Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

The purpose of this study was to examine how spaces for difficult conversations, particularly about race, are created so teacher educators can begin to consider how to prepare teachers to facilitate these spaces and, ultimately, these conversations, in an effort to improve racial literacy amongst students, both K12 and secondary. This is an urgent need in the U.S., where the silence about race has broken through in ways that have been destructive. The significance of this study, therefore, lies in the exploration of how white teacher educators constructed spaces for new conversations about race, as this can directly impact the way they prepare teacher candidates to do the same in K12 classrooms. In studying the construction of a space where these conversations were possible, and where hegemonic norms and the hidden curriculum could be questioned and disrupted, I argue that we can rethink how educators take up the ideals of multicultural education as well as culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies in classroom spaces. Though this study offers insight into just one group of white teacher educators as it coexists within the larger framework of school spaces in New York City and is nested within the institution of U.S. schooling and society writ large, the study’s results may contribute to understandings of what a “brave” space for tough conversations looks like for American school teachers and children and how it can be produced. Through both discourse and spatial analysis of data produced through audio- and video-taping of eight monthly meetings, individual interviews, and the generation and collection of artifacts, my key findings are grounded in the pervasiveness of white supremacy in education. With this understanding, white educators must work to understand that there is no “one right way” to begin disrupting white supremacy in the classroom. Therefore, white teacher educators need new communities to begin addressing the ways in which white teacher educators are able to engage in talking about race and ultimately work toward facilitating spaces where their teacher candidates can then do the same.

In the past thirty years, oracy has received prominence as a means to enhance teaching styles and assist with learning. Much of what has been written in this field has been by those interested in a 'language across the curriculum' approach, such as Barnes (1969) who developed the terms 'exploratory talk' and 'final draft talk'. The linguist, M.A.K. Halliday {1989} and others have suggested that the teacher's approach should be to encourage what he terms 'heuristic talk' i.e. relatively unstructured exploratory language used by the pupils in talking towards an understanding of a concept. It is more evident in certain school subjects that pupils may have difficulty in understanding abstract or complex concepts. In this regard, English, mathematics and physical science were selected for the purpose of this study, as each has its own metalanguage, specific to that subject. It is presumed that some pupils may find difficulty in these subjects because of the subject-specific language inherent in each. This work explores whether a programme of increased oracy alleviates some of these problems and it makes recommendations for the implementation of such a programme. The period involved for the purpose of this study was five weeks, during which teachers of three selected classes presented lessons in such a way that oral work was stressed. At the completion of this programme, a test was written for comparison with past experiences. Pupils answered a comprehensive questionnaire and staff involved were interviewed; the results of this feedback, in conjunction with what has been written by others in this field, forms the basis for this work. The primary recommendation emerging from this and other studies is that a shift away from a teacher-/ and textbook-dominated approach is necessary. Pupils need to contextualise knowledge in their own terms. One important way of accomplishing this is by affording them theopportunity to interact orally with each other and with the teacher.

The aim of this research project was to examine how group discussions influence student performance in a DoE prescribed Life Sciences activity. The research methodology draws on collaborative group work and learner oriented assessment frameworks. The case study was conducted in a suburban high school in south Gauteng. Students were explicitly taught collaborative group work skills. As group work discussions are dependent on subject content knowledge, students were required to complete the assessment activity individually first. Students were placed in groups of four or five that were academically heterogeneous, in an attempt to encourage robust discussions. Following group work discussions students completed a final write up of the assessment activity. Findings from the research showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean pre group work assessment score to the post group work assessment score. All students were found to interact in a co-regulated way in that all were active participants. Each group had at least one member who was a hitch hiker. This student was unprepared and was the most disengaged and passive throughout the group work. The hitch hiker tended to have the lowest post group work activity score for their group. The student whose post group work activity score was the highest was the one who was the most prepared and except for a student whose home language was not the LOLT all others were the most active in their groups. Student discussions were dependent on subject content knowledge. Where subject content knowledge was sound, discussions resulted in cognitive conflict allowing for the social construction of knowledge. Poor content knowledge resulted in discussions which left students confused and seeking help from the teacher. Whilst most students perceived the group work to improve their understanding of the work, the heterogeneity of the groups was raised as a concern by a hitch hiker and students who obtained the highest post group work assessment scores. The hitchhiker in one of the groups perceived that she was not taken seriously, whilst the high academic achievers felt that they were providing information to students who were not well prepared. Most students valued the group work activity and recommended its use for future Grade 11 Life Sciences students.

