THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS...

THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS DIALOGUES

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Education

Texas Wesleyan University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction

by

Jeffrey Herr

May 2015



JEFFREY HERR

Approved:

________________________

Dissertation Chair

________________________

Committee Member

________________________

Committee Member

_________________________

Director, Doctoral Program

_________________________

Dean, School of Education

_________________________

_________________________

© 2015 by Jeffrey T. Herr

No part of this work can be reproduced without permission except as indicated by the “Fair Use”

clause of the copyright law. Passages, images, or ideas taken from this work must be properly

credited in any written form or published materials.

iv



ABSTRACT

Jeffrey Herr

This study was designed to explore early adolescent, student-to-student vocal utterances

in relationship to teacher-presented textual dilemmas and student-generated topics during

teacher-facilitated whole-class discussions. Through this study, grade 7 English/Language Arts

students’ vocal expressions were observed and analyzed to better understand the dynamics of

their discussions, as those reveal three modes of thinking out loud: exploratory, disputational,

and cumulative talk. Student-participants chosen from one class of English/Language Arts at a

North Texas charter school were examined for a period of four months using a qualitative,

ethnographic design. The researcher in the current study served as an active participating

observer, facilitating talks and collecting and analyzing narrative transcripts while performing

duties as the sample class’s teacher-of-record. Findings gleaned from this study indicated that the

foundations for enacting vocal exploratory communities of inquiry depended on four attributes:

the presentation of succinct, textual dilemmas, the syntactical wording of topic-questions, the

social dynamics of seventh-grade participants, and the importance of facilitator interjections

throughout.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my Committee Chair, Dr. Twyla

Miranda, whose guidance, diligence, encouragement, and serenity (in seemingly all situations)

has mentored me through this “steady march” toward degree completion. Without her tireless

efforts in consistent service as the liaison between me and my committee, this project would not

have come to fruition in the timely fashion that it did.

I am also indebted to my committee members, two wise sages of philosophy, Dr. Ron

McManus and Dr. Nakia Pope. Their willingness to comment on my drafts and to offer enduring

advice for revisions helped me to stretch my thinking and prepare a more cohesive paper. A

special thanks should also be extended to two doctoral program professors who have forged an

indelible niche, contributing to my growth as both a thinker and a teaching professional (and

were with me literally every step of the way) – Dr. Aileen Curtin and Dr. Celia Wilson.

The support provided me at home has always proved to be the most indelible of attributes

in which to honor. My parents, Joe and Cheryl Herr, have always stood steadfast to provide for

the well-being of me and my family. Their concern for their children and grandchildren have

been undying and monumental. Though my quest to achieve this degree started and stalled and

started again, my wife, Christina, would never allow me to let those initial dream-like sparks

flicker out. She has demonstrated more than ever (throughout my doctoral program and this

dissertation process) that the giving of one’s self has so many avenues in which to provide. Many

times throughout this process she has whole-heartedly doubled and tripled her extending reach of

dutiful love to accommodate my pursuits. Our four children, Emerson, Isabella, Redding, and

vi

Vadin, have also endured my sojourns to the back-room to sit and write for extended weeks and

months. It is for them that I continue to drive and push forward persistently.

I owe a special expanse of gratitude to my school, CKA, and to this study’s participants

and their families. Without their agreements allowing me to mine such a non-traditional

collection of data, the current study would have not been conducted in the same way, with me as

the facilitator as well as active participant. Noteworthy throughout my dissertation process has

been the unwavering support of my principal, Kurtis Flood. His belief in the benefits of shared

ideals which emerge from discourse and for allowing me the daily freedom to challenge

traditional methods of teaching, have not gone unnoticed.

I would be remiss in forgetting to express gratitude to my university, Texas Wesleyan,

which holds a special place in my heart. It was here that I first experienced true Socratic talk

(thank you, Dr. McManus); met my mentor and the person I most aspire to emulate, the late Dr.

Ron Reed; first found that questions are more important than answers; and learned from the

greatest respecter of opinions -- in class or out, Dr. Twyla Miranda. Over the past 25 years, I

have attended and graduated from Texas Wesleyan three times with degrees progressing through

three increasing tiers. I realize now that it was the talk that kept me coming back to Wesleyan –

the back-and-forth expression of ideas and opinions in which I have not been privy to elsewhere.

It was the hope of gaining intra-mental, personal knowledge that led me back to Wesleyan time

and again. Now I venture out again with the promise that that wisdom will be shared with the

confidence to embrace the wonder of opportunities to think out loud.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables xiv

Chapter Page

I. Introduction to the Study

Background of the Problem 2

From Control to Collaboration: Dialogue as Teaching 2

Dialogic Norms for the Classroom 6

Structuring an Environment for Exploratory Talk 8

Other Social Modes of Thinking 12

Texts for Thinking 14

Studies in Thinking out Loud 16

Need for the Study 17

Significance of the Study 19

Research Questions 19

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 20

Limitations 20

Delimitations 20

Definition of Terms 21

Chapter I Summary 24

II. Review of Related Literature

viii

Toward a More Engaged Pedagogy 31

From Praxis to Reasoning: Theories and Empirical Studies 33

Piaget, Vygotsky and a Psychology of Thinking 36

Bahktin, Vygotsky and Freire: The Dialogic and the Dialectic 38

Absolutism, Subjectivism and a Middle Theory 39

Empirical Results from Class Dialogues 41

Dialectical Influences 51

The Origins of Philosophy for Children 53

Community of Inquiry within Philosophy for Children 55

Community of Inquiry as a Catalyst for Critical Thinking 57

Creative Thinking: Engagement within a Community of Inquiry 58

Caring Thinking: The Expression of Empathy within CoI 59

Community of Inquiry as a Process of Reflective Thought 60

Toward an Emergence of Exploratory Talk 61

Explaining the Process of Community Dialogue 65

Necessary Shifts in the Role of a Dialectical Teacher 66

The Facilitator’s Role 67

The Facilitator as a Bridge toward Student Reflectivity 69

The Participant’s Role 71

Criticisms of Philosophy for Children 74

Chapter II Summary 78

ix

III. Methodology

Introduction 80


Research Design 81

Researcher Identity 83

The Background of the Researcher as a Learner 83

The Background of the Researcher as a Constructivist Teacher 85

The Researcher’s Experience at Core Knowledge Academy 87

The Participants and the Setting 87

Setting Foundations 87

The Core Knowledge Approach and the Trivium Hierarchy 88

Further Description of Core Knowledge Academy 91

A Current Site Description of Core Knowledge Academy 93

Participant Selection 95

Data Collection 96

Doing Class Dialogue 100

Timeline 106

Treatment of the Data 108

Provisions for Trustworthiness 111

Chapter III Summary 112

IV. Analysis of Data 113

x

Purpose of the Study 113


Chapter Overview 114

Part I: Discourse Analysis 115

Class Dialogue 1 – September 5, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic

(21:00) 115

Class Dialogue 2 – September 11, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma

Text – “The Heinz Dilemma” (24:00) 130

Class Dialogue 3 – September 19, 2014: Traditional/Classical Fiction –

“The Necklace” (28:30) 143

Class Dialogue 4 – September 29, 2014: Factual Narrative – “Shooting an

Elephant” (26:56) 155

Class Dialogue 5 – October 3, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic

(35:45) 166

Class Dialogue 6 – October 9, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text –

“Frederick” (32:20) 177

Class Dialogue 7 – October 24, 2014: Classical Fiction – “The Tell-Tale

Heart” (30:04) 190

Class Dialogue 8 – October 30, 2014: Factual Narrative – “The Night the

Bed Fell” (29:19) 202

Class Dialogue 9 – November 7, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic

(41:13) 212

Class Dialogue 10 – November 14, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma

Text – “The Runaway Trolley” (39:06) 225

xi

Class Dialogue 11 – November 21, 2014: Classical Fiction – “A Sound of

Thunder” (33:31) 238

Class Dialogue 12 – December 4, 2014: Factual Narrative – “Infamy

Speech” (34:04) 248

Class Dialogue 13 – December 12, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic

(28:10) 257

Class Dialogue 14 – December 18, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma

Text – “The Afghan Goatherds” (36:46) 269

Part II: Textual and Non-Textual Influences 281

Dialogues 1, 5, 9, and 13: Non-Textually Generated Topics 282

Dialogues 2, 6, 10, and 14: Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas 292

Dialogues 3, 7, and 11: Traditional/Classical Fiction 301

Dialogues 4, 8, and 12: Factual Narratives 308

Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 316

Part III: Disputes, Agreements, and Community of Inquiry 322

Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 335

Part IV: Ground-Rules Review and Exploratory Talk 336

Summary of Findings for Research Questions 3 348

Chapter IV Summary 348

V. Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations 350

Survey of the Study 350

Brief Overview of the Problem 350

xii

Purpose Statement and Research Questions 352

Review of the Study Design 353

Summary of Findings 357

The Presence of a Dilemma 357

Elapsed Time between Read-Alouds and Class Discussions 358

Text Evidence and Vocal Participation 359

Topic-Question Syntax and Engagement Dynamics 359

Influences of Mainly-Exploratory Participants 362

Influences of Argument Sequences on Modes of Discourse 363

Student Participation and Its Effect on Modes of Discourse 366

Gender and Its Effects on Modes of Discourse 368

Facilitator Participation and Its Effects on Discourse 369

Thinking Out Loud and the Emergence of CoI 371

The Effect of Procedural Norms on Exploratory Talk 372

Conclusions 373

The Emergence of Lead-Speakers and Less-Assertive Speakers 373

The Importance of Dilemmas and Timing 374

Non-Textually Generated Discussions and the Advent of Disputes 376

Topic-Question Construction and the Importance of Syntax 377

The Effects of Ground-Rules and Interjections on Discourse 378

Implications for Practice 381

xiii

Recommendations for Future Research 382

Concluding Remarks 383

References 385

Biographical Note 399

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Philosophy for Children and Socratic Method 78

2. Textual Listing from the Grade 7 Core Knowledge Sequence 92

3. Philosophy for Children Transcript Example (11-12 year-olds): Do you think all

the time or just some of the time? 98

4. Questions to Stimulate Philosophical Discussion of Stories 102

5. Potential Post-Dialogue Interview Questions for Participants 105

6. Dialogue Schedule 108

7. Discourse Analysis Coding Scheme 111

8. Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 1 122












xv



22. Non-Textually Generated Dialogue Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves 284

23. Categorized Explorations: Non-Textually Generated Questions 286

24. Categorized Disputes: Non-Textually Generated Questions 288

25. Facilitator Moves to Student Explorations and Disputes: Non-Textual Talks 290

26. Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves 294

27. Categorized Explorations: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Questions 296

28. Categorized Disputes: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Questions 297

29. Facilitator Moves to Student Explorations and Disputes: Moral Dilemma Talks 298

30. Traditional/Classical Fiction Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves 302

31. Categorized Explorations: Traditional/Classical Fiction Questions 304

32. Categorized Disputes: Traditional/Classical Fiction Questions 305

33. Facilitator Moves to Student Explorations and Disputes: Fiction Talks 306

34. Factual Narrative Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves 310

35. Categorized Explorations: Factual Narrative Questions 311

36. Categorized Disputes: Factual Narrative Questions 312

37. Facilitator Moves to Student Explorations and Disputes: Factual Talks 315

38. Influential Dynamics Essential for Defining Whole-Class Dialogues 319

39. Exploratory Moves and Critical Inquiries Delivered According to Gender 321

40. Discourse Analysis Coding Scheme 356

41. Influential Dynamics Essential for Defining Whole-Class Dialogues 364

42. Total Explorations, Critical Inquiries, and Disputes Made by Lead-Speakers 366

xvi

43. Exploratory Moves and Critical Inquiries Delivered According to Gender 368

44. Totals of Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes 370

THINKING OUT LOUD 1

CHAPTER I

Introduction to the Study

As civilized human beings, we are the inheritors, neither of an inquiry about ourselves

and the world, nor of an accumulating body of information, but of a conversation begun

in the primeval forest and extended and made more articulate in the course of centuries.

