both sets of partners demonstrated that having another student to work with who was
at a similar pace allowed them to engage in the text in a way that they may not have been able to
do on their own. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) suggest that a teacher can structure cognitive tasks
to support learners in the first stage of the ZPD. The deliberate grouping or, in this case
partnering, served as a form of guided assistance because the students were able to assist each
other in the work of analyzing and interpreting text.
Mrs. Miller’s choice to intentionally create the groups and select appropriately
challenging text with partners that were in approximately the same stage of the ZPD allowed the
students the chance to support each other in the thinking work of analysis and interpretation.
Mrs. Miller did not simplify the task. She held the task of analysis and interpretation constant,
but provided text that was accessible to the students based on her knowledge of where the
students were as learners and what they would need in order to make progress in their learning
and she made certain that the students understood at least two approaches to working with the
text, in this way guiding their success through the task of analysis and interpretation.
Metacognition and Reflection
The data showed that Mrs. Miller pedagogical choices demonstrated aspects of
metacognition and reflection in her work with students in order to support the students as they
socially explored literature. Mrs. Miller regularly engaged the students in pausing their work to
reflect on their understanding and on the work that they engaged in collaboratively.
According to Pintrich (2002), metacognitive knowledge includes an understanding on the
part of the learner of a variety of general strategies for learning, the knowledge of the usefulness
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 130

of different strategies for different situations, and an understanding of the self as a learner.
Without learning strategic metacognitive approaches or an understanding of him or herself as a
learner, it is difficult for an inexperienced learner to independently adjust his or her approach to a
challenging cognitive task if he or she is unaware that he or she is struggling to understand and
learn it. Rodgers (2002), building on the work of Dewey, defined reflection as “a meaning-
making process” (p. 845). Rodgers (2002) articulated four phases of systematic, reflective
thinking; these four phases include presence to an experience, description of the experience,
analysis of the experience, and finally, intelligent action/experimentation. While she did not
discuss reflection or metacognition when interviewed, Mrs. Miller modeled and incorporated
reflective strategies and demonstrated elements of pedagogical strategies that had the potential to
support students in metacognitive practices.
I saw evidence of Mrs. Miller modeling and incorporating reflective strategies that had
the potential to develop and reinforce the students’ understanding of text as well as to support
them in developing an awareness of their own learning processes. Mrs. Miller incorporated the
modeling and use of reflection as part of her pedagogical approach to learning in the classroom.
This was evident in her whole and small group interactions with students as well as in-class
reflective writing activities that were designed to pause students before proceeding in the next
step of their group work and social exploration of literature.
This is one example of the kind of reflection that I saw Mrs. Miller utilize with her
students. At the end of one lesson, Mrs. Miller asked the students to write responses to the
following questions:
1. How far did your group get today?
2. What questions do you have about this project and the process of this project?
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 131

3. Do you understand your passage now better than you did at the beginning of class
today?
Both the second and third questions from the exit ticket questions served reflective
purposes, but fell short of being truly metacognitive. By asking students to write a response to
the questions that they had both about the project and process of the project after they began the
project, Mrs. Miller positioned the students to consider their understanding of the task of
working in collaboration to analyze and interpret the text. These questions appeared to be
designed to prompt students to generate and articulate questions about the project itself, areas in
which they might be confused, as well as the process and their approach to the project. Pintrich
(2002) asserted that there is a distinction between “(a) knowledge of cognition and (b) the
processes involving the monitoring, control, and regulation of cognition” (p. 219). Mrs. Miller’s
writing prompt asked students to consider both the project and the process of approaching the
project, thereby encouraging students to consider both their understanding of the work that they
were doing as well as requiring them to consider their approach to the task at hand. By requiring
students to write a reflection at the end of the class period, before the students had completed the
project, Mrs. Miller modeled the questions that would support novice learners to engage in using
metacognitive tools in order to begin to regulate their own learning. In order to be truly
metacognitive, however, Mrs. Miller’s questions would have had to more specifically address
metacognition. For example, in addition to asking the students “Do you understand your passage
now better than you did at the beginning of class today,” Mrs. Miller would have needed to ask
the students to articulate what they did not understand initially and the ways in which the
students approached the task that helped them to reach understanding.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 132

The act of writing a response to the three questions functioned as part of the first three
phases of reflection, as described by Rodgers (2002). The first question, “How far did your group
get today?,” required students to describe the experience, the second phase of systematic,
reflective thinking. In order to describe the experience, one would assume the students would
have to be present to the experience, but without the ability to examine the students’ written
responses, it is hard to say with accuracy if this is true. Nevertheless, by asking the question,
“How far did your group get today?,” Mrs. Miller asked the students to pause and look back at
what they accomplished with their group. There are two possible parts the students could have
written in response to this question. First, they could have explained exactly how far, in terms of
lines, they and their groups had gotten in annotating the assigned text. Additionally, the students
could also have written about how far they and their group got in terms of their understanding of
the text. The first question offered students the opportunity to pause and look back at their
progress after having just begun part of the task of socially exploring text through a group
annotation project.
The second and third questions about the project, the process of the project, and the
students’ understanding of their passage, also point to a description of the experience and have
the potential to elicit an analysis of the experience, which, according to Rodgers (2002) is the
third phase of systematic, reflective thinking. In asking the students to pause and consider the
project, the process of the project, and their own understanding, Mrs. Miller supported the
students in slowing themselves down before engaging further in the work. The questions, as
articulated, had the potential to engage the students in the type of cognitive act that would
support their continued work as a group to analyze and interpret the text. The three questions for
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 133

reflection at the end of class gave the students the chance to step back from the activity of group
analysis and prepare for the next phase of the work.
Finally, according to Rodgers (2002), the fourth phase of systematic, reflective thinking
includes intelligent action and experimentation. The writing response prompts did not include a
question that might elicit a consideration for how the students would approach the task when
they continued with the project.
In another example of reflection, examined earlier in classroom climate, Mrs. Miller
stopped the students during a group activity to ask, “How many of you are feeling a little
confused?” Four students raised their hands. After glancing around the room, Mrs. Miller
followed up by asking, “Only four kids? Really?” In response, more students raised their hands.
Mrs. Miller then asked, “Can we say it together?” She and most of the students said in unison,
“ta da!” After that, Mrs. Miller asked, “If you’re feeling confused, what’s happening?” Faith
quietly said, “we’re learning.” Mrs. Miller did not hear her and asked the whole class again, “If
you’re feeling confused, what’s happening?” More students said in unison, “we’re learning.”
In addition to making students feel safe to express and feel confusion in the learning
process, this interaction demonstrated another way in which Mrs. Miller embedded the use of
reflective processes to support student learning. Pintrich (2002) asserted that one aspect of
metacognition is an accurate self-knowledge on the part of the learner. Without knowing whether
or not he or she is understanding the cognitive task at hand, it is difficult for the learner to adjust
his or her approach to the task (Pintrich, 2002). Mrs. Miller recognized that there were students
who were confused and struggling with the group task. Instead of repeating the directions or
lecturing the students in order to clear up the confusion, Mrs. Miller asked the students to
acknowledge their confusion. Initially, four students raised their hand acknowledging their
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 134

confusion. Mrs. Miller seemed to think that more students had been confused during the activity
and pressed the students further by asking, “Only four kids? Really?” More students raised their
hand, acknowledging their confusion.
By asking students to acknowledge their own confusion, Mrs. Miller engaged the
students in an act of reflection that included the beginning stages of systematic, reflective
thinking as well as some elements of metacognitive processes. When Mrs. Miller paused the
group interaction and asked students to name their confusion, she modeled the use of
metacognitive processes in approaching confusing and challenging tasks. Additionally, by asking
the students to name their confusion, Mrs. Miller slowed down the experience and required
students to be present to the experience, which is the first stage of systematic, reflective thinking.
Furthermore, by asking students, “If you’re feeling confused, what’s happening?” Mrs. Miller
pressed the students to consider the role of confusion in the cognitive task at hand, offering them
the opportunity to recognize that working on a challenging and confusing task is part of the
learning process. This example demonstrates that Mrs. Miller incorporated some aspects of
reflection as well as metacognitive tools with her novice learners. The next step would have been
for Mrs. Miller to press the students to analyze the experience and then articulate the approach
that they were using in accomplishing the task. She could then have asked the students to
brainstorm alternative approaches that could be used as well as asked the students to articulate
the value to each of the alternative approaches. Students could have then selected an alternative
approach and attempted that approach the next time that they worked on the project. Instead,
Mrs. Miller helped the class as a whole determine the meaning of the text before continuing their
approach. This accomplished the goal of allowing students to successfully complete the task, but
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 135

did not position students to know how to independently determine a different approach the next
time they faced a similarly challenging task.
Pintrich (2002) asserted that instruction in strategic metacognitive knowledge provided
learners with deliberate ways for them to plan their approach to a cognitive task, as well as both
monitor their progress and regulate their own learning and the ways in which they considered
their learning. Furthermore, Pintrich (2002) asserted that students need to have an accurate
understanding of their strengths and weaknesses as a learner in order for them to use that
understanding to adjust their approach to learning in a variety of contexts. Mrs. Miller provided
opportunities for reflecting on their learning as well as the role of confusion in the learning
process. Consistent with Mrs. Miller’s pedagogical approach, she provided reflective
opportunities that approach strategic, reflective thinking as well as incorporated elements of
metacognition.
Conclusion
Using the conceptual framework as my analytical lens, the data in the case study of Mrs.
Miller and her ninth grade English class revealed that Mrs. Miller had an asset mindset, created a
safe climate, and utilized pedagogies to support her students in their social exploration of
literature. Mrs. Miller demonstrated a belief in the cognitive capabilities of her students while
recognizing that many of her students would need support to be able to successfully participate
in both large and smaller open forum discussions in pursuit of the social exploration of literature.
Additionally, the data showed that Mrs. Miller created the conditions in her classroom that
supported students in engaging in academic talk with partners, small groups, and larger groups
designed to facilitate their own analysis and interpretation of literature.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 136