香港教育在課程和評估等方面均十分重視學生口語或書面論辯的能力，不論是學習階段內的全港性系統評估，還是學生完成中學課程後所參加的中學會考 (2012年之前) 或文憑考試 (2012年後)，均要求學生參與小組討論，訓練並考核學生評價觀點的強弱、適當回應組員的觀點的能力。香港教師能夠引導學生綜合書面論辯篇章的組織，並指導學生提出理由支持自己的觀點，但少於培養學生如何理解乃至評價他人觀點的根據，以及回應並發展反駁的能力。學生能夠評價書面篇章內容，也能在教師指導下辨識作者觀點的理據，但在小組討論中建立相反觀點以說服持不同意見的其他成員，表現仍見不足。 本研究旨在發展理論架構與分析程序，以分析中學生在中文小組討論中的論辯。為此，本研究探討了中文小組討論的論辯話語的特徵、學生表達觀點與理據所運用的策略、批判地回應對手的方式，特別是發展反駁、評價對手觀點與理據，以及表達與有衝突的觀點。 十八名來自九所中學的中學畢業學生按學校與性別的分層隨機分配到三組六人組別中，參與時限為廿五分鐘的中文小組討論。他們須討論一項禁止學校小賣部售賣垃圾食物，並禁止學生?帶垃圾食物回校的措施是否合理。學生的討論經謄錄後，在質性分析軟體 (NVivo) 的輔助下，運用話語分析和非形式邏輯中的論辯理論分析，以發現學生在討論中建構論辯的模式，包括：意念、言語行為、論辯圖式、討論的四個中文小組論辯討論的四個層次、廿五項讓學生得以建構論辯並參與討論的言語行為、六種論辯圖式及發展反駁的相關批判問題、討論的五階段，特別是學生傾向於把相互矛盾的論點統合為沒有衝突的討論發展方向。 本研究提出了理論架構與分析程序，把學生在中文小組討論的論辯歸類，以分析論辯的特徵。本論文所提供的研究程序、理論架構、分析程序，以及學生在中文小組論辯討論的表現，有助中國語文課程及其他課程中論辯教育的課程發展、教學設計與評估。最後，本論文探索了研究設計的優點與不足，並提出了日後繼續發展本研究的可能方向。 The ability of Hong Kong students to frame arguments in written and spoken exchanges in Chinese is afforded high priority in Hong Kong secondary schools and is strongly emphasised in the Hong Kong Curriculum. The ability to attend to points made in a discussion, to identify strengths and weaknesses in assertions and content and to make appropriate counter responses has been formally examined in the matriculation examination since 2007. Teachers are comfortable about developing students‘ competence in identifying micro- and macro-structures in text content, and in using these to support opinions expressed in writing. They are less assured about teaching students how to perceive the grounds for counter-arguments and making measured responses and rebuttals of what others in a group have said. Students are able to critically examine text content, to appreciate points advanced and to assemble these in written responses, but, partly due to the Confucian endorsement of avoiding confrontation and disharmony, senior secondary students are apprehensive about public discussions in which they are asked to formulate opposing points of view and persuasive arguments to peers who hold conflicting standpoints. The study set out to assist teachers by establishing a theoretical framework and procedure for analyzing students‘ contributions in group discussion in Chinese. To achieve this, it was necessary to investigate characteristics of discourse; to identify the strategies students employ in presenting reasoned points of view; to critically analyse the contributions of others, especially those presenting counter-arguments; to weigh the merits of opposing opinions; and to present propositions against those expressed by fellow group members. Eighteen final year secondary school students from nine schools were selected, randomly placed into stratified groups of six and asked to participate in twenty-five minute long group discussions of the merits of a school policy prohibiting the sale of junk food in the school canteen and bringing junk food into school. The students‘ utterances were transcribed and points of argument examined using conversational discourse analyses, the logic of the arguments advanced being analysed with the assistance of research software (NVivo). Patterns of argument formulations by the students in the discussions were found. Levels of idea units, speech acts, argumentative scheme and discussion were identified and twenty-five types of spoken exchanges enabling students to construct arguments during the group discussions were identified. Six types of argument shemes were found; and types of critical questions for stimulating justifications and rebuttals of what participants said in the discussions were noted. A five-stage process of presenting arguments in the discussions emerged, together with a tendency for the students to attempt to integrate disparate and heterogeneous points of view into homogeneous standpoints. The research proposes procedures for analyzing and categorising the arguments students raise in group discussion in Chinese, and a framework for developing teaching students how to formulate and sustain telling arguments as part of the Chinese Language Curriculum. The strengths and weaknesses of the research are set out and the implications for further research and current practice are discussed. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