It is a conversation which goes on both in public and within each of ourselves. And it is

this conversation, in the end, that gives place and character to every human activity and

utterance (Reed, 1998, p. 55).

-Michael Oakeshott (20th Century Philosopher/Political Theorist)

For me, the coming together of the class is the divine vehicle. A set-up. A portal which

winds through the ages, delivering its audience to that first fireside, primeval circle – that place

from whence we observed, inquired, and inferred initially about the trials of the day. The hunt.

The journey. Events of grief and joy.

In this context a classroom becomes sacred. It is the community. A place where the

detachment of the individual merits credibility simply because his or her voice can be shared –

can be heard by another. Yet this phenomenon is but the half of it. It is the trigger (a painter’s

palate) allowing for a discovered return. The reply. An utterance filled with the observations,

questions, and inferences of the situation – the experience of thinking out loud. And so here

begins the dialogue – a step toward completeness – a coming together of voices under the

umbrella of a facilitated, more focused primer. This, to me, is from where an education stems. It

is this thinking out loud in the classroom that enables children to learn how to become human, to

learn to join the conversation that makes us distinctly human.

THINKING OUT LOUD 2

Background of the Problem

From control to collaboration: dialogue as teaching.

Dewey (1916) asserted that our humanity becomes evident through our desires to accept

and nurture the experiences made possible by interactions with others. Democracy as an

indicator of humanity becomes the public ideal by which individuals become more human

through engagement in the practices and experiences of social contact. For Dewey (1916),

education served as the method for practicing democracy. Education’s overall aim, as claimed by

Dewey (1916), is to provide individuals the means to reflect and to solve problems in the

company of others – to assure our collaborative coming-together. To attain education’s potential

for instilling and maintaining democracy, as put forth by both Dewey (1916) and Freire (1970),

teachers, as facilitators of learning, must prove ever-mindful of the importance of education’s

relationship to civility.

Dewey (1916) posited that the teaching act should be more reactive than proactive, more

artful than procedural. According to Reed (1998), the task of teaching is to respond

appropriately, to assist the student in responding imaginatively, creatively, and critically to the

situation that presents itself. Try as we might to control the educational landscape or to control

situations that are “truly educational” each situation becomes “what it is and not what it is meant

to be” regardless of the influences from teacher, curriculum designer, or textbook writer (Reed,

1998, p. 55). Discovery, treading heavily on that bridge between the subjective and the objective,

takes place within a situation (Reed, 1998).

For a teacher, much can be said for mapping-out the situation -- thinking ahead, trying to

predict and having plans in place. Yet, in traditional education, this model has been too indebted

THINKING OUT LOUD 3

toward coercing conformity and, likewise, discouraging the creative process of critical,

autonomous thinking (Boys, 1999; Cazden, 2001; Reed, 1998; Rogoff, 1990). As theorists from

Dewey (1896) to Piaget (1977) to Freire (1970) have postulated, relationships of constraint

justify the actions of the more powerful participant (the teacher), allowing him or her to impose

views on the less powerful participant (the child) while not feeling obligated to try to understand

the other’s position (Atwood et al., 2010; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). The

student in this relationship also contributes to this constraint by yielding to the teacher (not

because of his or her truthful views) from a sense of duty or from fear of the consequences of

disagreeing (Atwood et al., 2010). Even with that understood, the teacher, serving as a class’s

more authoritative member, can dissimilarly exist as a necessity within a constructivist setting

(Atwood et al., 2010). As observed by Lipman et al. (1980) and Mercer and Dawes (2008),

students, if left to discuss on their own, may become involved in non-productive talk, some

become left out of discussions, and any intent for collaborative growth becomes wasted. Here, as

proposed by Vygotsky (1978), the teacher as facilitator -- as authority, serves as a chaperone

toward a social intersubjectivity. However, within the traditional, authoritative realities of

teacher-student interactions, the potential power of spoken language is neither controlled

distinctly by the learner nor engaged commonly by facilitating teacher participants in most

educational settings (Cazden, 2001; Mercer & Dawes, 2008).

Within the traditional (and certainly the oldest) three-part sequence of teacher-student

interactions: teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation (IRE), research indicates

that teachers tend to dominate the classroom talk (Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand,

1997; Rogoff, 1990). Whether by determining how stories are to be interpreted, regulating the

topic through questioning, controlling who is allowed to answer questions, and deciding if a

THINKING OUT LOUD 4

response is correct, there is increasing concern regarding the restrictions imposed by the IRE

method of teacher-student interactions. Furthermore, within this recitation format, students rarely

respond to open-ended questions or even have the opportunity to think critically about complex

issues (Cazden, 2001; Clark et al., 2003).

A combination of student restraint, withdrawal, and fear of interacting not only deprives

students from sharing what they know, it denies the teacher and classmates from observing and

benefiting from what a given student might have to offer (Cazden, 2001; Mercer, 1999; Petress,

2001). Studies conducted over inquiry methods have navigated toward the idea of shared

thinking as a representation for how knowledge is formed (Anderson et al., 2001; Topping &

Trickey, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2009 & 2012). Within this fundamental shift in how we

conceive education, learning aims would become resultant of students’ social interactions in

regard to the construction of meaning – not only as individual achievements among participants

(Bandura, 2001; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Burbules & Bertram, 2001). Conclusively, the

primary aim of education must be to help children to use language effectively as a tool for

thinking collectively because the existence of classroom-based involvement in collaborative

thinking can make a noteworthy contribution to the advancement of individual children’s

intellectual ability (Mercer, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978).

Piaget (1977) proposed that the construction of knowledge is aided in cooperative

relationships. Constraining involvement quashes the enabling of a student’s ability to fully

explain his or her own position on an issue. Even when there has been a knowledge imbalance

due to a disconnection between teacher-student interactions, cooperative relationships have been

characterized by discussion, reciprocity, and mutual respect (Atwood et al., 2010).

THINKING OUT LOUD 5

Lipman et al. (1980) and Boys (1999) advocated a more engaged pedagogical approach

whereby the ways of teaching stimulate learners to participate in creating collaborative

communities of learning that deal with matters of their own interest. These engaged pedagogies,

argued Boys (1999), require a commitment to dialogue and to critical reflection. In addition,

Taylor and Robinson (2009, p. 173) claimed not only that the benefits of dialogue prove essential

to an inquiry-driven curriculum but also that “life by its very nature is dialogic… to live means

to participate in dialogue.” Student voice, as a normal sensation, has its basis in an ethical and

moral practice which aims to give students the right of democratic participation in school

processes (Dewey, 1916; Taylor & Robinson, 2009).

In accordance with Oakeshott’s opening quotation, critical theorist, Paulo Freire, defined

dialogue as “the encounter between men, mediated by the world, to name the world” (Jackson &

Liu, 2008, p. 140). The principal idea supporting the sociocultural perspective on human

intellectual development is that personal growth is incorporated with the longer-term historical

development of our species through dialogic communication (Mercer, 2004). Historically,

dialogue, as a communication form consistent with the pluralistic principles of a democratic

society, has long been favored by educators concerned with empowering students to become

independent thinkers and active citizens (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970; Lipman, 1991; Reznitskaya

et al., 2009; Shor, 1992). A process of sustained facilitated discourse (accompanied by a

constructivist curriculum) helps students to develop a sense of their own and others’ identities

(Bourdage-Reninger & Rehark, 2009; Romney, 2005). Myhill (2006) argued that that is exactly

the purpose of such engaged, dialectical pedagogy – to scaffold students’ learning sensitivity so

that they are supported in making meaning and understanding for themselves. In this sense, as

Reznitskaya et al. (2009) discovered, truth is born between people interactively searching for

THINKING OUT LOUD 6

truth. Bakhtin (1981) went so far as to claim that utterances have no meaning in and of

themselves but only have significance in the context of a dialogue which includes and rouses

different voices and different perspectives. Through this understanding, dialogue becomes more

than simply mere method – it becomes a way of life which calls for a certain attentiveness to the

skills and emotions that nurture its existence (Bahktin, 1981; Boys, 1999).

Dialogic norms for the classroom.

Many students, as found by Lipman et al. (1980) and Mercer and Dawes (2008), do not

know how to carry on a productive discussion or do not realize that collaborative dialogue is

what they are expected to do by their teacher. Teachers, in turn, many times assume incorrectly

that students know how to create productive discussions in the first place. In fact, the nature of

productive group dialogues is not normally something that teachers and students study, so they

go about classroom life without the benefit of a shared understanding of this important aspect of

social learning (Mercer & Dawes, 2008).

Contemporary employments of a dialogic, inquiry base within current curricula

emphasize collaboration among students in order to transform classrooms into self-correcting

communities of inquiry (Lipman et al., 1980; Young, 1992). In such constructions, learners build

on one another’s ideas as they work toward forming conclusions about significant questions that

are relevant to their lives (Young, 1992). One manner that the quality of talk in a classroom can

be improved, asserted by Mercer and Dawes (2008), is for a teacher to become more aware of

how he or she talks to students. However, in itself a teacher’s realization of his or her own usage

of classroom talk would not be enough; consideration of students’ developing talk repertoires

must also become paramount to understand (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Teachers who hope to

THINKING OUT LOUD 7

engage their students in a more authentic community of talk must alter roles from “being the

authority” to “being in authority” (Young, 1992, p. 103). They become co-inquirers who treat

students as cogent sources of knowledge and opinion (Lipman et al., 1980; Young, 1992).

In regard to method, it is imperative for dialogue participants to meet on equal terms

(with teacher-facilitators) and to take on key roles toward steering class talk – asking questions,

engaging in turn-management, and reacting to other’s answers (Cazden, 2001; Young, 1992).

Talk among students, as argued by Cazden (2001) and Mercer and Dawes (2008), is naturally

more symmetrical than the IRE model of teacher-student interactions allows – it is usually

acceptable for anybody to ask a question, to interrupt a speaker, and to disagree with an opinion.

Students (adolescents, as is the case of the current study) do not have to wait to be nominated to

speak, and they may often take long turns in speaking. Also, digressions into other topics besides

the educational pursuits at hand are considered more acceptable than during traditional teacher-

student talk (Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Reed, 1999).