Mrs. Miller’s expressed ideology showed an asset mindset. Milner (2010) argued that
teachers need to be able to see students’ strengths in order to design appropriate scaffolds. Mrs.
Miller articulated a belief in the cognitive capabilities of her students and actively designed
lessons and activities that centered around student learning, thereby putting her expressed beliefs
in action with her students. There was evidence in the data to support that Mrs. Miller believed
that all of her students, regardless of academic designation, were capable of critical and creative
thinking. Milner (2010) suggested that an asset mindset and a belief in seeing students as capable
was necessary in designing and supporting students in engaging in cognitively challenging work.
Mrs. Miller valued the students’ input and believed they had the cognitive capability to find
evidence in the text to support their analysis and interpretation of literature. The data further
showed that Mrs. Miller intentionally planned and implemented lessons to support students in the
social exploration of literature for the purposes of allowing students both analyze and interpret
the text.
In addition, evidence in the data showed that Mrs. Miller used authentic care (Valenzuela,
1999), emotional scaffolding (Rosiek, 2003), and relations of reciprocity (Davis, 2006;
Valenzuela, 1999) to create a safe climate that allowed for the social exploration of literature by
students. The data demonstrated that Mrs. Miller showed authentic care by expressly recognizing
and stating that “the classroom should be student voice” and then actively working to design
opportunities for students to speak and engage in open forum discussion. The data showed that
Mrs. Miller created a space with the students where it was safe to both not know, to make
mistakes, and to feel confusion in learning; not knowing, making mistakes, and feeling confusion
were all seen as part of the learning process. Furthermore, the data showed that by setting
students up to see confusion and mistakes as a positive part of the learning process, Mrs. Miller
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 137

utilized emotional scaffolds, which was consistent with the work of Rosiek (2003), in ways that
minimized the potential undermining effects of making mistakes or confusion in ways that
supported and enabled students to take intellectual risks.
Furthermore, the data also showed that Mrs. Miller demonstrated authentic care by
positioning students to listen and respond to each other as they worked collectively to analyze
and interpret text. The data showed that Mrs. Miller’s goal was for each of her students to be
prepared to participate in social interactions that would allow them to collaborate with their peers
in order to make meaning of text, which demonstrated relations of reciprocity (Davis, 2006). By
positioning students to listen and respond to each other, Mrs. Miller created the conditions that
allowed students to ask questions of themselves, each other, and the text. The evidence in the
data showed that Mrs. Miller created a collaborative and non-competitive environment
(Matsumura et al., 2008). Mrs. Miller expected students to work together to help each other
understand the text and to support each other in preparation for participating in open forum
discussions, both in small group and in larger Socratic seminar style discussions.
Mrs. Miller employed pedagogical acts in order to support students’ preparation for
larger group discussions. While Mrs. Miller recognized her students’ cognitive capabilities to
engage in the social exploration of literature, she also anticipated that many of her students
needed assistance in order to successfully participate in academic conversations that would allow
them to collaboratively analyze and interpret text. To that end, she used setting learning targets,
small group structures, and worked to create rigorous tasks that were within the students’ ZPD,
which was consistent with the work of Tharp and Gallimore (1988). The data demonstrated that
Mrs. Miller created the conditions in her classroom that allowed students to engage in intentional
cognitive action that supported their social exploration of literature. Furthermore, Mrs. Miller
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 138

created rigorous tasks and held the task of analyzing and interpreting text constant, while
providing ways of accessing the text that were accessible to students based on her knowledge of
her students as learners.
The data showed that Mrs. Miller utilized scaffolds and assisted performance (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988) in order to prepare her students to participate in exploratory talk. While the
partner work and small group activities typically showed exploratory talk, the goal of these
activities was to prepare students for the final discussion in the Socratic Seminar. The Socratic
Seminar occurred at the end of the data collection, which coincided with the end of the school
year. There was no evidence that the scaffolds that Mrs. Miller provided would build transfer and
position students to do this sort of exploratory talk and social exploration of literature in the
future and on their own.
The data also demonstrated that Mrs. Miller utilized aspects of both reflection (Rodgers,
2002) and metacognition (Pintrich, 2002) to position her students to consider both their
understanding of texts and of the task at hand. Mrs. Miller engaged students in slowing down to
attend to their learning before proceeding with challenging tasks. The data showed that Mrs.
Miller utilized aspects of the beginning stages of systematic and reflective thinking, but it was
beyond the scope of the data to determine if the students internalized the processes of systematic
and reflective think.
Case Study #2: Ms Deanna Graham, 12
th
grade English

Ms Graham was a teacher at Independence Charter High School. Independence Charter
High School was in a new building located in an urban neighborhood across the street from
Independence Charter Elementary and Independence Charter Middle School. The complex began
as an elementary school and grew to include the middle school and, later, the high school. The
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 139

high school students attend six 58 minute classes on Mondays and Fridays. The Tuesday class
schedule was shorter, with class periods lasting 38 minutes, providing professional development
time for teachers after school. On Wednesdays, periods 1, 2, and 3 meet for 101 minutes and on
Thursdays, periods 5, 5, and 6 meet for 101 minutes, which was a modified block schedule with
the block periods occurring on 2 days per week.
The 2014-2015 school year was the most recent school year in which student and teacher
information could be extracted. During the 2014-2015 school year, there were a total of 2,724
students enrolled in grades K-12 with 606 of those students enrolled in the high school. The
racial composition of the student body, grades K-12, consisted of 98.2% Hispanic or Latino, .6%
Black or African American, .6% White, .5% Asian American, and .1% two or more races.
During the 2014-2015school year, the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch was
97.2%. The number of English language learners was 29.1% and the number of Fluent English
Proficient students was 16.4% (Ed-Data.org, 2016).
Ms Graham was an English teacher with 15 years of teaching experience. Prior to
becoming a full-time English teacher, Ms Graham worked as a tutor for a local community
college and tutored in an evening English as a Second Language (ESL) class. The official teacher
of the ESL class frequently left the class, leaving Ms Graham to teach with, in her words, “no
educational training.” Ms Graham had been deciding between pursuing a degree in psychology
or education, felt like she liked teaching, and decided to pursue her credential.
Initially, Ms Graham began her teaching career in a Humanitas program, where she felt
she received a strong foundation in teaching. She stated that the professional development that
she received while teaching in the Humanitas program was:
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 140

Number one the best professional development I’ve ever had in my entire life was at the
very beginning of my teaching career and everything has paled in comparison. Which is
kind of like you’ve been on the mountain top and then everything else is like a rehash of
what you’ve already known.
Ms Graham saw her role as one who facilitates students becoming better communicators.
She stated this about her role in the classroom:
I think my role is to help people learn to become better communicators so that way they
can do whatever they said they want to do. I know my job is not to create legions of
English majors but legions of thinkers who can go and do and make things better. I am
lucky that I get to teach 12th grade curriculum so I really help them think about the hard
questions and come up with good answers for themselves.
Ms Graham taught all senior English classes, a class of Advanced Placement Literature
and the rest of her senior English classes were part of the Expository Reading and Writing
Curriculum (ERWC), though she admitted that she only loosely followed the established ERWC
curriculum. The class that I observed was one of the senior ERWC class periods that she taught
and was not designated honors. The demographics of the class reflected those of the school. Ms
Graham appreciated teaching all senior English classes because she believed it had real world
applications. Ms Graham stated that
Because it’s that great time of transition. Right when they are trying to figure out what
they are going to do, where they are going to go. It’s kind of a time for polishing and
helping them see how their skills that they’ve taken, their English skills from 9 through
12 actually apply and help them function in the world beyond. Making a resume isn’t just
a class assignment. It’s the thing that they are actually going to do in life.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 141

The essay that we are writing isn’t just an essay about yourself. It’s the college
application essay people are actually going to use to decide which school you are going
to go to. I think for them its finally real and so education is immediately applicable for
them.
Ms Graham’s classroom was on the second floor of the high school building in the center
of a hallway and joined another teacher’s classroom. All of the classroom desks were arranged in
groups of four or five and angled towards the front corner of the room, where Ms Graham had a
podium and a projector that faced a screen. Ms Graham had a whiteboard at the front of the room
where she had the daily agenda and standards that were being addressed. Alongside the side-wall
was a chart with student independent reading goals and notices about reading points and due
dates. In the back of the room was a small couch that was framed by two bookshelves, forming a
reading area. Mounted on the wall behind the reading area were masks that the seniors had made
at the beginning of the school year to represent themselves. Ms Graham had a desk at the back of
the room. Near Ms Graham’s desk alongside the wall were several classroom computers that
students used to take Scholastic Reading Counts quizzes.
Ms Graham did not specifically discuss the school climate or culture. From my
observations inclusive of other English classrooms in the school, the entire English department
participated in a program called Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC). All students were required to
complete a targeted amount of independent reading within the SRC program and were also
required to take multiple choice quizzes of each completed novel on the computer. The
successful completion of the quizzes earned students points that were factored into their English
semester grades. Additionally, the school offered regular informal Saturday school programs that
allowed students to make-up reading points and other work.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 142

Next, I will provide the answers to my research questions. I will begin with the first
research question around the underlying beliefs of teachers who were considered to be successful
at facilitating the social exploration of literature with students from historically marginalized
populations. Then I will address the second question about the features of classroom that these
teachers actively facilitated. I will then turn my attention to the third question about the
pedagogical acts the teacher engaged in to create the conditions for the social exploration of
literature for the purpose of making meaning of text. I will end with a conclusion of the case as a
whole.
Research Question 1: Ideology
What are the Underlying Beliefs of Teachers of Who Have Been Identified as Successful at
Engaging Students in the Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning?
As previously discussed, Bartolomé (2008) defined ideology as the conscious and
unconscious ways in which our understanding of the world is expressed through both our stated
beliefs and actions. While Ms Graham expressed the goal to create critical thinkers and in some
ways demonstrated high expectations, her actions in the classroom demonstrated potentially
competing beliefs. Philip (2011) observed teachers that held conflicting beliefs and noted that
teachers are not typically required to acknowledge or come to terms with contradictions in their
belief systems. The data showed that Ms Graham believed that her role as a teacher was to help
students find their own voices and to become critical thinkers. She expressed the belief that she
held high expectations that students were capable of completing assignments and demonstrated
that she held them accountable to the completion of tasks and deadlines. The data showed that
there was a tension between some of her stated and enacted beliefs. Despite articulating a goal of
helping students become critical thinkers and holding high expectations for assignment
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 143

completion, the assignments and activities that Ms Graham employed in her classroom were
consisted with a deficit mindset and a commitment to school as an act of compliance. The ways
in which she designed and implemented lessons and activities typically addressed a low level of
rigor and did not ask or require students to individually or collaboratively analyze, interpret, or
making meaning of text, which is consistent with a deficit mindset.
Low Expectations and a Deficit Mindset
In my conceptual framework, I stated that in order for a teacher to create the conditions
for the social exploration of literature, a teacher would express high expectations for all students
as well as an asset mindset (Milner, 2010). According to Milner (2010), an asset mindset
includes a focus on both the assets and strengths that historically marginalized students bring to
the classroom. The data showed that Ms Graham demonstrated competing beliefs in the way that
she described her role as a teacher and her understanding of her students. Ms Graham expressed
that she believed that it was not her role to create “legions of English majors,” but rather to
create students who could think and “who can go and do and make things better.” She considered
herself lucky that she got to work with high school seniors because “I get to teach 12th grade
curriculum so I really help them think about the hard questions and come up with good answers
for themselves.” The data showed that these beliefs were not enacted in her classroom. While
she was clear about her desire to foster their success, there was significant evidence that she was
unable to enact that in her classroom. Although she was working with the population that she
believed that she could help, this did not reveal itself in her daily interactions with her students,
which instead were more likely to reveal an unconscious deficit mindset. Milner (2010)
explained that when an educator holds a deficit mindset, he or she is more focused on students’
perceived weaknesses, which can “make it difficult for educators to develop learning
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 144

opportunities that challenge students” (p. 35). The data showed that while Ms Graham expressed
a goal of wanting to guide students in thinking about “the hard questions,” the assignments and
activities that she created were more consistent with an unconscious deficit mindset, which was
demonstrated in low expectations and a low level of rigor in the classroom. Ms Graham
expressed the view that many of her students had low capabilities and her statements and actions
did not demonstrate a recognition that she would be able to influence their cognitive
development at this point in their education. Ms Graham stated that,
For my super-low readers, I always give them the chapter summaries first before we start
reading the chapters and then I’m just like, “Here we go.” The super readers are just
going to be able to read and they’ll be fine. We do a lot of discussion of what’s
happening in the book and with tiered levels of questions so that way as we’re discussing
if you’re super high level they are answering those questions but everyone is still able to
participate and though my lowest reader might not be able to answer that high level
question the people at her table could bring her into the conversation. At the end she’ll
have a richer understanding even though it probably is realistically not going to be as
deep as someone else’s. With 1984, my second grade reader, she passed the test on the
first try. Seven out of 10, which was phenomenal.
It was a school policy that all English classes participate in using the Scholastic Reading
Counts (SRC) program. Students were required to read books and take quizzes, which earned
them points. Students took an initial test that provided the teacher with information about their
reading level. Ms Graham utilized reading level information about the students to inform her
instructional choices. In order to support the students with lower reading levels, based on the
data from SRC, Ms Graham provided chapter summaries prior to reading. She stated that, “For
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 145