While professional developers have been encouraging teachers to plan for discourse around problem solving tasks as a way to orchestrate mathematically productive discourse (Stein, Engle, Smith, & Hughes, 2008; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2009) no research has been conducted explicitly examining the relationship between the plans that teachers make for orchestrating discourse around problem solving tasks and the outcomes of implementation of those plans. This research study is intended to open the door to research on planning for discourse around problem solving tasks. This research study analyzes how 12 middle school mathematics teachers participating in the Mathematics Problem Solving Model professional development research program implemented lesson plans that they wrote in preparation for whole-class discussions around cognitively demanding problem solving tasks. The lesson plans consisted of the selection and sequencing of student solutions to be presented to the class along with identification of the mathematical ideas to be highlighted in the student solutions and questions that would help to make the mathematics salient. The data used for this study were teachers' lesson plans and the audio-recordings of the whole-class discussions implemented by the teachers. My research question for this study was: How do teachers' written plans for orchestrating mathematical discourse around problem solving tasks influence the opportunities teachers create for students to reason mathematically? To address this research question, I analyzed the data in three different ways. First, I measured fidelity to the literal lesson by comparing what was planned in the ISAs to what was actually took place in the implemented debriefs. That is, I analyzed the extent to which the teachers were implementing the basic steps in their lesson (i.e. sharing the student work they identified, addressing the ideas to highlight and the planned questions). Second, I analyzed the teachers' fidelity to the intended lesson by comparing the number of high-press questions in the lesson plans (that is, questions that create opportunities for the students to reason mathematically) to the number of high-press questions in the implemented discussion. I compared these two sets of data using a linear regression analysis and t-tests. Finally, I conducted a qualitative analysis, using grounded theory, of a subset of four teachers from the study. I examined the improvisational moves of the teachers as they addressed the questions they had planned, building a theory of how the different ways that teachers implemented their planned questions affected the opportunities for their students to reason mathematically around those planned questions. My findings showed that it was typical for the teachers to implement most of the steps of their lesson plans faithfully, but that there was not a statistically significant correlation between the number of high-press questions they planned and the number of high-press questions they asked during the whole-class discussions, indicating that there were other factors that were influencing the frequency with which the teachers were asked these questions that prompted their students to reason mathematically. I hypothesize that these factors include, but are not limited to, the norms in the classrooms, teachers' knowledge about teaching mathematics, and teachers' beliefs about mathematics. Nevertheless, my findings did show that in the portions of the whole-class discussions where the teachers had planned at least one high-press question, they, on average, asked more high-press questions than when they did not plan to ask any. Finally, I identified four different ways that teachers address their planned questions which impacted the opportunities for students to reason mathematically. Teachers addressed their questions as drop-in (they asked the question and then moved on as soon as a response was elicited), embedded (the ideas in the question were addressed by a student without being prompted), telling (the teacher told the students the `response' to the question without providing an opportunity for the students to attempt to answer the question themselves) and sustained focus (the teacher sustained the focus on the question by asking the students follow-up questions).