Inquiry-based learning through dialogic teaching relies, foremost, on questions that are

truly divergent -- those which allow for a wider degree of uncertainty (Dewey, 1916; Lipman et

al., 1980). These questions function to encourage meaningful inquiry into new understandings

(Dewey, 1916; Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980; Reznitskaya et al., 2012). Moreover, lively

conversations, contended by Boys (1999), depend largely on a student’s ability to ask a good

question – one which draws from others a certain authenticity, extracting “real” speech from the

participants. Teachers, within this construct, facilitate the inquiry by helping students pay

attention to the quality of their reasoning rather than telling or leading participants to succinct

answers. Ideally, teachers should purposefully adopt a position of “scholarly ignorance”,

THINKING OUT LOUD 8

refraining from having all the right answers or from simply providing them to students (Glina,

2013; Reed, 1992; Reznitskaya et al., 2012).

The attraction of this type of interaction exists in its communal quality – the room it gives

to different voices and the unexpected turns it may take. Dialogic conversations have flexible

rules of application and evidence allowing for all manner of impressions, ideas, and experiences

to enter (Bahktin, 1981; Boys, 1999). Students may get answers to questions they never thought

of asking but ought to have asked (Boys, 1999).

Accordingly, conversation has limits. The mere sharing of ignorance should not be

confused with dialogic inquiry. Beneficial, dialectic interactions depend upon a common textual

comprehension, attentive listening, regard for other participants, a recognition that each

participant knows more than he or she can say, and a willingness to restrain oneself in order to

hear others (Boys, 1999; Burbules, 1993; Grondin, 2011; Reed, 1992). Ultimately, this type of

power-shift in learning can supply children with the context in which to develop intellectual

capabilities, improve discussion skills and self-expression, and learn to work together by

amassing caring, creative, and critical ways for children to talk and think out loud in school

(Clark et al., 2003; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 1991).

Structuring an environment for exploratory talk.

Mercer (2000) found that participants within a conversation learn from the experience of

talking when they share a similar understanding of how the exchange should be implemented.

Likewise, Lipman (2003) believed that in order for a community of dialogic inquiry to exist,

students must agree to share in a pursuit to mutually recognize a group-need for a commitment to

reason: a pledge to suspend an individual’s direct beliefs in favor of collective developments.

THINKING OUT LOUD 9

Both researchers, Lipman (2003) and Mercer (2000), came to agree that conversations travel on

roads of context constructed of common knowledge -- consistent frames of reference about how

a dialogue should be carried forth. Both also supported the idea that dialogic discussions occur

when students accept a common frame of reference about the way collective thinking operates,

and this becomes evident in the participants’ adoption of established ground rules (Bourdage-

Reninger & Rehark, 2009; Lipman, 2003; Mercer, 2000).

Douglas Barnes (1976), independent from the writings of Lipman (2003), described an

interactive model of collective student talk that, when implemented, serves as a springboard

toward the creation of communities of inquiry. Barnes’ (1976) moniker for talk that involves

thinking with others became known as exploratory talk. Exploratory talk, according to Wegerif

(1996), is a kind of interaction which combines clear reasoning through talk involving

distinguishable hypothesis, challenges and reasons, with a cooperative framework of ground-

rules accentuating the shared nature of the activity and the importance of the active partaking of

all involved. Mercer (2000) added that exploratory talk is that in which ideas are engaged upon

by groups both critically and constructively. Similarly to Lipman’s (1980) guidelines for the

classroom dialogic program, Philosophy for Children, exploratory talk places precedence on the

idea that relevant information should be offered for joint consideration and eventual group

agreement (Mercer, 2000). Also comparable to the norms of Philosophy for Children, during

exploratory talk, student proposals may be challenged and counter-challenged, but in this regard,

reasons must be given and alternative ideas offered (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). By engaging in

exploratory talk, as with Philosophy for Children, participants are to maintain a certain

psychological detachment from their own beliefs and from the unreasoned beliefs of the group

(Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003). This does not mean that all that is

THINKING OUT LOUD 10

spoken in dialogue should be accepted as automatic truth or a voice of reason; however, it does

become necessary for students here to engage with and to share the perspectives of others in

order to understand them. Consistent within participation of exploratory talk (as well as within

the aims of Philosophy for Children) is the notion that participants ultimately identify neither

with one’s own self nor with the group but rather with the dialogue (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

This act of suspending belief, according to Lipman et al. (1980) and Fisher (2013), is at the root

of critical thought. In order for an individual learner to truly think deeply and reflectively, he or

she must be primed to suspend their own truth for the sake of allowing others a platform in

which to think out loud. From this temporary, mental acquiescence, the seeds of social learning

are planted – the beliefs of the group can become critically acknowledged, opening avenues of

learning intended by the dialogic process (Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980; Vygotsky, 1978;

Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). The resulting effect becomes that when engaged in exploratory talk,

“the speaker is more concerned with sorting out his or her own thoughts” (Barnes, 2008, p. 4).

Many times, teachers assume that students know how to involve themselves in productive

discussions. In fact, the nature of becoming involved in quality forms of discourse (in the context

of group, inquiry-based learning) is not normally a topic of teacher-student considerations

(Cazden, 2001; Mercer & Dawes, 2008). The result of such neglect contributes to a general lack

of shared understanding of how best to engage in classroom critical talk (Mercer & Dawes,

2008). However, a situation can be created, contend Mercer and Dawes (2008), whereby the

collective expression, analysis, and evaluation of ideas becomes a collective enterprise. For such

collaborative dialogue to manifest itself within educational settings, a sense of trust, common

endeavor, and a shared understanding of how to engage in a productive discussions must be

made apparent to teachers and students alike. Thus, from a more dialogic perspective, specified


and agreed upon ground rules must be established and abided by for the exploratory

implementation of Community of Inquiry to take shape (Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980;

Mercer & Dawes, 2008). The enactment of set, consistent ground-rules in pursuit of Community

of Inquiry through exploratory talk proves essential for both teachers and students progressing

toward the process of thinking out loud. The ground-rules of exploratory talk allow for

challenges and disagreement but these are contained within the cooperative social framework

which is actively maintained and facilitated (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). The following list should

be understood by practitioners of exploratory talk (Mercer & Dawes, 2008, p. 12):

participants engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas

everyone participates

tentative, unclear ideas are treated with respect

ideas offered for joint consideration may be challenged

challenges are justified and alternative ideas or understandings are offered

opinions are sought after and considered before decisions are jointly made

knowledge is made publically accountable (and so reasoning is visible in the talk)

Though it was found by Lipman (2003) and, later, by Mercer and Littleton (2007) that

raising awareness of the importance of critical, creative, and caring dialogue while teaching

students how to make it happen does increase the occurrences of exploratory talk, there exists at

least two other communicative relationships that embody different ways of thinking together.

While exploratory talk embodies the concept of communicative rationality, both disputational

and cumulative forms of talk also represent ways in which students orient themselves towards

each other in a dialogue (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Other social modes of thinking.


Although not as productive for developing the facets of critical, creative, and caring

reflection as exploratory talk, the social modes of disputational and cumulative talk do in fact

emerge out of the same generative questions posed for class dialogues (Mercer et al., 1999;

Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). Characterized by disagreement and

individualized decision making, disputational talk allows only few instances for students to offer

constructive criticism to each other. Discourse features of disputational talk indicate short

exchanges consisting of claims and challenges or counter contentions. Each speaker engaged in

disputational talk defines themselves through their difference with others – which emerges

contrary to the aims of exploratory talk (Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Participants engaged disputationally treat collaboration as a competitive game between

individuals each having their own interests. What is said is motivated by the desire to defend or

to promote the interests of the speaker in disagreement to the interests of the others. Much of

what disputational talk embodies arises in the form of argument for the sake of self-satisfaction

(Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Cumulative talk, quite the contrary to both exploratory and disputational talk, develops as

a mode of thinking in which students build positively but uncritically on what the others have

said (Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). Participants using cumulative voice use talk

to construct a mutual knowledge by amassing favor from the group. Cumulative talk is

cooperative talk and can in fact lead to knowledge creation through the sharing of perspectives;

however, it is limited from an educational, reflective standpoint in that it does not produce

critically grounded knowledge. Cumulative discourse is characterized by repetitions, validations

from others, and elaborations in the form of anecdotal utterances – personal narratives and


digressions that lead discussions away from critical exploration (Mercer et al., 1999; Reed, 1992;

Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

In comparison to disputational and cumulative talk, one would expect exploratory talk to

lead to a construction of new knowledge and understanding (Barnes, 1999). In accordance, as

argued by Mercer (1995):

“Exploratory talk, by incorporating both conflict and the open sharing of ideas,

represents the more visible pursuit of rational consensus through conversation.

More than the other two types, it is like the kind of talk, which has been found

most effective for solving problems through collaborative activity” (Mercer,

1995, p. 105).

Exploratory talk, in summation, appears to be more complex than either disputational or

cumulative talk; however, it would be a mistake to dismiss the potential qualities of both

disputational and cumulative talk for generating new knowledge altogether (Wegerif & Mercer,

1997; Barnes, 1999). A potential positive outcome from engaging in disputational and

cumulative talk is that immersion in both may prove useful toward inciting students to think

more about the problem or topic at hand. Apt facilitators constructively use digressions into

disputational and cumulative discourse as points of reminder of the ground rules essential to the

maintenance of more exploratory, critical talk.

In any case, these three modes of thinking out loud -- disputational, cumulative, and

exploratory talk -- are not meant to be descriptive categories into which all observed speech can

be tidily and separately coded, but they are presented as analytic categories that epitomize ways

in which children talk together in collaborative inquiries (Wegerif & Mercer, 1996). However, it


is in pursuit of exploratory talk that teachers and students should strive. It is during exploratory

talk that the instant and affirmative “yes” of acceptance (cumulative) and the instant “no” of self-

defense (disputational) are both deferred so that a dialogue of difference is established (Mercer et

al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Texts for thinking out loud.

To be full participants in a literate, democratic, multicultural society, populations in the

future will necessitate capacities to reflect, to think critically, to question the information they are

given, and to be flexible and creative in their aptitude for solving problems. If an objective of

national standards is to bid children to become critical thinkers and readers, it follows that

children should be shown models of critical reading, introducing them to contexts whereby

higher-order thinking is practiced and valued (Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser, McIntyre, &

Demers, 2008; Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980).

As narrative comprehension is one of the earliest interests to spark the mind and

imagination of a child, so it also serves as the most broadly used way of shaping human

experience. It is the ability of stories to create imaginative yet possible worlds that enlighten

inquiry (Fisher, 2013). Stories, suggested by Lipman et al. (1980) and Fisher (2013), free us from

our present situations while prevailing as life-like, intellectual creations. Stories become

comprehended in a way that makes them mentally challenging yet fixed in human concerns

(Fisher, 2013; Wartenberg, 2009). Stories provide that window for us to glimpse the ways of the

world and the ways of ourselves. And since stories and texts are human creations, they

necessitate acts of translation, of critical reading and thinking, if they are to be made significant


to the hearer or reader. The meanings of stories must be reconstructed in the mind (Fisher, 2013;

Wartenberg, 2009).