my super-low readers, I always give them the chapter summaries first before we start reading the
chapters and then I’m just like, “Here we go.”” Her statement that “For my super-low readers, I
always give them the chapter summaries first before we start reading the chapters and then I’m
just like, “Here we go,” demonstrated that she recognized that some students needed help in
accessing content that she believed was beyond their reading level. She viewed the discussions
that she designed with tiered level questions as a way to bring all students into the conversation.
She saw that her second grade reader was able to pass a plot driven test with a score of 7 out of
10, which she viewed as phenomenal. She prepared students to succeed at the tasks that she
designed, though those tasks and the kinds of thinking that she asked students to do remained
constrained at a low level of intellectual rigor.
The data also showed that Ms Graham held competing beliefs. Milner (2010) argued that
when teachers do not consider either their own racial backgrounds or their students, they do not
completely see their students, which can negatively impact student performance. Ms Graham
saw some of her students as “super-low readers.” While she had SRC data to inform her, she
categorized and viewed certain students as her “super-low readers,” not seeing them as whole
people who, despite their defined reading level, still were capable of thinking deeply. She did not
appear to recognize the assets that they brought to their learning experiences and the classroom.
Ms Graham demonstrated an absence of the recognition that the students might need additional
scaffolding beyond a chapter summary to making meaning of the text. This is consistent with the
findings of Applebee et al. (2003), who found that teachers typically asked fewer authentic
questions in classes that were not honors’ track. Additionally, the data showed that Ms Graham’s
actions in the classroom were consistent with attributes of color blindness. Milner (2010)
explained that “when a color-blind worldview is adopted, instructional practices may be
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 146

Eurocentric in nature and not take into consideration non-White students’ lived experiences” (pp.
16-17). Ms Graham’s actions put the responsibility of making meaning of the text on the
individual readers and she did not overtly discuss or acknowledge her own responsibility in
scaffolding their exploration of text in a way that would have distributed the responsibility
among students for making meaning and understanding text. Langer (1998) argued that in order
for classroom discussions to occur, teachers must provide instructional supports. Ms Graham did
not seem to recognize that with sufficient support, perhaps the students could have read the text
and struggled collaboratively to make meaning outside of being provided chapter summaries. By
focusing on the perceived weakness, a low reading level, of some of the students, Ms Graham
provided summaries of the text rather than scaffolds that might have supported their exploration
of the text. Furthermore, Ms Graham remained focused on assuring that students could recall and
understand the plot, “We do a lot of discussion of what’s happening in the book,” rather than
asking students to look beyond the plot to analyze and interpret the text, which was consistent
with a demonstration of low expectations of her students. Langer (1998) explained that there are
two modes of thinking in literary experiences. The first is literary, allowing the reader to explore
“horizons of possibilities” (Langer, 1998, p. 17). The second mode is discursive and stays focus
on maintaining a point of reference in the text (Langer, 1998). With a focus on making certain
that students could recall and articulate the plot events of text, Ms Graham showed a lack of
understanding of the difference between understanding the plot and building a more complex and
sophisticated understanding of text. By focusing on plot, Ms Graham offered her students the
opportunity to engage in maintaining a point of reference, but not to engage in literary thinking
and the option of exploring possible meanings beyond the surface of the plot. Her inability to see
the students completely, beyond a low or high level of reading, which was consistent actions in
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 147

the classroom that showed that her expectations of them were not grounded in who they were
and what they were capable of doing with sufficient support.
Ms Graham did acknowledge an attempt to provide multiple access points for students in
their exploration of text by providing tiered questions for students to answer in discussions. She
stated that, “if you’re super high level they are answering those questions but everyone is still
able to participate and though my lowest reader might not be able to answer that high level
question the people at her table could bring her into the conversation.” Ms Graham wanted to
produce thinkers, but the data did not show that she saw the assets that the students brought with
them to the learning experience. Ms Graham had a stated goal of getting everyone to participate
in the conversation at the table, but with the absence of a focus on the assets of the students and
the inability to see the students completely, she missed opportunities to scaffold the students’
social exploration of text so that they could make meaning of the text for themselves.
Research Question 2: Classroom Climate
What Features of Classroom Climate do Teachers Actively Facilitate in Order to Encourage the
Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning of Text?
In my conceptual framework, I explained that in order to create a classroom climate in
which teachers could foster the students’ social exploration of literature, I would expect to see
authentic care that would support allowing students to take intellectual risks. In order for this to
occur, the teacher would have to demonstrate authentic care. Valenzuela (1999) explained that
authentic care is a form of reciprocity, the idea that both the teacher and students have something
to contribute and that the teacher recognizes that students have something to contribute. In
authentic care, a teacher would also recognize that students might need structures, processes,
procedures, and scaffolds in order to succeed academically.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 148

Authentic and Aesthetic Care
According to Valenzuela (1999), aesthetic care is a type of care demonstrated by a
teacher that shows an absence of reciprocity. In aesthetic care, the teacher’s care of students
focuses on making sure that students are dressed appropriately and attending to academic tasks in
ways that are perceived as school-appropriate (Valenzuela, 1999). Authentic care would be
evidenced by discussions that allowed students to articulate questions and use personal
experiences as a lens through which to interpret text. Aesthetic care would be evidenced by a
focus on completing tasks and, when discussions occurred, a focus on feelings rather than a
focus on academic interpretations of text. The data showed that Ms Graham predominantly
demonstrated aesthetic care, with some evidence of authentic care. She held expectations for her
students to complete academic tasks and worked to help them meet those expectations. Ms
Graham demonstrated predominantly aesthetic care, not authentic care, because there was no
evidence of reciprocity between the teacher and her students; furthermore, she created a
classroom climate that did not support students taking intellectual risks. Below is an example
that was representative of the kinds of exchanges that I observed regularly in Ms Graham’s class.
In this exchange, the students had just completed an in-class quiz of six questions on a chapter in
the book, Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. Ms Graham had the students exchange papers with
another classmate and score the answers for each other (S indicates a student who I was unable
to identify):
Ms Graham: Please make sure you have a different color writing utensil. Write
reviewed by and your name at the bottom of the paper
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 149

Ms Graham: Chapter two. Let’s open our books to chapter two. What did it say
according to chapter two? [In reference to quiz question 1. According to
chapter two, how does McCandless die?]
S1: Starvation was the most probable cause of death.
Moises: What if it is malnutrition?
Ms Graham: Yes, I’ll go for that.
Sarah: Asked about further detail (could not hear).
Ms Graham: That’s okay.
Ms Graham: Question 2. Chris had many jobs.
S2: Working at McDonald.
S3: Farm equipment.
Ms Graham: This is worth 2 points. One for each job.
S4: What if someone gave three jobs?
Ms Graham: Then you can give them 3 points.
Ms Graham: What happened to Chris’s car?
Kaylee: Chris abandoned it. He burned out the engine.
S4: This wasn’t even a quiz question.
Ms Graham: Question 3. Describe the relationship between Alex and Franz.
Elian: It is like father/son.
Ms Graham: Yes! If they put something like father/son, that’s right. If they put strong,
that’s not it.
S5: What if they put that it is an awkward one?
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 150

Ms Graham: No, that’s not right. No point. Total the points out of 6 and pass up the
quizzes. Open your binders to the unit overview.
This exchange began when Ms Graham gave the students directions how to review their
partner’s paper. The directions were for the students to write in a different colored pen and to
write “reviewed by” and their name at the bottom of the paper that they were reviewing. Ms
Graham believed her students were capable of following directions in relation to the task. This
exchange demonstrated aesthetic care because there was the appearance of an academic structure
and an academic task and there was no evidence of intellectual engagement on the part of the
students. The students were able to answer the questions and Ms Graham accepted the answers at
face value; she did not press the students to make meaning of the text or explain their answers.
The presence of authentic care would have been demonstrated by reciprocity between the teacher
and the students and would have included an exchange of ideas around particular responses;
students would have been able to defend a response with textual evidence to support their
interpretation.
The presence of aesthetic care is further evidenced by the interaction between Ms
Graham and the students around the question, “According to chapter two, how does McCandless
die?” The quiz began with the question, “According to chapter two, how does McCandless die?”
Two students offered responses, starvation and malnutrition, and Ms Graham accepted both
responses. Ms Graham did not demonstrate reciprocity and recognition because she did not ask
the students to analyze the text and she did not press them to bring forth their own thinking,
which contradicted the statement she made that she wanted to develop thinkers. Furthermore,
this demonstrated an absence of authentic care. If Ms Graham had pressed Moises, or the
classmate whose quiz he was reviewing, to support the suggestion of malnutrition with evidence
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 151

from the text, that would have demonstrated authentic care because Ms Graham would have
demonstrated a recognition that the student had an idea to offer that was suggested by the text as
well as an analysis of the event in the text.
The quiz questions that Ms Graham gave to the students were a check for understanding
that required the students to remember events from the plot and did not require analysis or
interpretation or offer the opportunity for students to make meaning, which would have been
evidence of authentic care because the opportunity for students to make meaning would have
demonstrated reciprocity and a recognition that students had ideas to offer. Furthermore, the quiz
questions remained at what Langer (1998) described as discursive thinking. The questions were
designed to have students focused on maintaining a point of reference in the plot and did not
engage the students in literary thinking, which would have allowed the students to explore
possible meanings. Langer (1998) argued that both literary and discursive thinking are critical to
literary experiences. Only one question, question 3, asked the students to describe a relationship
between two characters, which had the potential to be analytical and requiring of interpretation.
Ms Graham accepted answers that described the relationship as a father/son relationship, but did
not accept answers that described the relationship as strong or as awkward. This is a
demonstration of the absence of authentic care because when she received those answers as
suggestions, she did not ask follow-up questions as to why the students described the relationship
as awkward or strong, which would have pushed the students to develop their analysis and
interpretation of the text, nor did she press the students for evidence from the text that would lead
them to describe the relationship as awkward or strong. By not pressing the students for evidence
from the text or asking the students to expand on the idea behind why they suggested that the
relationship was awkward or strong, Ms Graham demonstrated an absence of reciprocity because
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 152

she did not give the students the opportunity to make meaning, interpret, or present an analysis of
the text. Ms Graham did not provide evidence from the text to indicate why the relationship
between the characters was a father/son relationship. There was no discussion about the
relationship or the possibility of multiple interpretations, which demonstrated aesthetic care and
an adherence to a rote task with specific answers defined by the teacher.
The above exchange, which was representative of exchanges I saw throughout my
observations in this classroom, demonstrated an absence of authentic care. There was no room
for thinking or intellectual risk-taking on the part of the students, which would have
demonstrated reciprocity, and the exchange was a procedural act. Valenzuela (1999)
characterized this type of instructional act, that of teachers requiring students to appear as if they
are committed to the act of school, as schooling and aesthetic in nature. The students in Ms
Graham’s class did not have autonomy in determining the accuracy of a response and were
following the directions of their teacher.
Relations of Reciprocity
In my conceptual framework, I explained that in order for students to collaboratively
make meaning of text through the social exploration of literature, the teacher would have to
create a classroom climate that facilitated interactions with peers (Allen et al., 2013). By creating
a climate that encouraged students to interact with their peers in the pursuit of making meaning
of text, the teacher would be demonstrating reciprocity. Valenzuela (1999) asserted that
reciprocity was a critical component of authentic care. Davis (2006) defined reciprocity as “a
commitment to supporting students’ autonomy in making meaning and solving problems, and
being cognitively engaged” (p. 201). In a classroom climate that supports the social exploration
of literature, a teacher would create opportunities for students to collaboratively analyze and
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 153

interpret text. The data showed that in Ms Graham’s classroom, there was an absence of
reciprocity. Ms Graham recognized that her students needed social interaction and frequently had
students work together to complete tasks and activities in small groups. The data showed that
while students frequently worked in groups, the groups were task-oriented and did not typically
support the students in the co-construction of meaning or analysis of text.
Below is an example of a small group interaction that was typical of the types of tasks
that Ms Graham had students engage in and, furthermore, was typical of the absence of
reciprocity in her lessons. The students were working on a family tree to determine the
characteristics of the protagonist, Chris, in the text, Into the Wild. The stated purpose was to
analyze how the protagonist, Chris, might have developed personality traits through the influence
of family members. Ms Graham had directed the students to work in groups and focus on
chapters 11 through 13 to build the family tree. The students worked in their table groups.
Ms Graham: We’re going to focus on Chris’s family–where do his traits come from?
Start with a family tree.
Ms Graham drew her own family tree.
Ms Graham: Then you’ll look in the book to create one for Chris.
Ms Graham shows her family tree, which lists the members of her family and how they
are related to each other. She makes a joke about the name of one of her brothers. They
all laugh. She goes through her whole family, listing their names and makes a joke how
all of her family has five kids so she’s not getting started because she’d have quintuplets.
The whole class laughs.
She hands out large paper (one per group) and directs the students to look at chapters 11–
13 to look at and the groups start working together.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 154

Table group two:
Moises blows balloons.
Gianna: Come on, people, let’s go. We need one more. [Gianna speaks in a direct
tone and points to the paper where the students should be drawing out the family tree.]
Moises has put the balloon down and begins looking through a scrapbook. Gianna begins
to look in the book and work by herself, Desiree flips through book for a moment and
then turns to Moises, who is talking to her. Sam starts to look in the book.
Sam: He has a brother named Buck?
Moises: He has a brother?
Gianna: Come on, guys. [Gianna sighs audibly.]
Moises: Does he even have grandparents?
Gianna: Yes, he does, which you would know if you read the book. You guys are
not helping me.
Moises: I didn’t even know about the grandparents.
Sam points out something [inaudible] about the dad and points to the paper.
Gianna writes it down.
Gianna to Desiree: Find his parents.
Overheard, Ms Graham tells a neighboring group: You’re missing a sibling.
Gianna turns to Desiree: Check that we have the siblings.
Desiree flips through the book.
Sam, Desiree, and Gianna are now actively looking through the book.
Sam: Maybe she didn’t have a mom.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 155

Moises: How many people did it took [sic] to make one person? [The tone was one
of wonder and not sarcastic.]
In relations of reciprocity, the teacher sees students as capable of cognitive engagement
and the ability to make meaning and solve problems (Davis, 2006; Valenzuela, 1999). The
absence of reciprocity in whole group interactions carried through in small group interactions. In
this activity, Ms Graham organized the students to work together as a group, but did not support
and position the students to collaborate successfully in order to make meaning, analyze, and
interpret the text. While giving the directions, Ms Graham demonstrated how to physically draw
a family tree by using her own family as an example. Ms Graham’s demonstration of physically
drawing the family tree was decontextualized from the original purpose of the activity, which
was to “focus on Chris’s family–where do his traits come from?” She listed the names of her
family members and used humor in connecting with her students. She did not explain the
characteristics of each of her family members or the way in which those characteristics might
have influenced who she was as a person, which would have drawn a connection between
modeling the activity using her family tree and the one she wanted the students to collectively
create in groups for the protagonist, Chris. The stated purpose, to figure out where the
protagonist’s traits came from, was not linked to the demonstration of drawing the family tree
and, therefore, the students were required to make the connection independently. The directions
that Ms Graham gave the students were brief and the model provided a visual representation of
what a family tree would look like. There was an absence of reciprocity because the model did
not support students’ autonomy in making meaning of the text as it did not include the academic
features that matched Ms Graham’s initially stated expectation the students create a family tree
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 156

of the protagonist, Chris, that would allow them to determine how his family’s behaviors may
have influenced the development of his own personality.
Moreover, the group was not positioned by Ms Graham to collaboratively make meaning.
There were no structures in place that would support the students in analyzing the text to
determine the development of the protagonist’s character traits. When the small groups began
working together, Gianna, made an effort to organize the group to do the work, yet those around
her did not respond to her in an effort to get the work down together, “Come on, people, let’s go.
We need one more.” It was not clear what “one more” the group members needed. The
statement, “Come on, people, let’s go. We need one more” was reflective of an absence of
reciprocity and demonstrated that there was a lack of scaffolds and structure to the assignment;
Gianna had already determined what needed to be done to complete the activity and was
searching for her group members to help her complete the task. The other group members,
Moises, Desiree, and Sam, initially did not take up Gianna’s direction to get started and Gianna
began working by herself. As a group, the students did not engage in collective thinking or work.
This was in evidence by Gianna, who looked through the text, while the other group members
demonstrated off-task behaviors, like playing with a balloon, talking to each other, and looking
through a scrapbook. Not all students in the group acknowledged the value of the activity and
their off-task behavior indicated at least a willingness on their part to allow Gianna to work
independently on creating the family tree on behalf of the group. Sam began to help and asked if
the protagonist had a brother named Buck. Moises responded by asking, “He has a brother?”
Gianna replied, “Come on, guys” and sighed audibly, which demonstrated frustration with the
group. Moises replied by asking, “Does he even have grandparents?” Gianna acknowledged
Moises’s question by responding that the protagonist did have grandparents, “which you would
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 157

know if you read the book.” Gianna’s response further demonstrated frustration with Moises and
a recognition that he had not done the work required to participate in the activity. Additionally,
her response demonstrated frustration with the group as a whole since she added, “You guys are
not helping me,” which indicated that Gianna felt responsible for getting the work done.
The students were not positioned to collaboratively engage in creating a family tree that
demonstrated the characteristics of each family member in the protagonist’s life in a way that
would allow them to construct an understanding of the protagonist and his choices and behavior.
Ms Graham began the activity by stating the purpose was to “focus on Chris’s family–where do
his traits come from?” She then demonstrated how to illustrate a family tree that included names
and relationships only, thereby positioning the students to do a low-level Bloom’s taxonomy
activity of identifying the protagonist and his family members in the book. While Ms Graham
suggested where to look for the information, chapters 11 through 13, the directions for the
activity were brief and the modeling of Ms Graham’s family tree was not the cognitive
equivalent of the assigned task. The way that the activity was carried out demonstrated an
absence of reciprocity.
Research Question 3: Pedagogy
What Are the Pedagogical Acts that the Teachers Engage in to Create the Conditions for the
Social Exploration of Literature for the Purpose of Making Meaning of Text?
In my conceptual framework, I explained that in order to see the social exploration of
literature through open forum discussions, I would expect to see a teacher utilize strategies that
would foster collaboration among students and that the teacher might utilize scaffolding
strategies and assisted performance to support students in the social exploration of text.
Additionally, I stated that I would expect to see the teacher and students articulating open
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 158

questions and that the students would influence the direction of the discussion, based on their
participation. I would also expect to see the teacher’s ideology and asset mind-set influence the
types of rigorous activities and tasks that he or she engaged the students in.
The data showed that Ms Graham utilized scaffolding strategies to chunk activities in
order to support her students as they engaged in the work of making meaning of text. Ms Graham
broke activities into manageable tasks as a way of assisting students’ performance. The data also
showed, however, that Ms Graham did not seem to consider or recognize specifically how
chunking activities and breaking down tasks supported the students in their exploration of text.
Furthermore, the data showed that Ms Graham’s deficit mindset and low expectations for
students influenced the types of activities that she assigned to her students as she guided them
through making meaning of text; the activities and tasks that Ms Graham provided to students
typically involved character and plot identification and summary and rarely required students to
individually or collaboratively make meaning, analyze, or interpret text. Ms Graham remained
focused on discursive thinking and did not incorporate elements of literary thinking. This is
consistent with the findings of Applebee et al. (2003), who found that in classes with an absence
of dialogic, open forum discussion, teachers remained focused on reviewing the plot of the text
with students rather than engaging students in the social exploration of literature.
Assisted Performance
Ms Graham utilized pedagogical acts, such as chunking text as well as partner and small
group interactions, to facilitate supporting students in making meaning of text. Ms Graham
seemed to realize that some of her students needed additional support in analyzing text. Ms
Graham had access to a variety of strategies that supported breaking down activities into chunks
for students, but did not seem to overtly recognize or acknowledge the ways in which chunking
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 159

the activities helped the students to make meaning, analyze, or interpret text. One example of Ms
Graham’s recognition of her students’ need for support and the way she broke down the
activities was demonstrated in the following statement:
If we’re looking at characterization, for example, then we’ll focus on a particular part of
the text and maybe I’ll assign table groups a different character. Then they are going to
look for details in the text to describe that character. Then we’ll focus on the same skill
but with different people. Then they’ll do a little peer share where everyone gets to fill
out a little chart or something like that so that they have a full vision of who all the
characters are. Everyone has got to talk about all of the characters.
Ms Graham’s statement demonstrated that she recognized that her students needed
support in order to make meaning of text. In order to provide that support, Ms Graham chunked
activities into manageable tasks for the purpose of supporting students in successfully engaging
in making meaning of text. Chunking text, breaking down activities into steps, and having
students work in small groups served as a form of assisted performance. Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) described assisted performance as ways in which students can work with support, “the
support of the environment, of others, and of the self” (p. 30).
As an example of this type of chunking of activity, on one occasion in class, Ms Graham
had the students work in partners to examine the steps of the hero’s cycle in relation to the book,
Siddhartha. Part of the assignment included having the students work collaboratively to find an
example from the text that supported the assigned element of the hero’s cycle. Once the students
had, in partners, identified and analyzed the text in light of the assigned step in the hero’s cycle,
such as “Refusal of the Call” and “Initiation,” then the students were supposed to work
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 160

individually to illustrate the text and the way in which that step of the hero’s cycle applied to
their chosen example.
Ms Graham: Everyone should have a half sheet of paper on your desk and directions.
Ms Graham has Gianna move to work with Gloria. Everybody has one of the parts of the
hero’s cycle.
Ms Graham: On one sheet of paper, include the definition, quote, and analysis. Then
include the drawing on a separate sheet of paper. Together you need to
negotiate the parts. Once you’ve done that, you can work on your own to
do the drawing.
The students begin working in small groups. Noah has the part of the hero’s cycle called
Refusal of the Call at Table 5. Lidia says that she will write and he should draw.
Kaylee and Luis have the part of the hero’s cycle, Call to Action.
Kaylee to Luis: We need to brainstorm first.
Kaylee checks with Lidia to see if they’re writing an actual definition and Lydia’s partner
says yes.
Kaylee: A journey with … (inaudible).
Luis: It’s difficult.
Kaylee: … face difficulties.
Kaylee and Luis start looking in the text to find a quotation as evidence that Siddhartha is
going through the call to action. They look for evidence that he’s facing difficulties.
Table 6 is working on Steps in the Quest–Initiation. Gianna and Gloria are both checking
through the text for examples to support that Siddhartha has gone through the initiation.
They have been underlining in their texts and writing questions on post-its.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 161