Class dialogues instigated from traditional story-telling sessions do not necessarily

provide contexts for intellectual or moral reflection. In practice, they often lack the pedagogical

context for engaging students in critical discussion (Coles, 1994). However, equally thought-

provoking texts (in lieu of traditional stories) considered ideal for sparking student inquiry are

comprised of the more stylistically-diminished dilemma narratives and philosophical novels

written by Lawrence Kohlberg and Matthew Lipman (Fisher, 2013).

Kohlberg’s primary suggestion for stimulating moral reflection and critical thought was

through using carefully comprised scenarios (most famously, “The Heinz Dilemma”) whereby

students talk to solve relational, real-life practical problems (Kohlberg, 1981). A further

deepening of students’ experience with problem-solving, as indicated by Bloom et al. (1956), can

take place when students are expected to take the position or role of one of the characters from a

scenario and argue from that perspective during class discourse. Likewise, Lipman’s constructed

Philosophy for Children program includes a number of philosophical novels (most famously,

Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery, 1982) that, according to Lipman (1988), have as a central theme

conflicts of the human mind, and a single intent - to function as catalysts for intellectual debate.

A decisive drawback to the novels, as argued by Coles (1994), is that they are not effective

stories in any literary sense. Criticism from Coles (1994) disclosed that Lipman’s novels do not

hold student interests as stories, yet Lipman (1988) viewed this to be an advantage. From his

perspective, traditional books and stories that students likewise read do not include a rich variety

of philosophical questions, nor do they necessarily offer models of characters as inquiring

thinkers. On this accord, students have been historically provided with books in which anything


problematic (in terms of everyday dilemmas or philosophic problems) has been removed.

Opponents of this assessment argue that traditional stories (such as Sophie’s World by Jostein

Gaarder, 1991) and the best of children's novels and picture books (such as Frederick’s Fables

by Leo Lionni, 1985) are filled of philosophic curiosities that serve as promoters of critical

inquiry (Coles, 1994; Fisher, 2013; Wartenberg, 2009; Wilks, 1995).

Various non-fiction forms of narrative can also be of interest in prompting exploratory

talk. Popular versions of great worldly mysteries and current news stories prove suitable for

eliciting inquiry and class discussion. Aside from analysis of news content itself, investigating

the angles that differing news organizations and media report the same story can provide plenty

of opportunity for questioning at both literal and moral/philosophical levels. Coupled with the

advent of more easy means for classrooms to gain access to the world of news, current issues of

concern provide students timely and imperative matters for deliberation (Fisher, 2013).

Shor (1992) posited that there exists no greater chance to provoke more free and

exploratory class discourse than by allowing students chances to generate their own topics for

inquiry. Shor (1992) determined that with the emergence of student derived, topical insets into

the Community of Inquiry, participants were more likely to delve securely into the third idiom of

group interaction: a flow of dialogic inquiry free of the IRE teacher-led talk of traditional

learning. According to Shor (1992), it is these generative dilemmas that bridge the schism

between non-academic, social language (the first idiom) and academic, teacher-talk (the second

idiom). Dialogue within the third idiom proves both concrete and conceptual, academic and

conversational, critical and accessible (Shor, 1992).

Studies in thinking out loud.


Multiple studies comparing individual cognitive advances of students participating in

peer dialogues as opposed to regular, direct instruction have shown: increased student reflection,

greater student-control of ideas, greater aptitude for learning in a collaborative setting, and a

greater formation of foundations for critical reflection (Anderson et al., 2001; Topping &

Trickey, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2009 & 2012.) These discoveries (having indicated growth of

individual reflective awareness through dialogic participation) were gleaned from studies

focused on recognizing resulting aptitudes directly related to quantitative analytics stemming

from elementary students’ involvement in class discourses (Anderson et al., 2001; Lipman, 1988,

1995, 2003; Burbules, 1993; Reznitskaya et al., 2012). Although these findings, when compared

separately with results gathered from regular, direct instruction, have shown significant increases

in students’ social and verbal skills, little knowledge exists that describes the observed processes

by which early adolescents actively contribute to the development of personal critical, reflective

literacy during peer dialogues.

Need for the Study

With a lion share of classroom discussion studies linked to the evaluation and analysis of

results stemming from assessments of post-discussion reasoning measures (Anderson et al.,

2001; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Moshman & Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al., 2001;

Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007), the current study explored the qualitative

dynamics of students thinking out loud vocally during whole-class dialogues. While most

empirical research on dialogic reasoning has explored the cognitive gains students might achieve

in the aftermath of facilitated philosophical talks (Moshman & Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al.,

2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007), this study examined the connections

between the textual tools applied to initiate critical discourse and the utterances adolescents


naturally provide during the talks. Although a fairly wide range of research has been conducted

analyzing the dynamics that take place during and after dialogic efforts with varying

classifications of students (Anderson et al., 2001; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Moshman &

Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007), the

aim of this inquiry was to evaluate and synthesize the exploratory, disputational, and cumulative

utterances which occurred during whole-class talks with early adolescents. In this case, differing

modes of critical-dilemma texts on level for adolescents (e.g. Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery,

Bradbury’s “A Sound of Thunder”, Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, “Frederick”, “The Heinz

Dilemma”, and Sandel’s “The Runaway Trolley”) were applied in order to elicit student vocal

engagement. Because the comprehension level of the dilemmas presented was tied to more

abstract constructions of understanding, adolescents who were entering the early stages of

Piaget’s (1977) formal operational stage of cognitive development were studied. Within the

study, grade 7 English/Language Arts students were exposed to both teacher-chosen textual

paradoxes and student-generated dilemmas of interest in exploration of the relationships present

between these prompts and the students’ verbal thoughts. In essence, this study helped to extend

the knowledge of findings related to student-to-student interactions within whole-class talks and

provided exploratory evidence to trigger further research into the relationships between

adolescent philosophical talk and the texts and prompts that initiate those talks.

Secondarily, because facilitated student talk as a product of immersion into certain texts

is not guaranteed to result in Community of Inquiry, observations and examinations of

relationships to other modes of discourse require scholarly evaluation. Exploratory talk, though

most desired and pursued in quests for critical, creative, and caring interactions, is not all that

may emerge in any given dialogic setting. Merits (and/or drawbacks) of disputational and


cumulative talk should also be interpreted and analyzed. It was an aim of the current study to

explore the dynamics of student philosophical talk as it naturally occurs from the presentations of

various stories and prompts.

Significance of the Study

Here, research purposefully designed to explore the existence of philosophical

communities of inquiry, as potentially created through initiations into exploratory talk, proved to

be a melding of two theories of discourse-understanding: dialectic and dialogic. Findings noted

here helped to extend the knowledge indicative of existent relationships that textual and student-

generated dilemmas had on modes of talk and thought, combining the theories of Barnes (1976),

Vygotsky (1978), Shor (1992), Mercer (2000) and Lipman (2003). In addition, the examination

of a group of adolescents thinking out loud provided useful conclusions to an existent body of

knowledge tied frequently to elementary-aged students (Anderson et al., 2001; Dong, Anderson,

Kim, & Li, 2008; Kim, 2001; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo,

2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

Research Questions

Research question 1: How do traditional/classical stories, philosophical stories/moral

dilemmas, factual narratives, and non-textually generated prompts influence early adolescents’

thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class dialogues?

Research question 2: Can Community of Inquiry exist in the included presence of

disputational and cumulative talk?

Research question 3: Do ground-rules promoting exploratory talk influence its actuality?


Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Limitations.

As a qualitative exploration into the outward thinking that happens when adolescents talk

as a whole class (due to state and locally controlled curricular mandates), dialogue situations

were limited to one facilitation per week, a marginal number of 25 participants were observed

and interviewed, and potential biases of the researcher as an active participant factored into the

collection of data. While the current study examined the dialogic talk of only one class of grade 7

English/Language Arts students at one particular charter school in North Texas, it faced

additional limitations instituted by state and local curricular restrictions placed on consistent

efforts to engage students in dialogical interactions. While these students had the opportunity to

interact at length for over 30 minutes in each of the 14 designated class periods, an attendance

schedule mandating that classes meet every other day (A/B block schedule implementation)

caused an inhibitor: follow-up activities such as a post-dialogue survey and the completion of

previously started K-W-L charts had to be finished during the class period following the

observed discussions. However, as is the case with many studies involving extended research

with a small number of specific human subjects (17-25 students), the risk of study duplication

was not jeopardized (Creswell, 1997; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011; Malinowski,

1929). Here, the effort to replicate was diminished due to the circumstance that the researcher

served as the facilitator for all observed class dialogues. The bias of familiarity between

researcher and subjects exists, as every aspect of the observation process involves the

concentrated interactions of both (Creswell, 1997; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011;

Malinowski, 1929).


Delimitations.

Even though the researcher-as-participant did invite the emergence of a potential social

bias between investigator and participants within this study, the benefits of such close

involvement between researcher and subjects was also shown to result in in-depth and extensive

findings (Creswell, 1997; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011; Malinowski, 1929). The

administered facilitation technique during the current study (especially in regard to caring-talk)

allowed for interactive comfort to be achieved due to multiple occurrences of interactions. The

overall experience-level of the facilitator likewise aided to push these observed dialogues

forward toward scholarship. As the examination of one class of seventh-graders limited this

study in terms of research replication, this isolation also allowed for a type of honesty and

realism to be inserted into the talks (Creswell, 1997; Dewalt & Dewalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011;

Malinowski, 1929). Within this study, the students also achieved an accustomed uniformity in

their interactions over time; therefore a continual change in dilemma prompts categories had to

happen from one talk to the next throughout this study in order to preserve a certain originality to

thinking out loud.