Gloria: Well maybe … this is hard. [She sighed. Her indicated that she was stuck.]
Gianna and Gloria start suggesting that it might be when he doesn’t want to be taught.
Gianna: It might be that you can’t teach others to starve, salvation, I mean. Gloria:
That’s more the road to (inaudible). [They start looking through the book.]
Gianna points to a passage where Siddhartha tries something that doesn’t work out.
Gianna: I don’t get this.
Both Gianna and Gloria continue to look at the text and determine that Siddhartha has
exhausted all his learning from the teachers. They ask Destiny, who joins their
discussion. Destiny talks about when he starves himself and she, Gloria, and Gianna
wonder if his voluntary starvation is the initiation.
Destiny: Is this where it starts?
The structure of this activity included aspects of guided assistance. Ms Graham began by
giving students written directions that delineated the steps of the activity and reviewed the
directions with the whole class. By delineating the steps of the activity, Ms Graham offered a
scaffold, which served as a form of guided assistance that could support students as the written
steps could serve as a guide that they could refer to as they proceeded through the activity. Ms
Graham did not ask students to consider the goal of the activity or to describe the steps or ask for
clarification of the steps, which would have strengthened the scaffold to support the students in
making meaning and analyzing the text with purpose. Next, Ms Graham made certain that each
student had a partner to work with and assigned each set of partners a different element of the
hero’s journey. By organizing the students in partners, Ms Graham utilized the partners as a form
of guided assistance since the purpose of working in partners was so that students could wrestle
with the text and collaboratively analyze it for examples of the assigned cycle of the hero’s
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 162

journey. Ms Graham provided an additional form of guided assistance by asking each set of
partners to focus on only one aspect of the hero’s journey, which supported their task of analysis
of the hero’s journey as it related to the text, Siddhartha.
In this activity, the partners served as a form of guided assistance. To begin with, the
partners, Kaylee and Luis, were assigned to analyze the text for evidence of the “Call to Action.”
Kaylee began their interaction with the suggestion that they brainstorm first. As discussed
earlier, Tharp and Gallimore (1988) suggest that students use speech as a way to guide their own
behavior; this marks a transition in their level of control of the activity. Kaylee’s suggestion that
they begin by brainstorming indicated that she was working within the second stage of the ZPD,
that of self-assisted performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Furthermore, Kaylee’s suggestion
that they begin with brainstorm may have served as a form of guided assistance for Luis, as he
took up her suggestion of brainstorming. Before beginning to brainstorm, Kaylee checked with a
neighboring set of partners to confirm that they were supposed to write the definition of the
assigned element of the hero’s journey. In this way, the students worked together to clarify the
task at hand, serving as a form of guided assistance. Kaylee and Luis then work collaboratively
to generate a definition of the “Call to Action.” Kaylee began the definition by stating, “A
journey with….” Luis built on the definition by adding, “it’s difficult,” which Kaylee
incorporated into the definition. The partners worked to co-construct a definition.
Concurrently, Gianna and Gloria were working on the step of “Initiation.” They both
examined the text for an example that would fit with the step of initiation, utilizing the
annotations and questions that they had created when they read the text independently. As they
looked for examples, Gloria stated, “This is hard” and sighed, demonstrating that she was stuck.
Despite the statement, the partners continued to work. In this way, the partners served as a form
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 163

of guided assistance because the students were able to work collaboratively on a task that might
have been too difficult for them to complete individually. Gianna and Gloria began making
suggestions of possible examples of the step of initiation and analyzing if the suggested example
met the definition of the step of initiation. Gianna suggested, “You can’t teach others to starve,
salvation, I mean.” Gloria countered, “That’s more the road to [inaudible].” In this way, Gianna
and Gloria brainstormed possibilities and analyzed if the evidence from the text supported the
suggestion as an example of the step of initiation. Gianna and Gloria were able to assist each
other in the analysis and interpretation of the text. Additionally, when stuck, Gianna and Gloria
turned to a neighbor, Destiny, and invited her into the exchange, thereby seeking further
assistance. Destiny served as additional support in helping Gianna and Gloria entertain possible
examples that would demonstrate the step of initiation. In suggesting the example of Siddhartha
starving himself, all three students wondered if that is how the step of initiation began. In this
way, the three students served as a form of guided assistance as they were able to collaboratively
analyze and interpret the text in relation to the hero’s journey.
Ms Graham’s pedagogical choice to break down the activity so that the students worked
in partners allowed the students to support each other in the analysis of the text, but the data did
not show that Ms Graham deliberately considered the ways in which breaking down the tasks
would function as scaffolds. She created a structure based on activities that worked as an
organizing principle by which students could navigate the text without deliberately considering
how to strategically implement the scaffolds that students would eventually incorporate as part of
their ZPD. The assignment had the potential to be rigorous by calling for an analysis of
determining the ways in which the character’s journey fell into the different parts of the hero’s
cycle; however, the practice of the assignment was largely a naming act and the collaboration
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 164

that occurred between the students was not typical of the types of interactions I observed in the
class. I will next examine the level of expectations and rigor that were typical in Ms Graham’s
assignments and activities.
Low Expectations and Level of Rigor
Milner (2010) asserted that teachers need a focus on both the assets and strengths that
students bring with them into the classroom in order to create challenging learning opportunities.
In my conceptual framework, I stated that a teacher’s beliefs would be demonstrated in the types
of pedagogical practices that were enacted in the classroom. The presence of an asset mindset
and high expectations would be demonstrated in rigorous tasks and activities that would allow
students to collaboratively explore literature for the purpose of making meaning of text. Ms
Graham expressed the goal of creating thinkers, but the data showed that Ms Graham
demonstrated a deficit mindset and low expectations, which were seen in the type of low-level
activities that she designed for her students. Below is an example of one activity that the students
engaged in that was typical of the kinds of tasks and activities that Ms Graham assigned to her
students.
Ms Graham begins by giving directions for reviewing chapters one through seven using a
game called “And then.” She explains that one student will start by telling what happened
in the text. The student keeps adding on to their summary of the text by adding “and
then.” She moves three students so that each group has four students in it.
Ms Graham calls for the student in the group who is furthest away from her to
raise his/her hand. The student who is furthest away from her is the person who will start
by reviewing chapter one. She asks the members of the group to “number off one, two,
three, four, and then five, six, seven, and author’s note.”
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 165

Ms Graham gives the students a few moments to silently review their chapter. She
directs them to, when ready, give her a thumbs-up visual.
Ms Graham: The person who is responsible for chapter one has 45 seconds to review
the key things from chapter one. When that person is done, the rest of the
group can ask questions. Remember to use “And then….”
Elian to his group: family story… and then he drops him off … and then that was
basically it.
Ms Graham (to whole class): And then… move to chapter two.
Katelyn: They found Chris’s body. People are trying to figure out the cause of
death, the body had no fat.
Ms Graham rings a bell to indicate that the next student in the group should start their
review.
Ms Graham: And then chapter three.
Omar: This really generous guy gives him a job.
One student in the group comments on liking the character.
The activity continued in this way through chapter seven and took place over the course
of a few minutes. At the beginning of the activity, Ms Graham gave the students instructions for
the way in which each small group would review the first seven chapters of Into the Wild. She
described the activity as a game called, “And then.” The purpose of the game was for the
students to review for their group members the events of the chapter for which they were
responsible. Each student would add on to his or her summary of plot events with the phrase,
“And then.” This activity demonstrated an absence of rigor in that it required students to recall
plot events. Applebee et al. (2003) suggest that in classrooms with an absence of dialogic
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 166

discussions, teachers remain focused on the plot of text. The activity did not require the students
to analyze the text in any way or to collaboratively evaluate the events or characters’ decisions in
order to analyze and make meaning of the events in the text.
Ms Graham’s deficit mindset led to her construction of activities that did not set students
up to allow them to engage in more sophisticated discussion around the meaning of the text. The
“And then” activity in the exchange described above was typical of the types of work that Ms
Graham had her students regularly engage in. Langer (1998) explained that both literary
thinking, the ability to consider multiple meanings, and discursive thinking, a focus on points of
reference in the text, are necessary to engage in literary understandings. The activities that Ms
Graham designed privileged building the students’ capacity to recall plot level events in order to
demonstrate their understanding of text and did not offer students the opportunity to engage in
exploring multiple and deeper meanings of the text. The exchange above took just a few
moments of class time. Ms Graham gave students about 45 seconds per chapter summary and
pushed them to the next chapter by ringing a bell to indicate when to move on to the next
chapter. The amount of time she allotted to the chapter review only allowed students the
opportunity to create a superficial summary of each chapter, as indicated by Elian’s description
of chapter one, “family story… and then he drops him off … and then that was basically it” and
Katelyn’s description of chapter two, “They found Chris’s body. People are trying to figure out
the cause of death, the body had no fat.” By giving students less than a minute for each chapter
summary, Ms Graham did not provide students the necessary time for thinking and exploring the
text.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 167

Conclusion
Using the conceptual framework as my analytical lens, the data in the case study of Ms
Graham and her 12
th
grade English class revealed that Ms Graham held low expectations and a
deficit mindset, predominantly demonstrated aesthetic care with some evidence of authentic care,
and did not effectively utilize pedagogical strategies to support her students in their social
exploration of literature. Ms Graham demonstrated competing beliefs in that she held students
accountable for the completion of tasks and assignments, but the tasks and assignments were of a
low level of rigor. The data also showed that Ms Graham did not see her students completely and
did not demonstrate reciprocity.
Ms Graham articulated that she held students accountable and believed that her role as
teacher was to foster students critical thinking and to help them find their voices. Though Ms
Graham held students accountable for assignment completion and expressed the belief that she
wanted to help her students become critical thinkers, the lessons and activities that Ms Graham
designed and implemented revealed a deficit mindset. By holding students accountable to
deadlines, she demonstrated a commitment to schooling (Valenzuela, 1999) as an act of
compliance.
The data revealed that Ms Graham held competing beliefs between the way she described
her role as a teacher and the way that she understood her students. Though she clearly wanted to
support her students and enable their success, there was sufficient evidence to show that she was
not able to carry that out in practice. The data showed that Ms Graham held an unconscious
deficit mindset (Milner, 2010), which was exhibited in low expectations as well as a low level of
rigor in the assignments and tasks that she designed for her students. Furthermore, the data
showed that Ms Graham categorized some of her students and did not see them as wholly,
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 168

thereby missing the assets that some of the students brought to their learning. Without a
recognition of the students as a whole, Ms Graham was not able to capitalize on scaffolds in
order to help support students in the social exploration of text for the purpose of analyzing,
interpreting, and making meaning of literature. To that end, Ms Graham’s focus was often on
making certain that students could both recall and comprehend the text that they read. The data
demonstrated that she did not typically create opportunities for students to collaboratively build
more sophisticated understandings of text, thereby demonstrating low expectations of students.
The data also showed that Ms Graham created a classroom climate that did not support
the students in taking intellectual risks. The data showed that Ms Graham demonstrated some
authentic care (Valenzuela, 1999) in that she held them accountable for the work that they did,
but she predominantly demonstrated aesthetic care (Valenzuela, 1999) as there were appearances
of academic structures and tasks in her lessons, but no evidence of students’ intellectual
engagement. Furthermore, Ms Graham did not regularly press students to individually or
collaboratively analyze text or explain their answers, thereby demonstrating the absence of
reciprocity.
In terms of pedagogy, the data showed that Ms Graham frequently employed checks for
understanding at the plot level, which did not require analysis or interpretation on the part of the
students. She regularly organized students to work in small groups, demonstrating that she
recognized that students needed social interaction, but she did not typically scaffold the group
interactions in order to support students in the co-construction of meaning around the texts that
they read. The groups were typically set up as task and performance-oriented. The data also
showed that the lessons and activities that Ms Graham designed, including the small group work,
did not match Ms Graham’s expressed goal to foster students’ critical thinking.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 169