Definition of Terms

caring thinking/talk (Gilligan, 1977; Noddings, 1984) – honest and diligent concern and respect

from speaker to listener during Community of Inquiry

Community of Inquiry (Lipman et al., 1980) - whole-class, student-driven dialogue built on

student-initiated questions stemming from a paradoxical text; talks focus on the examination of

critical, creative, and caring elements of speech and thought


critical thinking/critical reflection – neutral thinking as a suspension to actual, personal beliefs in

order to understand from social interactions

cumulative talk (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997) – uncritical talk in which students consistently agree

with previous speakers

dialectic – Vygotskyan (1978) theory of group talk that presupposes that differences are

contradictions to be overcome

dialogic – Bahktinian (1981) theory of group talk that presupposes that meaning arises only in

the context of difference

dialogue - a group conversation about an intended topic

dilemma – a paradoxical prompt initiated for class discussions; in the case of this study it might

be philosophical, traditional, factual, or topical

disputational talk (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997) – group talk that is characterized by disagreement

and individualized decision making

dynamics – for this study it is the myriad of interactions that student have with each other when

involved in dialogue

engagement - verbal utterances resembling participation on-topic during a class dialogue

exploratory talk (Barnes, 1976) – group talk in which speakers engage critically but

constructively with each other’s ideas

facilitator – the participating teacher involved with a class dialogue


factual narrative (Fisher, 2013) – pieces of non-fiction (news stories and commentaries) used to

instigate discussion

formal operational stage – final level of Piaget’s (1977) phases of cognitive development

whereby the emergence of abstract thought becomes present; this stage is achieved by children in

early adolescence

generated dilemmas – student-presented topics for discussion related to issues directly affecting

themselves

inquiry-based learning - describes approaches to learning that are based on the investigation of

questions, scenarios or problems -- often assisted by a facilitator

intermental – Vygotskyan (1978) term signifying a shared understanding resulting from

dialectical interaction

intramental – Vygotskyan (1978) term signifying an individual’s understanding resulting from

dialectical interaction

intersubjectivity – Vygotskyan (1978) term meaning “mutual understanding”

intertextuality - the relationship between students and a studied text

IRE (Cazden, 2001) – a traditional teacher-student linear progression of interaction – teacher

Initiation-student Response-teacher Evaluation

Kohlberg dilemmas – moral/ethical paradoxes constructed by Lawrence Kohlberg (1981) used to

instigate critical class dialogue


lead/dominant-speakers – apprehensive speakers who will engage vocally in class dialogues as

they gain comfort and/or favor with secure speakers

less-assertive speakers – those consistent, initial speakers in a given class dialogue who

generally engage vocally in multiple turns

literacy – here (as defined by Wortham and Kaplan, 2001) it encompasses a level of total

competence and comprehension within a subject area – listening, speaking, reading, writing,

acting, deciding, and reflecting

modes of talk/discourse (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997)– comprised of three distinctive levels of

spoken thought: exploratory, disputational, and cumulative

non-textually generated topic – a form of discourse inquiry that arises out of student or teacher

interests, not from a specific text or story

peer-interaction - students joining together to accomplish tasks with the teacher serving only as

facilitator or guide

philosophical novel/philosophical/moral dilemma – narrative fiction, as first written by Matthew

Lipman (1982) designed to direct students into critical discussions about epistemological,

aesthetic, or ethic dilemmas

Philosophy for Children (P4C) – program and curriculum created by Lipman (1980) that

incorporates Community of Inquiry to thoughtfully reflect toward reasoning

snowball phenomenon (Anderson et al., 2001) - spoken opinion that turns to belief and seems to

spread from one participant to another within a class dialogue; a variation of cumulative talk


Socratic Method/Circles (Copeland, 2010) - a group-search for objective truth within developing

contemporary societies or classrooms whereby a centralized leader poses overarching questions

for discussion

zone of proximal development - Vygotskyan (1978) term meaning the void between what a

learner can do without social interaction and what he or she can do with help

Chapter I Summary

Social interaction through conversation, as a progression of collective human activity,

also leads individuals to formulate more reflective, creative, and caring arrangements of

reasoning. This socially directed form of literacy identified as critical thinking, surfaces as a

reflective outgrowth of peer interactions, occurring within an individual because of his or her

social participation. As traditional interactions between teachers and students have come to paint

a picture of learning solely as a product of direct instruction resulting from teacher initiation,

student response, and then ultimately back to teacher evaluation, the sociocultural dynamics of

class dialogic interactions exist to revise and reshape such misguided strokes on the educational

landscape.

Taking from the guidance of earlier research detailing methods for facilitating student

discussion toward reasoning in critical, thoughtful ways, the current study explored the

interactions of students who had been exposed to thought-provoking dilemmas and who had

responded through exposure to practical norms set aside by ground-rules promoting exploratory

discourse. Findings related to the observations of their thinking out loud and to the environment

surrounding the observed talks should provide future practitioners with valuable instructional


measures toward the implementation of reflective classroom talks – instruction mindful of how

the social dynamics of group talk influences growth within individual learners.


CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature

Schools, classrooms in particular – as aptly purported bastions of a democratic ideal, so

Dewey (1910) contended, should strive to be places where the furnishing of information is

relevant and vital to a student’s own experiences for fear that they become pedagogical

wastelands. Education and democracy, reasoned Dewey (1916), cannot be separated.

Furthermore, an autonomous context serves as an invaluable premise and a desired goal for a

renewed education system, the aim of which is to inspire the emergence of reflective, critical

thinking. What is more, this intention gives rise to a dialogue founded on inquiry – serving as a

collaborative and needful alternative to more emerging forces of absolute objectivity which

cause violence, ignorance, and injustice (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). It is a

“genuine perplexity” built upon these aims that sets hold of any mind and charges it with

alertness and an aptitude for inquiry because it has been stimulated from within (Dewey, 1916, p.

8). Questions, as Dewey (1910) imparts, will force the mind to go wherever it is apt to going. He

and Freire (1970) further postulated that society could not be fully civilized, much less our

schools fully adequate, until students experienced dialectic communities and thereby became

prepared to be participants in a society devoted to inquiry as a sovereign method for dealing with

its problems (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970).

Dialogue, in a classical sense, is a public and communal practice (Bahktin, 1981; Dewey,

1916; Lipman et al., 1980; Vygotsky, 1978). Under its variety of names – discourse,

conversation, discussion, talk, and finally, Community of Inquiry -- dialogue proves open to

scrutiny in a way that personal reasoning, as a purely mental activity, cannot (Burbules, 1993;


Reed & Johnson, 2010). As Dewey (1916) claimed and Vygotsky (1978) later supported, the

individual in a selfish state is nothing; only within the absorption of a dialectical community and

an immersion into experience can he or she obtain a learned personality.

Historically, in a widely accepted Socratic notion, dialogue became that communicative

endeavor allowing truth to emerge as a deconstructive joust, a dislodging thrust prying open the

mental limitations of formerly confident participants (Reed & Johnson, 2010). However, we are

equally drawn into dialogue for its animating spirit of equality and cooperation. Participants do

not use it but enter into it for hopeful immersion into the mutual bonds of appreciation,

challenge, and stimulation (Bahktin, 1981; Burbules, 1993). As the popularity of Socratic

Method would otherwise indicate, dialogue is not fundamentally a form of question-answer

communication, but an engaging social relation whereby emotional and communication virtues

surface in support of these relations (Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Copeland, 2010; Lipman et

al., 1980). Breakdowns in dialogue’s social concerns thusly become a threat to participation.

Such threats notably take form as monologue, manipulation, and privilege (Bahktin, 1981;

Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Freire, 1970).

Educational dialogue exists in four forms: conversation, inquiry, debate, and instruction

(Burbules, 1993). As conversation, dialogue is used for understanding a partner; however, a

conversation can become anti-dialogical during a meandering chat filled with self-concerning

personal anecdotes (Burbules, 1993; Reed, 1992). As a form of inquiry, dialogue resolves a

question, a group problem, or a dispute in an outcome attempted and made agreeable to all.

Subsequently, inquiry in a narrow sense becomes a notably ends-driven endeavor (Burbules,

1993; Davey, 2005). Likewise, debate, at its best, with its anti-dialogical posturing, indicates the

challenges and merits of alternative positions. Debates transpire simply and statically as


arguments: functions at odds with a classroom of care (Burbules, 1993; Fisher, 2013; Noddings,

2007). The fourth form of dialogue, instruction, produces the initiation of reflectively and

critically posed questions designed to lead students toward definite conclusions. Under a

commonplace misinterpretation of the intent of dialogue -- as an endeavor promoting individual

growth through communicative interaction -- instruction, in digression, becomes a manipulation,

bent to the wills of authority: the teacher in the room (Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Dewey,

1916; Freire, 1970; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990).

Degenerately, instructional forms identified by the moniker of dialogue have become

implemented most favorably by the current educational populous (Cazden, 2001). Class

discussion, as an example of such an implement, has presently become mired in a one-sided

practice of teacher-driven exercises in recitation (Cazden, 2001; Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970;

Gadotti, 1996; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). From this type of recitation-teaching, democratic

experience becomes exchanged for an authority-based curricula in unconscious promotion of

inequality (Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Shor, 1992). Dewey (1910)

noted that even teachers during Socrates’ ancient period of schooling would be surprised (at the

end of the day) at the amount of time modern teachers talk as compared to any of their students.

Dewey (1910) further mused that students’ conversation is often confined to answering questions

in brief phrases or in short, disconnected sentences. Explanations during recitation-teaching

become commandingly and narrowly reserved for the teacher, who often amplifies student

responses at the immediate hint of any agreeable utterance from a student in the classroom

(Cazden, 2001; Dewey, 1910; Worthman & Kaplan, 2001).

Shor (1992) further supported Dewey’s (1910) claim: identifying teacher resistance to

constructive, dialogical practice as making a case for the persistent habit of domestication.


Domestication, as Shor (1992, p. 76) asserts, means molding passive students into receptacles for

“official” knowledge. Domesticated students then become little threat to authoritatively shaped

inequality; they tolerate and even celebrate this current banking structure whereby information is

deposited into the minds of students (Freire, 1970; Gadotti; 1996; Shor, 1992). The outcome

results in a lack of confidence in students’ ability to think and know, which ultimately leads

many teachers toward this authoritative depositing, neglecting the idea that young students are

active, reflective, and cognitive subjects in the process of learning (Shor, 1992). Some devotees

to authoritative teaching, in an accidental twist of irony, believe that minority students have been

especially shortchanged by not getting the information or skills possessed by whites or the elite.

Here, a façade of classroom discourse loses out to misguided honest assumptions that the

accumulation of knowledge achieved through lecture is the quickest and easiest way to present a

retribution for the information lost in bulk due to the oppressions from the past. Little is thought

about a continued didactic oppression still foisted on disadvantaged minorities denied a true,

collaborative voice (Freire, 1970; Haberman, 1991; Shor, 1992; Kohn, 2011).

Haberman (1991, p. 4) identified this tightly controlled routine of knowledge-dispensing,

compliant seatwork as a “pedagogy of poverty.” In this environment students “succeed” without

becoming either involved or thoughtful, and this method is noticeably different from the

collaborative chances common among students in suburban or private schools. Consequently, for

reasons fixed yet unknown, dialogue as the gateway to a critical and rounded education becomes

subverted under the rubble of fear, tradition, and retribution -- all in combination bringing

credence to a didactic tradition while further burying the hope for a more democratic education

(Bahtkin, 1981; Burbules, 1993; Freire, 1970; Haberman, 1991; Kohn, 2011; Lipman et al.,

1980).


Toward a More Engaged Pedagogy

Advocating for a more dialectic plan for teaching through engaged pedagogies stimulates

students to participate in collaborative learning communities that deal reflectively with vital,

authentic matters (Freire, 1970; Lipman et al., 1980; Shor, 1992; Vygotsky, 1978). Likewise,

engaged methods of teaching require a commitment to dialogue and critical pedagogy (Boys,

1999; Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Lipman et al., 1980; Shor, 1992).

However, assuming that planned dialogue in educative situations always leads to thoughtful

debate proves faulty. Dialogue revolves more around conversation than argument (Bahktin,

1981; Boys, 1999; Burbules, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). While it has been shown that collaborative

argument scaffolds in ways to benefit the reasoning mind, analytic clarity through argumentation

is not everything (Boys, 1999; Mercer, et al., 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). Collectivity does not

necessarily lead to wisdom (Bahktin, 1981). Those who argue, maintain Burbules (1993) and

Wegerif and Mercer (1997), often listen only to refute -- to compete. In contrast, those involved

in conversation listen to people, to what they know, desire, and imagine. Conversation, like

argumentation, has limits (Boys, 1999; Burbules, 1993). Merely sharing ignorance should not be

confused with conversation (Boys, 1992; Reed, 1992). Conversation depends more on attentive

listening, regard for other people, recognition that each of us knows more than we can say, and,

perhaps most importantly, willingness to restrain oneself in order to hear others (Boys, 1999;

Burbules, 1993).

Analytically lively conversations, as the basis for an engaged pedagogy, depend largely

on all participants asking thoughtful questions (Boys, 1999; Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980;

Sharp, 1993; Shor, 1992). Dialectical art calls for participants to possess the ability to draw out

speech that respects experience, encourages vocalizing authentically, and allows for comfort


while speaking in a true voice. Helping students to find their true voices -- to hear others in their

own speech -- poses great challenges. The scars deepened from familial and/or deficient

educative experiences can further weigh suppressive when students are not from a dominant

culture (Boys, 1999; Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Haberman, 1991;

Lipman et al., 1980). Therefore, the art of engaging in critical conversation rests greatly on a

method of affection: a willingness to listen to the lives of others (Boys, 1999; Lipman et al.,

1980).

Freire (1970), in his adamant, classic criticism of a top-down, information-depositing

method of instruction, made clear that educators must engage with students in a problem-posing

curriculum that identifies both teachers and learners as collaborative members in the midst of

Community of Inquiry. Vital to Freire’s (1970) critical theory is the underlying thought that

pedagogical encounters do not change other people; students possess the power to change

themselves, and learners construct their own understandings (Burbules, 1993; Shor, 1992). It is

through this merger that dialogue and conversation blend in social relation, engaging

participants. Subsequently, dialogue becomes a way of life and, if evolving toward education,

calls for attentiveness to the emotions, virtues, and skills that nurture relationships (Bahtkin,

1981; Burbules, 1993). Dialectical education functions within the praxis of critical theory

(Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Shor, 1992). A method of critical

conversation transforms the formerly voiceless in a three-fold manner (Gadotti, 1996).

Critical classroom inquiry, as contended by Burbules (1993), advances conversation

toward dialogue -- an attentive discourse that leads to reflective reason (belief developed through

interaction), analytical memory (understanding how to replicate one’s thinking during future

deliberations), and creative imagination (constructs developed as an extension of conversations).


In this regard, analytic class discourse creates a progressive flow, moving from reflection to

action. Moreover, this engagement stems from posing authentic, problematic situations and

framing question prompts which draw students into deeper ways of imagining and thinking. It is

within this engaged pedagogy that formerly docile and passive recipients of information achieve

a voice and, thus, an education (Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Shor,

1992). Providing an outlet for student-autonomy further bridges the affective domain with the

cognitive, allowing for student-generated topical inquiry problems to develop (Mercer, 2008;

Reznitskaya, et al., 2009; Shor, 1992). Likewise, the implementation of dialogical practices

promotes both democracy and diversity, serving as a pedagogical device for learning in

engaging, more non-hegemonic ways (Freire, 1970; Papastephanou, 2012; Shor, 1992;

Worthman & Kaplan, 2001).

From Praxis to Reasoning: Theories and Empirical Studies

Freire (1970) postulated that human beings are naturally inquisitive and communicative.

By nature people are curious about environments, conditions, and situations. Dialogue becomes a

capacity by which people reflect together on the meaning of their experiences and knowledge.

Hence, student experience and understanding become the foundation into which academic skills

and structural knowledge are situated (Dewey, 1910; Freire, 1970; Shor, 1992).

The academic world of knowledge can be fascinating; however, it was built without the

participation of ordinary people and without respect for cultural diversity (Freire, 1970; Gadotti,

1996). Realistically, everyday life is lived far from the benefit of academic study. By

constructing academic themes using topical literature and student-generative question posing, the

critical teacher can hope to build on students’ social, emotional, and cognitive growth (Freire,


1970; Shor, 1992; Gadotti, 1996). This problem-posing, as a critical engagement method does

not set itself against scholarly knowledge or intellectual passion; it seeks to empower formats for

the study of any theme (Shor, 1992).

Within a problem-posing model, learner-generated/topical themes remain the base for

building student-centered programs currently dominated by bureaucracy and teacher-driven

classes (Shor, 1992). Shor (1992) proposed that student-derived generative themes and prompts

occurred less frequently, and only through the initial delivery of a teacher-posed topical prompts.

Albeit engaging, critical reflection in the classroom was observed to emerge most frequently

from student-generative inquiries. Shor (1992) also found that he could build on the phenomena

of participation by first allowing students to generate themes of social interest. Coincidently, the

critical topics initiated by the class then aided Shor (as their instructor) in future development of

his own, related topical themes. He found, moreover, that, under his quasi-experimental design,

analytical participation remained high throughout the class as a result of his building on the ideas

of students (Shor, 1992).

Shor’s (1992) findings have been corroborated most succinctly through the discoveries of

Habermas (1984). Habermas (1984) contended that dialogue is not confined simply to the act of

talking but that it includes the idea of talking while all the while perceiving that the other is also

a thinking, feeling being like ourselves. Habermas (1984) argued that participants within a

process of communication cannot understand meaning in an objective sense. Objectivity,

Habermas claims, is not present within interaction – as perspectives of another become known.

Here exists a fundamental difference between observers and participants. As a communicator, as

a participant, the conditions of understanding become simultaneously and jointly oriented with

several different dimensions of understanding. In this sense, only an observer can prove


objective during such interaction. Participants in dialogue conversely achieve a more defined

understanding of multiple and interrelated levels of meaning. Moreover, a passive observer

adversely becomes entrenched with a false sense of the way the knowing process is understood

by those who are actually direct, interactive participants (Habermas, 1984).

Any teaching method oriented toward knowledge, contends Young (1992), yields serious

concerns about validity – especially if it only perceives learners to be objects of external

conformity in the grand production of correct answers for an upcoming test and provides no

opportunity for students to respond analytically to the claims presented. Likewise, it becomes

difficult for any learner who is not permitted dialectic speaking chances (which might reflect the

direction of an argument) to respond to an objective meaning created by his or her teacher.

Students, as argued by Young (1992), must find the problem, idea, lesson, message, or notion

meaningful. Meaning and certain steps toward a solution or understanding must retain value to

the student, and passive observance little advances interests with either problems or solutions

(Young, 1992).

Habermas’ (1984) analysis focused attention more resolutely on the student-task

relationship in comparison to the teacher-as-authoritative-deliverer-of-knowledge. This former

relationship establishes student/teacher interaction much more firmly from within the subject

matter spectrum: the Community of Inquiry. Here, the community, as Dewey (1916, p. 299)

identified, emerged in an interactive balance: “Meanings do not come into being without

language, and language implies two selves involved in a conjoint or shared undertaking.” There,

reasoned Dewey (1916) of Community of Inquiry, existed an origination of theory and

hypothesis forged by students that became something central to both teaching and learning.

Within such a balanced construction, learners have the chance to make judgments about a wide


range of assertions teachers make when initiating presented lessons of potential facts and/or

theories (Lipman et al., 1980; Shor, 1992; Young, 1992). Learners, as argued by Young (1992),

who often have to wait long periods of time to witness connectedness or relevance in a given

lesson, begin to see a relationship through the Community of Inquiry -- where such significance

for the student becomes more or less guaranteed. However, this invitation for teachers to “step

into the shoes of students and try on their subjects for size” might be better perceived as a

demand more than a request (Young, 1992, p. 45). In turn, these demands from students – if they

are taken as such – may cause undesirable labeling from teachers and other authorities

suggesting an absence in cognitive abilities or moral behaviors. In this sense, such imposing on a

tranquil staple of educational methodology could prove risky in a system dominated by unequal

power (Young, 1992).

Piaget, Vygotsky and a psychology of thinking.

Vygotsky (1978) considered the aptitude to teach and to benefit from instruction as the

fundamental characteristic of what differentiates human beings. His account of the social origins

of thinking called for a reconstruction of the classroom so that dynamic and reasonable dialogue

would form a matrix that would, in turn, generate children's thinking -- thinking that would be

correspondingly vigorous and practical. For Vygotsky, the constructs of knowledge develop

through an individual’s interactions with the world and with the others within that world,

resulting in a “knowing triangle” (Atwood et al., 2010, p. 359). Vygotskyan theory dismantled

what is probably the most common cause of miseducation: failure to convert the classroom into a

community of discursive inquiry -- pointing out the direction in which educators had to progress

if the situation were to be corrected (Daniels, 2012; Lipman, 1991).


Vygotsky’s major theoretical findings asserted a primacy of social relations in the context

of individual development. According to Vygotsky (1978), every achievement of a child’s

cultural development appears twice: first, on a social level and next, on an individual level.

Within this notion any two opposing directions of thought function as opposites united with one

another during a discourse of ideas. These dialogic exchanges gather generative momentum as

chains of questions permeate discussions both through teacher-student dialogues and through the

establishment of communities of inquiry. Here, it is noted that all moves in social discourse

manifest themselves out of personal, rhetorical origins of speech (Daniels, 2012).

In fact, according to the studies of both Jean Piaget (1977) and Vygotsky (1978), a

child’s developmental acumens of thought become manifest through speech. Where these two

theorists diverge in regard to the origins of personal thought is more noteworthy within the scope

of social pedagogy (Daniels, 2012). For Piaget (1977), egocentric, personal speech served as the

bond uniting all the specific characteristics of child logic. To this end Piaget described

egocentrism as occupying a genetic, structural place between inner (autistic) speech and directed

thought – situated first within the self, progressing next toward socialized talk and finally into

logical thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). As critiqued by Vygotsky (1962), Piaget’s theory of thought

and language enclosed flaws in both psychological and philosophical logic.

Deferring to Vygotsky (1962), the primary function of speech, in both children and

adults, is communication through social contact, a contrasting cleave from Piaget’s (1977) line

on thought and language (Atwood et al., 2010). Vygotsky’s assertion about the origins of

reflective talk differs within the progression of speech through the self and others (interlocutors).

While Piaget (1977) posited that all speech begins in a stage of egocentrism, Vygotsky (1962)

countered that speech originates in a more communicative way, hence the socialized applications


of our first utterances as infants in context with care-giving others (Atwood et al., 2010; Daniels,

2001). From that initiation, egocentric, inner speech emerges as a learned result of these

communicative origins (Atwood et al., 2010). Vygotsky (1962) adds proof to this claim with an

example of how a child will start conversing with him or herself as a result of talking with

others. Subsequently, when circumstances force him or her to stop and think, he or she is likely

to think audibly. Here, egocentric speech, as Vygotsky (1962) advances, has fractured off from

socialized speech. This splintering, in time, leads to inner speech which aids both inward and

logical quests (Vygotsky, 1962). As such, this natural progression within the dialectic, with its

personal-to-social interplay, marshals in an epistemological framework suggesting that education

take on a discursive, informal construction of shared knowledge – an implication being that such

social, dialectical pedagogy is an essential component of effective teaching. In essence, an

individual becomes self-aware only in and through interactions with others (Atwood et al., 2010;

Bahktin, 1981; Daniels, 2012; Vygotsky, 1962).