Cross-Case Analysis
My conceptual framework was built on three connected concepts: teacher ideology,
classroom climate, and pedagogy. I argued that in order for secondary English teachers to create
classroom contexts that supported students’ active engagement in articulating questions and
collaboratively building on each other’s ideas in the social exploration of literature, a particular
kind of teacher ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy would have to operate together to
create the conditions that would support this.
In my cross-case analysis, I will explore the following patterns that emerged point to the
role of the following themes from the analysis of Mrs. Miller’s and Ms Graham’s ideology,
classroom climate, and pedagogy in fostering or impeding providing students with the
opportunity to engage in the social exploration of literature:
• Asset mindset
• Authentic care and reciprocity
• Assisted performance and scaffolding
• School context
Asset Mindset
The data from the interviews and observations of Mrs. Miller and Ms Graham showed the
role of an asset mindset in creating conditions for the social exploration of literature. In my
conceptual framework, I explained that in order for a teacher to create the conditions for students
to engage in exploratory talk around literature for the purpose of building meaning, the teacher
would need an asset mindset. Milner (2010) defined an asset mindset as a mindset that allowed
teachers to believe that all students, regardless of background, are capable of critical and creative
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 170

thinking. Without a belief in and recognition of students’ assets, it is difficult for teachers to
design rigorous activities that support students in the social exploration of literature.
Mrs. Miller demonstrated an asset mindset, which was evident in her stated beliefs as
well as the way that she expected all of her students, at every performance level, to articulate
questions and collaboratively engage in the exploration of literature. Mrs. Miller appeared to see
potential in her students and viewed her work with them as an opportunity to build. Mrs. Miller
believed that all of her students had the cognitive capability to generate questions, articulate
responses, and find textual evidence to support their analysis of text. Mrs. Miller stated a belief
in the cognitive capabilities of her students and enacted that belief in the lessons and activities
that she designed for her students. She stated that in preparing students to participate in an
activity like a Socratic Seminar, she would usually have the students “over a series of days,
generate the questions.” Over several lessons, she would then have students practice deepening
the questions and then preparing their responses, using textual evidence, to the questions the
class chose to focus on. This demonstrated an asset mindset because she both believed that the
students were capable of articulating their own questions, responding to questions with textual
evidence, and she positioned to participate in the social exploration of literature. Furthermore,
she recognized that some of her students needed support and provided appropriate scaffolds to
help them prepare for larger group discussions. When necessary, Mrs. Miller had students work
in smaller groups and provided text that was challenging and accessible to the students, while
holding the task of analysis constant, as evidenced in the small group annotation that on
specifically selected passages from “Romeo and Juliet,” which demonstrated an asset mindset
because she both believed that the students were capable of analyzing the task and provided them
the opportunity and the support that allowed them to participate in the rigorous task of analysis.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 171

The data showed that Ms Graham held competing beliefs in the way she understood her
role as a teacher and the abilities of her students. She clearly wanted to foster her students’
success and also demonstrated an unconscious deficit mindset, which was demonstrated in low
expectations and a low level of rigor in the assignments and activities that she designed for her
students. Ms Graham stated that she believed her role was to help her students “think about the
hard questions and come up with good answers for themselves,” the data showed that this was
not enacted in her classroom. Furthermore, the data showed that Ms Graham did not see her
students clearly; she categorized and viewed her students based on perceived weaknesses. The
data showed that Ms Graham appeared to see her students as largely finished in terms of their
academic development, which was evident in her approach to instruction. In addition to
demonstrating a deficit mindset, the data also showed that Ms Graham displayed attributes of
color blindness. Ms Graham’s instructional practices, such as her focus on making certain that
students could recall the plot, as demonstrated in the “And then” chapter review game, showed
that she utilized traditional Eurocentric practices, an attribute of color blindness as described by
Milner (2010) that did not take into consideration the students with whom she worked. Ms
Graham remained focused on students’ reading levels and committed to assuring that all students
could understand and recall the plot of the texts that they read. The data showed that with her
unconscious deficit mindset, Ms Graham missed opportunities to design scaffolds and rigorous
learning experiences for students that would have allowed them participate in the social
exploration of literature.
Authentic Care
In my conceptual framework, I explained that in order for a teacher to create the
conditions necessary for the social exploration of literature, the teacher would have to establish a
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 172

classroom climate that was collaborative and non-competitive, where the teacher demonstrated
authentic care. Valenzuela (1999) explained that authentic care is a form of reciprocity whereby
the teacher recognizes that students have something to contribute to the learning experience. In
contrast, aesthetic care is demonstrated when a teacher is focused largely with completing tasks
and schooling as an act of compliance (Valenzuela, 1999). The data showed that Mrs. Miller
predominantly demonstrated authentic care within her classroom and that Ms Graham
predominantly demonstrated aesthetic care.
The data showed that Mrs. Miller demonstrated authentic care in her classroom in the
ways that she recognized that the cognitive capabilities of her students. Furthermore, Mrs. Miller
stated that, “the classroom should be student voice. The student voice should be the engine of the
classroom.” This statement demonstrated authentic care and relations of reciprocity because Mrs.
Miller privileged the students’ ability to actively engage in analysis and interpretation of text. In
addition to expressing authentic care in the way that she described her approach to teaching, Mrs.
Miller also positioned students to listen and respond to each other as well as to draw on text to
support their assertions. In whole group discussions, for example, Mrs. Miller actively facilitated
conversations between students, deliberately asking students to speak and respond to each other.
For example, on one occasion, Mrs. Miller called on a student, David, to respond to Faith’s
contribution to the discussion. She asked David to turn to Faith when he spoke, which he did.
This demonstrated authentic care because Mrs. Miller structured the discussion in a way that
listening and responding to each other were cognitive acts that positioned students to
collaboratively build meaning of the text.
Ms Graham predominantly demonstrated aesthetic care, with some evidence of authentic
care. Ms Graham expected and worked to help students complete academic tasks. The data
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 173

showed that Ms Graham’s assignments did not support engaging students in intellectual risk-
taking, which demonstrated aesthetic care and an absence of reciprocity. The data showed that
Ms Graham designed assignments that appeared academic in structure, but there was no evidence
of intellectual engagement. One example of this was during an exchange around a quiz on the
text, Into the Wild. After taking the quiz, Ms Graham had the students grade each other’s quizzes
and she reviewed the answers. Question 3 was to describe the relationship between two of the
characters, Alex and Franz. Elian offered, “It is like father/son.” Ms Graham responded, “Yes! If
they put something like father/son, that’s right. If they put strong, that’s not it.” Another student
asked, “What if they put that it is an awkward one?” Ms Graham responded, “No, that’s not
right. No point.” There was an absence of authentic care in that Ms Graham did not recognize
that students had ideas about the text beyond being able to describe the plot and she did not ask
students to support their ideas with evidence from the text nor did she encourage them to
collaboratively or individually analyze or make meaning of text. This was evident in the kinds of
tasks and assignments that she regularly employed.
In examining the data, authentic care appeared to be necessary to creating the conditions
that fostered the students’ authentic exploration of text and their ability to collaboratively make
meaning of literature.
Assisted Performance
Both Mrs. Miller and Ms Graham used pedagogical acts to support students in
accomplishing activities within their lessons. Assisted performance includes support from “the
environment, of others, and of the self” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 30). The data showed that
Mrs. Miller recognized the need to support her students in navigating academic conversations
and actively worked to create supports that allowed her students to collaboratively make
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 174

meaning of text and supported their participation in both small and large group discussions. The
data showed that Ms Graham knew that her students needed support and she employed a variety
of pedagogical strategies, but did not deliberately consider how these pedagogical acts might
specifically help students to actively make meaning of text.
The data showed that Mrs. Miller actively considered not just that her students needed
support to participate in the social exploration of literature, but also consciously thought about
the types of pedagogical acts she could use to facilitate the process for her students. As an
example, Mrs. Miller stated that, “I don’t stand in front of the classroom and say, ‘So what do we
think?’ very much or very often. The unprepared discussion, I’ve found, in ninth grade does not
feel authentic.” In addition to believing that the student voice “should be the engine of the
classroom,” Mrs. Miller enacted pedagogical strategies that supported her students in utilizing
their voices. For example, on one occasion Mrs. Miller provided students with three options for a
group annotation of a selected passage from “Romeo and Juliet.” The options that Mrs. Miller
provided were scaffolds and she allowed the students to choose the appropriate scaffold for the
group. Mrs. Miller began by explaining the options in collaboration with students. Mrs. Miller
utilized questioning techniques as a way of assisting the students in breaking down the steps of
the activity. The purpose behind involving the students in analyzing the steps of each activity
was to make certain that they understood and could explain the cognitive goal behind each step
of the assignment. This analysis served as a form of assisted performance. In addition, the small
groups acted as an additional form of assisted performance.
Ms Graham utilized a variety of strategies for the purpose of supporting students in their
learning and successful completion of tasks and assignments. The data showed that while her
assignments had some aspects of guided assistance, Ms Graham did not deliberately consider
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 175

how specific pedagogical acts could be used as assisted performance to support the students in
collaboratively analyzing and interpreting text. Ms Graham regularly designed activities to be
completed in manageable steps. For example, on one occasion Ms Graham assigned each small
group in the class one part of the hero’s cycle. She chunked the activity to include “the
definition, quote, and analysis.” While the task was broken down into steps, Ms Graham did not
ask the students to break down each step or to consider the cognitive purpose behind the steps.
The supports that Ms Graham implemented acted more as organizing principles rather than
deliberate forms of assisted performance.
School Context
At the outset of this study, I did not include examining the school context within which
each teacher worked. The picture that emerged, however, demonstrated that the school context
may have contributed to the ways in which Mrs. Miller and Ms Graham enacted the social
exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning. Mrs. Miller believed that her
personal philosophy of education was aligned with that of her school. She stated that, “Our
charter values are very much aligned with mine just in terms of constructivism and letting kids
discover their own passions and their own knowledge at their own way.” Ms Graham did not
discuss the philosophy of the school within which she taught. The school implemented
Scholastic Reading Counts in English classes across grade levels, as was observed in Ms
Graham’s class and the two other English teachers I met at the school. The context of the school
may have been a contributing factor that supported the teachers’ abilities to create a classroom
climate that fostered the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 176

Conclusion
The analysis of the data revealed that four major themes emerged as significant patterns.
These three themes included:
• Asset mindset
• Authentic care and reciprocity
• Assisted performance and scaffolding
• School context
Patterns emerged that created a picture of a teacher who is able to create a classroom context that
supports students in actively engaging in asking questions and building upon each other’s ideas
in pursuit of the social exploration of literature. In order for a teacher to create this kind of
classroom context, the teacher has to hold an asset mindset and believe that her students are
capable of critical and creative thinking. Furthermore, the teacher must demonstrate authentic
care and relations of reciprocity by designing rigorous tasks and recognizing the students’ ability
to engage in rigorous curriculum. Additionally, the teacher must be able to see her students as
whole people, recognizing strengths as well as areas in which they need support. The teacher
must also consider ways in which she can actively support students through assisted performance
in their social exploration of text. The absence of any one of these elements makes it difficult for
the teacher to create the conditions for the authentic open forum discussion. Finally, both
teachers utilized instructional practices that seemed consistent with their school contexts. The
context in which a teacher practices may be a contributing factor in the teacher’s ability to create
the kind of classroom climate that supports the social exploration of literature.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 177