Bahktin, Vygotsky, and Freire: The dialogic and the dialectic.

Some forms of talk are better than others for facilitating reflective thought and learning.

In particular, types of discourse that lead to chances for perspective taking are most appropriate

for achieving shared understanding (Atwood et al., 2010; Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001;

Lipman, 2003). The term dialogic is commonly attributed to a modernist framework of

classroom talk and has its roots in the Vygotskian and sociocultural traditions that have also

produced education’s critical theory (Freire, 1970; Rule, 2011; Wegerif, 2008). However, the

discourse theories endorsed by both Vygotsky and Freire are declared to be more dialectic than

dialogic (Bahktin, 1981; Rule, 2011; Wegerif, 2008). By definition, dialogic talk presupposes

that meaning arises only in the context of difference and maintains a certain respect of difference


that can never be fully resolved (Bahktin, 1981). Conversely, dialectic talk assumes that

differences are contradictions that must lead to a movement of overcoming – it assumes that

discourse has a bond or consensus that can be found and reached (Bahktin, 1981; Rule, 2011;

Wegerif, 2008). In their established roles for instigating pedagogies of hope, resolution, and

fulfillment, Freire and Vygotsky, influenced by their upbringings under suppressed poverty and

totalitarian rule respectively, strove for an achievement of growth and development through

involvement in the collective classroom culture. Certain individual cognition was a goal to be

achieved through their dialectic interaction (Rule, 2011; Wegerif, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978).

Russian philosopher, Bahktin, while also a proponent of social learning through dialogue,

believed, on the contrary, that the terms dialogic and dialectic were not entirely interchangeable

(Rule, 2011; Wegerif, 2008). To Bahktin (1981), meaning through talk always implies at least

two voices. He argued that meaning does not become entirely individualized once a discussion

has ended and individuals come to reflect on the content of a talk. Bahktin (1981) contended that

any singular meaning gleaned from discourse was and is a product of an on-going progression of

voices throughout the history of talk and cannot be plucked and deemed monologic. Meaning, as

Bahktin posited, is maintained only and always socially (Rule, 2011; Wegerif, 2008). However,

as has been asserted by Wegerif (2008) and Rule (2011), since the terms dialogic and dialectic

both apply to an understanding of sociocultural meaning (while possessing only slight

differences in definition) they can and have been interchanged freely and logically in the context

of writing and research about collaborative inquiry.

Absolutism, subjectivism and a middle theory.

With the intermingled connection between thought and language lending cognitively

towards communicative, social forms of teaching, a more student-centered base of instruction


has logically emerged as a pedagogy of best practice (Bleazby, 2011). Didactic forms of direct

teaching from adult to child, heeding the way for an absolutism of objectivity, may force out a

student’s natural inclination to actively reconstruct his or her world in accordance to interests and

understandings (Bandura, 2001; Bleazby, 2011; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). If

Vygotsky’s (1978) model of social learning is valid, then the egocentric aims of an objective-

based education system hold counter to the natural progression of human thought – from initial

strides in social cognition leading toward inner development. Social learning, as maintained by

Rogoff (1990), Bandura (2001), and Bleazby (2011), requires a more relative, subjective

pedagogy for implementation. Unlike absolutism, subjectivism implies that students will be

allowed to take ownership constructively, free to pursue opinions and truths no less substantial

than those of the adults in the classroom. Subjectivism asserts that every opinion is just as valid

as any other; it is thought to promote democracy, egalitarianism, tolerance, and respect for

differences. According to subjectivist/constructivist theory, the endorsement of any particular

methodology that subscribes to a teacher as the owning authority of knowledge is viewed as a

form of indoctrination and cultural imperialism (Bleazby, 2011; Freire, 1970, Gadotti, 1996;

Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Shor, 1992). However, while subjectivism enables students to

construct their own truths, it does not necessitate the type of reflective thought promoted by a

caring, creative, and critical Community of Inquiry (Bleazby, 2011; Fisher, 2013; Lipman,

1991). Even a subjective and constructive model of instruction leads children to fashion out new

forms of absolute truth as they seek conclusions that appear to be perfect, universal, and settled,

discouraging students from recognizing problems with their own notions and with those of others

(Freire, 1970; Bleazby, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978).


Therefore, a theory of middle ground incorporating the greatest functional aspects of both

absolutism and subjectivism would seemingly prove best (Bleazby, 2011). With subjectivism’s

emphasis on the constructed, cultural, social, and historical nature of truth and absolutism’s

importance on critical thinking, objectivity and general, personal principles, a rounded pedagogy

of egalitarian concern would best support students’ needs within a functioning democracy

(Bleazby, 2011; Dewey, 1916). Since, through Dewey (1916), Vygotsky (1962), Piaget (1977),

and Bahktin (1981) thinking has been established as a social process (nurturing self-autonomy),

and since truth, as asserted by Vygotsky (1978), derives from a person’s inner monologue, an

incorporating pedagogical methodology lends itself toward wide acceptance in schools and

classrooms (Dewey, 1916; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Mercon & Armstrong, 2011).

Such an egalitarian, reason-promoting pedagogy emerged in the early twentieth-century.

From the American pragmatist tradition of Charles Peirce (1966) and John Dewey (1910), an

inquiry-based pedagogy instilling the attributes of individual experiences in combination with

communal, whole-class ideas came into being (Mercon & Armstrong, 2011). Since inquiry in

schools depends on the formation of a dialectic community in order to exist, a more student-

centered Community of Inquiry has emerged under the program title of Philosophy for Children

(Lipman, 1991; Sharp, 1993). Here, intense and honest personal sharing combined with

collective understanding allows each individual to expand his or her own ideas. The class, in

turn, becomes an increasingly integrated whole, with each member participating in a shared

thinking process which has been heightened by the contribution of different individual

viewpoints (Lipman et al., 1980; Mercon & Armstrong, 2011; Nussbaum, 2011; Vygotsky,

1962).

Empirical results from class dialogues.


Mercer (2008) believed that designing and applying analytical frameworks for examining

classroom discourse and its dialogical properties could strengthen the overall willingness for

educators to implement more discourse approaches. While new and rare, these analyses have

shown to provide important information regarding teacher-student, student-teacher, and student-

student interactions in the classroom (Mercer, 2008). Accordingly, much of the empirical

evidence in support of analyzing dialogue in the context of objectivity builds off the

argumentation branch of Burbules (1993) four-part discourse model (Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

Argumentative dialogue, as a communication form consistent with the pluralistic ideals

of a democratic society, has been consistently embraced by educators concerned with their

students becoming autonomous thinkers and active citizens (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970;

Reznitskaya et al., 2001). From this aim there arises a substantial need for understanding

relationships between dialogical processes and educational outcomes. To that end there also

exists considerable importance in understanding the mechanisms and educational benefits of

dialogical engagement for developing an individual’s ability to form and justify judgments

(Reznitskaya et al., 2001). Despite consistent appeals for the creation of fostering dialogues,

argues Reznitskaya et al. (2001), researchers are missing empirically-based pedagogical

knowledge that can inform and back the instructional selections of today’s practitioners.

An encapsulated synopsis of empirical studies supporting theories that collaborative

thinking leads to superior individual reasoning has been shown to arise from phenomena related

to collective rationality, participants’ development of a personal argument schema, sustained

periods of philosophical inquiry involvement, and a dialogue groups’ adherence to established

ground-rules (Anderson et al., 2001; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Moshman & Geil, 1998;

Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007). Four of the studies


were undertaken (Moshman & Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009;

Topping & Trickey, 2007) with the intent to examine post-dialogic results in student reasoning.

The two remaining studies described here (Anderson et al., 2001; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes,

1999) conversely focused on the observed dynamics present during participants’ involvement in

collaborative discussions.

Individual reasoning, as triggered by direct participation in conversations with a group,

can be defined as a deliberate effort to reach justifiable conclusions. Reasoning, as Vygotsky

(1978) and Bahktin (1981) asserted, includes both collective as well as individual forms of

cognitive action, and consequently, reasoning is thought be a social process (Dewey, 1916;

Freire, 1970; Shor, 1992; Moshman & Geil, 1998). In Moshman & Geil’s (1998) quasi-

experimental study, 143 undergraduate educational psychology students, equally divided

between men and women, were presented with four cards pictured on a sheet of paper. Each card

had either a letter or a number on it. Also inscribed at the bottom of each card was a statement:

“If a card has a vowel on one side then it has an even number on the other side” (p. 233).

Students were asked to test the hypothesis by selecting the card they would need to turn over to

determine precisely whether the hypothesis was valid or invalid for a set of four cards presented.

At the bottom of an evaluation page, participants were asked to justify their solution in writing.

Within three randomly assigned experimental conditions – an individual control condition, an

interactive group, and an individual/interactive group, data was collected. The findings indicated

that the correct response pattern was selected by only 9% of the individuals but by 75% of the

groups. Groups, in this study, characteristically formulated a structure of arguments qualitatively

more refined than those generated by most individuals. The results supported Piagetian and


Habermasian views of collective rationality: that peer interaction becomes a catalyst for logical

social processes and decisions (Moshman & Geil, 1998).

Periods of sustained involvement in philosophical discussion have also provided

influential results promoting individual reasoning through collaborative dialogic instruction

(Topping & Trickey, 2007). The authors here investigated the cognitive effects of collaborative

philosophical inquiry at a two-year follow up to an on-going long-term study. Participants in the

study had long transferred to high school (two years after the initial study) whereby they were no

longer experiencing a consistent, extensive involvement in classroom communities of inquiry

(Topping & Trickey, 2007). This follow-up study indicated that the sample population had

experienced some attrition greater within the control group than in the experimental group but

that 52 control and 96 experimental subjects were still available to observe. The intervened

students engaged in collaborative inquiry for one hour each week for a period of 16 months but

had been outside the study for two years before the analysis of the current study was taken.

Using the Cognitive Abilities Test, it was found that the significant pre- and post-cognitive

ability gains from the experimental group in elementary school were maintained towards the end

of their second year of middle school. The control group showed a persistent deterioration in

scores from pre- to post-test to the follow-up study. However, the study provided evidence of

maintained cognitive achievement with the experimental group after two years’ lapse in time. As

the Cognitive Abilities Test was administered to all participants again during high school and

given the pattern of sample attrition that occurred, the group score difference was

underestimated. Seemingly, the prior experiences of collaborative inquiry involvement over time

had had a cognitively significant impact on the intervened students of this study (Topping &

Trickey, 2007).


Another study additionally concentrated on evaluating individual learning achievement

following engagement in dialogic discussions. Here, participants were observed in relationship to

how well they acquired generalizable knowledge of argumentation (Renitskaya et al., 2009).