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION
TO PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH
This dissertation examined the ways in which the elements of teacher ideology,
classroom climate, and pedagogy came together to help teachers create the conditions that would
allow them to facilitate the social exploration of literature for students of historically
marginalized backgrounds. A qualitative multi-site case study was used to address the following
research questions:
• What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of historically marginalized students
who have been identified as successful at engaging students in the social
exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning?
• What features of classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to
encourage the social exploration of literature through inquiry and reflection?
• What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create conditions for
inquiry and reflection?
In order to answer these questions, I used purposeful sampling to select two secondary
English high school teachers with the reputation for being successful at facilitating students in
open-forum discussions and the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making
meaning of text. I selected teachers who worked in schools that served historically marginalized
populations in non-affluent neighborhoods. Using data from the California Department of
Education, prior to selecting the participating teachers, I confirmed that the schools that the
teachers worked in served school communities where at least 60% to 70% of the students
qualified for free or reduced lunch and that the composition of the student bodies of these
schools were between at least 60% to 70% Latino and/or African American students. The data
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 178

that I collected to answer these questions included in-person interviews prior to classroom
observations, five direct observations in one classroom and six direct observations in the other
classroom, a review of teacher-created documents and artifacts that were produced specifically
for the lessons, and a final interview of each participating teacher.
Summary of Findings
Mrs. Miller was a ninth grade English teacher with an asset mindset who deliberately
worked to create conditions that supported her students’ social exploration of literature in both
small group and larger group interactions. The data showed that Mrs. Miller’s expressed
ideology demonstrated an asset mindset (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010). She voiced a belief
that her students were critical and creative thinkers and deliberately considered ways to support
them in actively engaging in the social exploration of literature. The data showed that Mrs.
Miller was able to put her expressed beliefs into action by valuing students’ contributions to
discussion. She believed they had the cognitive capabilities to analyze and interpret text and
provided opportunities for students to collaborate in small and larger group interactions for the
purpose of the social exploration of literature.
The data showed that Mrs. Miller used authentic care (Valenzuela, 1999), relations of
reciprocity (Davis, 2006; Valenzuela, 1999), and emotional scaffolding (Rosiek, 2003) in order
to create a classroom climate that was safe for students to take intellectual risks. Mrs. Miller
stated that, “The student voice should be the engine of the classroom.” Mrs. Miller demonstrated
authentic care (Valenzuela, 1999) and relations of reciprocity (Davis, 2006; Valenzuela, 1999)
by expressly stating that the voices of the students should drive the classroom. The data showed
that Mrs. Miller’s expressed beliefs were enacted in her lessons and activities. She actively
designed opportunities for the students to engage in collaborative discussions and supported
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 179

students by preparing them to participate in social interactions with their classmates. Mrs. Miller
positioned the students to listen and respond to each other, building upon each other’s ideas and
utilizing evidence from the text, which was a further demonstration of authentic care ((Davis,
2006; Valenzuela, 1999). The data also showed that Mrs. Miller implemented emotional
scaffolds (Rosiek, 2003) that were designed to make the class a safe place for students to make
mistakes and feel confused. The data showed that Mrs. Miller actively worked to show students
that making mistakes and feeling confused were a positive part of the learning process.
Interviews and observations revealed that that Mrs. Miller intentionally used pedagogical
acts to support her students in the social exploration of literature. She recognized that her
students were capable critical and creative thinkers while also anticipating ways in which she
could support them to navigate and participate in academic conversations in the pursuit of the
social exploration of literature. The data showed that she used learning targets and created
rigorous activities and tasks based on her knowledge and understanding of her students as
learners. Additionally, Mrs. Miller used aspects of both reflection (Rodgers, 2002) and
metacognition (Pintrich, 2002) in order to position her students to think through their academic
tasks as well as to consider their understanding of text.
Ms Graham was a 12
th
grade English teacher who held low expectations and an
unconscious deficit mindset (Milner, 2010) that inhibited her ability to create the conditions to
support her students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning,
analyzing, and interpreting text. The data showed that Ms Graham held competing beliefs; she
held students accountable for the completion of assignments, but the tasks and assignments that
she designed were of a low level of rigor. Ms Graham’s stated beliefs were that she considered it
her role to foster students’ critical thinking and to support them in finding their voices.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 180

Observations showed that her stated beliefs were not enacted in the lessons and activities that she
carried out in her classroom. Ms Graham’s unconscious deficit mindset (Milner, 2010) was
demonstrated in the low level of rigor in the activities and tasks that she assigned. Ms Graham’s
low expectations of her students’ were evidenced by her predominant focus on making certain
her students could understand and recall the plot of the texts that they read, which was evidence
on an over-reliance of discursive thinking (Langer, 1998) and she did not actively work to
support them in collaboratively or individually creating more sophisticated understandings of the
text that would have broadened their literary thinking (Langer, 1998).
Ms Graham demonstrated some aspects of authentic care (Valenzuela, 1999) in that she
held her students accountable for completing tasks and activities. The data showed that Ms
Graham mainly demonstrated aesthetic care (Valenzuela, 1999) because her lessons appeared to
take on academic structures, but there was a lack of intellectual engagement on the part of the
students. The data showed an absence of reciprocity (Davis, 2006; Valenzuela, 1999) on the part
of Ms Graham as she did not regularly press her students to social explore text for the purpose of
making meaning, analyzing, or interpreting text.
Additionally, Ms Graham used frequent checks for understanding to ensure that her
students understood and recalled the plot of the texts that they read, which is evidence of a focus
on discursive thinking (Langer, 1998). She recognized that students benefited from social
interactions and regularly organized students so that they worked in small groups. Ms Graham’s
activities and tasks did not require intellectual engagement on the part of the students; she did not
ask them to analyze or interpret texts. The scaffolds that Ms Graham provided typically were
task and performance-oriented and did not support students in analyzing or making meaning of
text.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 181

Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the role of ideology, the ways in which teachers create
classroom climate, and the pedagogical moves that teachers make to create the conditions that
support students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning of text.
In this section, I will discuss implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and future
research.
One implication for policy and practice is that there is a constant battle for time in
schools. From the time of No Child Left Behind forward, there has been a focus on
accountability. Additionally, in the current climate of data driven decision making, there is a
perception among districts, schools, and teachers, real or imagined, that we must prepare to
perform on high stakes’ tests (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). The accountability culture is
narrowing our focus (Marsh et al., 2006). Based on the research in this study, teachers need time
in order to prepare students to participate in the social exploration of literature. Applebee et al.
(2003) and Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) found that dialogic, open forum discussions occurred
infrequently in secondary English classrooms. Based on the research in this study, teachers need
time to incorporate appropriate scaffolds to assist students’ participation in open forum
discussions. This type of work, preparing students for discussion and incorporating exploratory
talk within secondary English classrooms, must be valued alongside preparing students for high
stakes’ assessments. In the anchor standards for Speaking and Listening in the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Sciences, and Technical Subjects, states that students, “Prepare for and participate effectively in
a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and
expressing their own clearly and persuasively” (CCSS, 2010, p. 48). The initial part of the
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 182

standard suggests that students need the time to prepare for open forum discussions and the
opportunity to participate in a variety of types of talk. In order for teachers to be able to position
students to successfully position students in these kinds of conversations, teachers must dedicate
time in the classroom to preparing students to participate in exploratory talk and giving them a
variety of opportunities for student-generated discussion. The implication and recommendation
is, therefore, that schools must acknowledge the value of time spent in class in the pursuit of
exploratory talk and open forum discussions. Providing time for teachers to focus on working
towards the social exploration of literature is likely not sufficient. The data from this study
demonstrate that creating the conditions for the social exploration of literature is complex and
teachers will need support to engage in this kind of work. To that end, schools will need to
provide time for professional development around the purpose and practice of collaborative
discussions, which is an issue of both a policy and practice, which is consistent with the work of
Applebee et al. (2003) and Nystrand and Gamoran (1997).
An additional implication and recommendation for practice relates to the types of
scaffolding and assisted performance that are required to facilitate students at all levels in the
pursuit of the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning. Mrs. Miller
stated that, “The unprepared discussion, I’ve found, in ninth grade does not feel authentic.” Mrs.
Miller deliberately designed opportunities for students to engage in exploratory talk in
preparation for the Socratic Seminar. She assisted the students’ performance and provided a
variety of scaffolds to support the students in preparation for a larger discussion, which is
consistent with the work of Langer (1998), Nystrand and Gamoran (1997), and Smagorinsky
(2003). The implication for practice is that time is not enough. The first anchor standard for
Speaking and Listening in the CCSS states that students “Prepare for and participate effectively
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 183

in a range of conversations” (p. 48). This is consistent with the findings in this study. Many
students, including those in historically marginalized populations who may not have had
sufficient opportunities in engaging in these kinds of academic conversations, need support in
order to participate in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of building meaning. It
is not enough for teachers to give students time to engage in these discussions; teachers need to
provide sufficient support and regular practice to prepare students to engage in exploratory talk.
An implication for teacher education is that there is evidence that we have not
successfully positioned all teachers to be critically reflective of the role of ideology in the
classroom. Gay and Kirkland (2003) state that “Self-reflection and cultural critical consciousness
are imperative to improving the educational opportunities and outcomes for students of color” (p.
182). Philip (2011) asserted that teachers are often able to recognize systemic racism, but have a
much more difficult time seeing it in their own practice. Bartolomé (2004) and Philip (2011)
suggest that examining practice in light of ideology is critical and yet the data from this study
demonstrate that examining the link between ideology and practice is complicated. Teachers
need the opportunity to investigate their own beliefs and the impact of those beliefs on their
students. The absence of an asset mindset and the ability to see students as capable as well as the
absence relations of reciprocity, the ability to see that students have ideas of their own, makes it
difficult for teachers to create opportunities for students to participate in exploratory discussions.
The presence of a deficit mindset and the absence of relations of reciprocity may actually lead to
not valuing exploratory talk. Teachers need chances to engage in critical reflection, in
exploratory talk that allows them to build meaning in order to understand how their own beliefs
may impact their instruction and the students that they work with.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 184

There is an implication for further research to determine the role of a teacher’s content
knowledge as well as the role of the school culture in driving teachers’ success at creating
opportunities for students to participate in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of
making meaning. The two case study teachers in this research focused on different goals in
practice. Mrs. Miller created opportunities for students to engage in exploratory talk in
preparation for a final Socratic Seminar style discussion. Ms Graham focused largely on making
certain her students could understand and recall the plots of the texts that they read. It is not clear
what the role of the teachers’ content knowledge played in what the teachers valued as important
to focus on nor is it clear the role the school culture played in determining each teachers’ focus.
In order to position teachers to successfully support students in exploratory talk and the social
exploration of literature, further research in both the role of content knowledge and the role of
the school culture.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 185

References
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary. School Psychology
Review, 42(1), 76–98.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based
approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in
middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
doi:10.3102/00028312040003685
Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, (Winter), 97–122.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Introduction: Beyond the fog of ideology. In Ideologies in Education:
Unmasking the Trap of Teacher Neutrality (pp. ix–xxix). New York: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Boser, U. (2014). Teacher diversity revisited: A New State-by-State Analysis. Center for
American Progress.
Cadiero-Kaplan. (2008). Critically examining beliefs, orientations, ideologies, and practices
toward literacy instruction: A process of praxis. In Ideologies in Education: Unmasking the
Trap of Teacher Neutrality (pp. 117–134). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Cooper, P. M. (2003). Effective white teachers of black children: Teaching within a community.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 413-427. doi:10.1177/0022487103257395
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 186

Davis, H. A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship middle school students and teachers.
The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 193–223.
Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G.. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply
policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved July 11, 2013 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hatt, B. (2011). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(3), 438–460. doi:10.3102/0002831211415661
Heath, S. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, R. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol. 3, pp. 3-
25). White Plains, New York: Longman.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of
affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
Langer, J. A. (2010). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Langer, J. A. (1998). Thinking and doing literature: An eight-year study. English Journal, 87(2),
16–23.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education.
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 187

Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction
and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 108(4), 293–312. doi:10.1086/528973
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach [Kindle version]
(3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in
classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 377–390. doi:10.1007/s10648-
006-9032-1
Miller, S. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPDs for teaching/learning habits
of the heart and mind. In Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 289–316).
Milner, H. R. I. (2010). A diversity and opportunity gaps explanatory framework. In Start where
you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in
today’s classrooms (pp. 13 – 44). Cambridge: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of
English lessons. In Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning
in English classrooms (pp. 30 – 74). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 188

Philip, T. M. (2011). An “ideology in pieces” approach to studying change in teachers’
sensemaking about race, racism, and racial justice. Cognition and Instruction, 29(3), 297–
329. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.583369
Pintrich, P. R. (2010, June 24). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Rist, R. C. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 257–301.
Rodgers, C. (2002, June). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding: An exploration of the teacher knowledge at the
intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5),
399–412.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts teacher?
Language Arts, 90(3), 190–204.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: Issues of caring in education of U.S.-Mexican
youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 189

Appendix A: Initial Interview Protocol

Interviewer:______________________ Date:_____________

Interviewee: _____________________

Grade/Subject: _________________________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

Introduction:
I am Jenn Wolfe, a graduate student in Educational Leadership at the University of Southern
California, and I am doing a study as part of my dissertation.

During this conversation, I hope to learn more about the role of open-forum discussions in
secondary English classrooms. I am defining open-forum discussion as a discussion that invites a
variety of perspectives, including the use of student questions. Essentially, I am looking at the
types of discussions that we, as English teachers, are able to facilitate in English classrooms and
the ways in which we apprentice kids into our discipline.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify you, or
your organization, by name. While I will take some notes, I would like to record this interview in
order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 190

Tell me a little about your teaching background.

What do you believe is your role as a teacher?

What kind of a classroom environment do you
try to create?

What are your goals as a teacher of English?

Some follow-up cues:
• What did you learn from that?
• How would you do it differently?
• How does that play out?
• Can you walk me through ….?
• What were you thinking when…?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 191

What do you believe is the value of studying
literature?

What are some of the challenges is teaching
literature?

Could you walk me through a typical lesson
around literature in your classroom?

How do you initiate discussion in your
classroom?

Some follow-up cues:
• What did you learn from that?
• How would you do it differently?
• How does that play out?
• Can you walk me through ….?
• What were you thinking when…?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 192

Could you tell me about the most recent
discussion that took place in your class?

Think about a recent lesson. Walk me through it.
Can you recall specifically what your thought-
process was during the lesson?

What are some of the challenges in facilitating
discussions?

What do you do to draw students into
discussion?

Some follow-up cues:
• What did you learn from that?
• How would you do it differently?
• How does that play out?
• Can you walk me through ….?
• What were you thinking when…?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 193

Appendix B: Observation Protocol

Describe the classroom. Include the arrangement of student desks, teacher desks, learning
centers, library/book resources, computer/s, sinks, and other instructional equipment, evidence of
student work. Note the seating arrangement of the students by race (Latino = L, Asian = A,
Black = B, White = W) and gender (e.g., BF/AM)

Seating Arrangement (check as many as apply)

__ rows of tables/desks facing front of room
__ circle/semi-circle of tables/desks
__ clusters or pods of tables/desks
__ individual tables/desks
__ other (describe)

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 194

Description Commentary
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 195

Appendix C: Final Interview, Mrs. Maggie Miller

I noticed you use the Classroom Dojo to call on
students. Could you talk a little bit about your
approach to using it? Does it help you accomplish
something you were not able to accomplish
otherwise? How do you think it influences
students’ behavior in class? How are you using
Classroom Dojo to call on students?

I noticed that in reading Romeo and Juliet, you
did a lot of getting kids up and acting the text out,
but it also looked like they had a reading schedule
that required reading some of the text at home. I
was wondering if you could talk a little bit about
your thinking on which scenes you select to act
out and why.

I noticed that you have some standard
procedures/routines in place, like Poetry 180 and
the Do Now. Can you talk a little about the
purpose behind the procedures? What are you
hoping to accomplish?

In addition to the procedures/routines, I noticed
that you utilize packets like the Poetry 180 and
the Shakespeare Textual Analysis handout. Are
these materials things that you create on your
own? How do you decide what materials to use?
When selecting materials to use in class, what do
you look for? What is your overall goal/intention?

I saw that in most of the lessons, you go over the
learning target for the lesson and that Inola did
this, as well, when she began leading the Socratic
Seminar. Is this a standard practice in the school
or is it something specific to what you do? What
is your purpose in reviewing the learning target
before beginning the lesson?

In one of my earlier observations (2
nd
observation
– 04/20), you organized the students into
homogenous groups and then assigned specific
passages that were varied in complexity for each
of the groups. Can you talk about your thinking
behind how you organized the students and how
you selected the passages?

In that lesson that I observed with the
homogenous groups, you talked about level 5, I
think in relation to annotations. The exchange
went like this, “T, “What would be a level 5?” S

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 196

in seat 18, “You connect that love and hate are
connected.” T “Level 5 has annotations connect
to the topics. Would tagging it be enough for a
level 5?” S in seat 22, “Maybe the tag has to show
and explain how the tag fits the topic.” T writes
this on the board: Level 5:” What are the different
levels referring to? Is this part of annotation?
I noticed that you have a common language going
with this class. For example, the first time that I
observed, you asked how many kids were
confused and only 4 kids raised their hands. You
asked if only 4 kids were confused and more kids
raised their hands. You asked what is happening
when you’re feeling confused and one of the kids
said, “we’re learning.” This was not the only time
I saw something like this. What are you trying to
do when you ask kids about their confusion?
What kind of atmosphere or environment are you
trying to create?

How do you see your purpose during the small
group discussions?

When you circulate among the different small
groups during these interactions, what are you
looking for in their interactions?

I noticed you use a lot of humor in your
interactions with your students. How do you think
that builds rapport with your students or adds to
the classroom climate that you are trying to
create?

On the morning of the Socratic Seminar, there
was a lot of excitement. One of the kids even said
that he was jumping up and down excited about it
and he didn’t appear to be sarcastic or kidding.
What do you think contributed to that excitement?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 197

Appendix D: Final Interview, Ms Deanna Graham

In our first interview, you mentioned creating
tiered levels of questions. How do you
incorporate the tiered levels of questions?

In the first lesson that I observed, you had the
students discuss in small groups about the
character Jim Gallien. At first, the students just
sat there and you ended up having to prompt
them by saying something like, “Talk to the
people at your table.” When the small groups
don’t take up a discussion the way you hope,
what goes through your mind?

In the second lesson that I observed, you asked
the students to create a chart where they
examined the function of the first five chapters,
the people in Chris’s life, and Chris (if I
understood the chart correctly). What is the
purpose of the chart? What does the group
discussion around the chart do to facilitate the
learning experience for the kids?

When you think back on the discussions around
the character of Chris, what do you think the
students learned? What did you learn about the
students and what they know and understand?

Thinking back over the last lesson, can you walk
me through what questions were associated with
what tiers? What does/did each tier “do” in terms
of facilitating the learning experience for the
kids?

I noticed that you use a variety of techniques to
organize the kids differently over time and I was
wondering if you could talk a little bit about your
thinking about how you organize them.

What informed your approach to organizing the
students in small groups? How do you decide
who should be in which small group? Was what I
saw pretty typical? Do you ever have times when
you intentionally group students together or keep
students apart?

How do you see your purpose during the small
group discussions?

When you circulate among the different small
groups during these interactions, what are you
looking for in their interactions? What do you do
with the information you gather during this time?

OPEN-FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS 198

I notice you circulate through the room. Are you
listening for something in particular? Are you
looking for something in particular?
I noticed that you took the students through the
hero’s journey in your study of Siddhartha. In
that lesson, you gave the groups different parts of
the hero’s cycle and had them working on
identifying the parts and then illustrating
something from the book to demonstrate that
part. Was what I saw typical? Are there times of
the year or reasons why you might deviate from
the ERWC curriculum? If so, could you talk
about what might cause you to deviate?

I noticed you use a lot of humor in your
interactions with your students. Could you talk
about when you decide to use it and what you are
using it to accomplish?

I noticed that Kaylee is very vocal in discussions.
What does she contribute to the class? How do
you keep her involved without dominating the
discussion?

There are some particularly quiet students, like
Kaniela and Monet. Is there something you are
able to notice in their small group interactions
that you don’t have the opportunity to see in
whole group discussions?

In thinking about the lessons that I observed and
our discussions, is there anything in particular
you would like to draw my attention to?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine English teachers who were considered successful at encouraging the social exploration of literature. The rationale for this study was to gain a greater understanding of the beliefs and ideologies of English teachers who were able to create a classroom climate that support students open exploration and discussion of literature in order to better understand the teachers’ beliefs and ideologies as well as the ways in which they constructed their classroom climate and selected pedagogical tools to facilitate students’ participation in open-forum discussion. The following research questions informed my dissertation study: What are the underlying beliefs of teachers of who have been identified as successful at engaging students in the social exploration of literature for the purpose of making meaning? What features of classroom climate do teachers actively facilitate in order to encourage the social exploration of literature through inquiry and reflection? What are the pedagogical acts that the teachers engage in to create conditions for inquiry and reflection? ❧ This multi-case study examined two English teachers identified as successful at creating a classroom climates that supported the social construction of knowledge around literature for students of historically marginalized backgrounds. Classroom observations were conducted of each teacher in the study as well as two in-depth interviews of both teachers. Documents and artifacts that were available from the lessons were collected. ❧ The findings revealed that while both teachers held a reputation for successfully implementing the social exploration of literature with their students, one teacher was more successfully able to engage students in open forum discussions. The data also showed the significance of holding an asset mindset, authentic care, relations of reciprocity, assisted performance, and scaffolding in being able to successfully create a the conditions that supported the social exploration of literature.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

The role of teachers in academic discussion

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

The role of secondary mathematics teachers in fostering the Algebra 1 success of African American males

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Teachers' classroom pedagogy and perception: In schools with high rates of exclusionary discipline practices for African American students

PDF

Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments

PDF

Teacher practices and student connection: high school students' perceptions of the influences of teacher pedagogy and care on their sense of connection

PDF

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Teacher compassion fatigue in predominantly BIPOC classrooms - a qualitative study

PDF

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

Asset Metadata

Creator Wolfe, Jennifer (author)

Core Title Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/26/2016

Defense Date 08/15/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag asset mindset,assisted performance,authentic care,classroom climate,co-construction of knowledge,dialogic discussions,OAI-PMH Harvest,open-forum discussions,pedagogy,relations of reciprocity,scaffolding,social construction of knowledge,social exploration of literature,teacher ideology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Carbone, Paula M. (committee member), Stillman, Jamy A. (committee member)

Creator Email jwolfe@usc.edu,jwolfe27@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-307473

Unique identifier UC11280295

Identifier etd-WolfeJenni-4819.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-307473 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WolfeJenni-4819.pdf

Dmrecord 307473

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wolfe, Jennifer

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