Within a pedagogical approach called Collaborative Reasoning (small group discussions),

empirical evidence gleaned from a variety of previous studies investigated group processes,

followed individual student participation during the discussions, and evaluated the links

established between the features of social interaction and individual student performance

(Reznitskaya et al., 2009). In each previously administered study (Dong, Anderson, Kim, & Li,

2008; Kim, 2001; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2001), it was found

that elementary-aged students involved in multiple experiences with Collaborative Reasoning

acquired an abstract knowledge system called argument schema. Argument schema theory

suggests that abstract properties of knowledge structures acquired from educational experiences

with argumentation should empower the use of these structures in different contexts and

interactive settings (Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

Reznitskaya et al. (2009) used the results of all four previous studies to investigate the

transfer-potential of dialogic discussions. In her encompassing meta-analysis study, Reznitskaya

et al. (2009) employed the same posttest-only quasi-experimental design when analyzing the

four prior examinations. In each study prior to Reznitskaya et al. (2009), intact grade 4 and 5

elementary classrooms were assigned to treatment conditions. Across each of the four studies

(Dong, Anderson, Kim, & Li, 2008; Kim, 2001; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007;

Reznitskaya et al., 2001), argumentation development was examined in ten experimental

classrooms that participated in Collaborative Reasoning and ten that did not (Reznitskaya et al.,

2009). In three of the studies (Dong, Anderson, Kim, & Li, 2008; Kim, 2001; Reznitskaya,


Anderson, & Kuo, 2007), students identified with the Collaborative Reasoning condition

participated in four Collaborative Reasoning discussions. In one study (Reznitskaya et al., 2001),

Collaborative Reasoning students took part in ten Collaborative Reasoning discussions. In all

four prior studies, students in the control sections engaged in their regular reading instruction.

Within one to two weeks of completing their respective educational interventions, all students

were given the same posttest. For the posttest, students were asked to write a reflective essay in

response to a three-page story that was similar to those used as models for the Collaborative

Reasoning discussions. Stories used for the posttest prompt presented only similar moral

dilemmas to the discussion models so as to eliminate bias. In the posttest story, an unpopular boy

named Thomas wins the school pinewood derby race. However, he breaks the rules by not

making the car himself. Thomas confides in his classmate, Jack, who he (Thomas) has received

outside assistance from his older brother in building the car. The students in all of the previous

studies were asked to write an essay reflecting on whether or not Jack should tell on Thomas

(Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

All essays were scored by raters who were unfamiliar with the authors of the reflective

pieces. Raters were unsure whether a reflective piece was written by a student from a

Collaborative Reasoning classroom or from a control classroom. The raters also used an analytic

scoring system that allowed for the generation of low-inference quantitative measurements of

students’ argumentative abilities. The raters first deconstructed each essay into idea units that

represented discrete parts of a reflective proposition. Next, they assigned different codes to

distinct idea elements. Each student essay received three scores corresponding to the outcomes of

these variables. In addition, categories representing actual argument elements were combined to


form a summary measure indicating the total number of argument-relevant propositions of each

student involved (Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

The findings comprised from all four previous studies (Dong, Anderson, Kim, & Li,

2008; Kim, 2001; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2001) showed that

dialogic interactions appeared to not only influence student learning within social contexts but

also helped students to internalize argumentative skills and to successfully allocate them to new

contexts, such as the administered essay posttest (Reznitskaya et al., 2009). The research on

collaborative reasoning reviewed in Reznitskaya’s et al. (2009) meta-analysis offered new ways

of assessing the value of classroom talk. The effectiveness of dialogic teaching was defined

neither in terms of student awareness of correct answers nor in terms of their capacity for solving

a dilemma and reach a consensus on an issue. Instead, the gauges of effectiveness focused on the

dialogic quality of student thinking. Consequently, when evaluating collective performance,

these Collaborative Reasoning researchers analyzed the distribution of participation, the

divergence of questions, the quality of student arguments, and the acquisition of rhetorical moves

useful in constructing arguments. Similarly, individual student performance was measured by

evaluating written argumentative discourse in terms of the presence of reasons supporting a

chosen position (Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

Empirical findings reflective of phenomena present during collaborative discussions were

also noted. The discoveries of Reznitskaya et al. (2009) and Anderson et al. (2001) further

emphasized participants’ consistent usage of argument stratagems indicative that interactive

scaffolding was occurring. This scaffolding, built by individuals within reflective discussions,

related to a higher-level capacity for reasoning (Reznitskaya et al., 2009). In studies presented by

Reznitskaya et al. (2009) and Anderson et al. (2001), it was established that a kind of snowball


effect transpired as students actively listened to and processed the beliefs of others that related

vaguely to personal experiences. Students, in development of a higher level of reasoning,

engaged not only in vocal agreement or disapproval but by discussing through a researched list

of stratagems important for obtaining argument skills. Students exhibiting a higher level of

verbal reasoning, identified as dialectic, showed distinctive tendencies toward supporting argued

reasons, introducing counterarguments, and uttering in rebuttal (Anderson et al., 2001;

Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Nussbaum, 2011). Thirteen argument stratagems were consistently

spoken within dialogic settings and observed through research performed by Anderson et al.

(2001).

1. Simple agreement without reasoning

2. Simple disagreement without reasoning

3. Agreement with elaboration

4. Clarification and/or restatement of opinion

5. Request for reasons from another

6. Counterargument

7. Rebuttal

8. Confirming analogy

9. Refuting analogy

10. Inference

11. Deduction

12. Argumentation

13. Self-correction


Reznitskaya et al. (2009), as reported, also described favorably that individual argument skills

were enhanced through collaborative reasoning discourses.

An additional study mindful of the observed dynamics of students during collaborative

dialogues was undertaken by Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes (1999). In this study sixty British

primary school students aged 9-10 took part in an experimental, interactive program intended to

improve the quality of children’s collective relationships by developing their awareness of

language use and encouraging adherence to certain ground-rules for talking together (Mercer,

Wegerif, & Dawes (1999). Students were prompted to make predictions and carry out science

experiments to test them. While carrying out these experiments, students’ interactive speech was

documented and observed for the emergence of what the researchers referred to as “exploratory

talk” (Barnes, 1976; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999, p. 97). Exploratory talk is a type of

interactive dialogue in which partners engage critically yet constructively with each other’s

ideas. These ideas and suggestions are sought and offered for joint consideration and may be

challenged and counter-challenged, but these challenges must be, in turn, justified (Barnes, 1976;

Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999).

Next, researchers gathered and analyzed data regarding the quality of talk and problem-

solving abilities of students identified in target classes for experimentation – before and after

they had taken part in the program. Also, a comparison of analyses between the

target/experimental students and those of the control classes was administered. Each target class

teacher carried out the experimental program with students organized into talking groups for

collaborative activities while the teachers and students of the control classes carried out their

normal curricular activities. Researchers gathered observational data over a period of ten weeks

which would allow them to distinguish any changes in the quality of the students’ talk. Students


in both the target classes and the control groups were observed and video-recorded in the same

ways over that period. The amount of time dedicated to focal group discussions provided

approximately five hours of video data. An additional four hours of observational data was

gathered by videotaping the focal groups in both the target and control classes carrying out the

program of collaborative talk (Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes. 1999).

It was conclusively found that with the implementation and consistent reminders of

exploratory talk ground-rules during observed collaborative dialogues with target classes, rules’

usage improved the quality of students’ collective vocal engagement (Mercer, Wegerif, &

Dawes, 1999). Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes (1999) further argued that if the ground-rules of

educational language practices were more carefully explained, justified, and modeled by

teachers, improvements would be noticed in various contexts of whole-class, group-based and

individualized activities in primary classrooms. It was also discovered that being taught to use

exploratory talk helps develop students’ individual reasoning skills and that this finding supports

the assertions of sociocultural theorists (e.g. Dewey, 1910; Freire, 1970; Bahktin, 1981;

Vygotsky, 1981; Rogoff, 1990; Bandura, 2001) that the development of human cognitive

abilities depends on a link between an individual’s “intramental and intermental” consciousness

– facilitated through involvement with language (Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 2008, p. 108).

The evidence presented provides both theoretical and empirical understanding supporting

the attributes of collective, dialogic interactions as pedagogically sound approaches for

promoting the development of critical, creative, and caring thinking in the classroom. The studies

examined outline the basis for a conclusion that suggests that classroom communities of

dialogical inquiry serve as an ideal form of educational praxis (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011).

Community of Inquiry’s place at the intersection of discourses of argumentation theory,


communications theory, dialogue theory, social-learning theory, and group psychodynamics

makes it a rich location for the merging of educational theory and practice (Kennedy & Kennedy,

2011).

Dialectical Influences

The inclusion of classroom conversations within the curriculum of modern classrooms

has suffered a constrictive blow (Cazden, 2001; Glina, 2013; Kohn, 2011; Renitskaya et al.,

2009 & 2013). Student emancipation by means of autonomous enlightenment has become

replaced by instruction controlled by objective and objectified practices (Cazden, 2001; Kohn,

2011; Lipman et al., 1980; Papastephanou, 2012; Shor, 1992). In an authentic sense, dialogical

conversations, those which spring forth from the collective, intermental group to elicit reflection

and ultimately escort individuals toward further experimentation and learning, have given way to

teacher-driven models of discourse, designed to meet mandated curricular standards of

objectivity (Cazden, 2001; Kohn, 2011; Lipman et al., 1980; Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, this

current initiation serves as a placebo, laden with goals toward the accumulation of skills and

facts so that students and their teachers meet compliance (Kohn, 2011; Lipman, 2003). This

practice likewise has come to suppress the advent of individual growth that occurs through

participation in a subjective Community of Inquiry (Dewey, 1916; Kohn, 2011; Lipman, 2003).

Teachers, for various reasons, ignore, or in some cases, hold disregard for the implementation of

whole-class discussions (Cazden, 2001; Glina, 2013; Reznitskaya et al., 2009). Fears steeped in

the traditions of teacher upbringing, close-minded theories of knowledge and learning, narrow

visions of meandering, chaotic chatter, and teaching directed toward high-stakes standards

permeate the list of reasons against implementing a more engaging pedagogy (Burbules, 1993;

Cazden, 2001; Dewey, 1916; Fisher, 2013; Freire, 1970; Kohn, 2011; Shor, 1992).


Historically speaking, serving as the preferred educational methodology of Socrates and

Aristotle -- enlightening Rousseau, pragmatically serving Dewey and socially engaging

Vygotsky and Freire – collaborative, reflective communities held a quintessential place as

catalysts, sparking the natural expression of knowledge through communication (Freire, 1970;

Gadotti, 1996). Today, constructivist educators understand collective discourse to mirror the

classic, romantic versions of reciprocal talk, imagined as an initiation by Socrates,

deconstructing the wavering thoughts of unsuspecting Athenians (Freire, 1970; Reed & Johnson,

2010). Yet this deconstructive, dialectical game of historic verbal jousting has been reshaped and

grossly altered from its original form. Seemingly now, the former reciprocal methodology of

back-and-forth inquiry which originated from the academy has been hollowed out, defined only

by one-way teacher-to-student discussions tied to an objective aim. (Burbules, 1993; Cazden,

2001; Freire, 1970; Gadotti, 1996). Though autonomous in its Socratic origins, dialogue, as it is

currently implemented, has come to be replaced by a pedagogy of direct instruction -- a teacher-

to-student misinterpretation of engaging talk that aims to honor recitation more than the

development of social literacy (Cazden, 2001; Haberman, 1991).

As Dewey (1896) posited in multiple forums, true education is achieved through

stimulating a student’s powers through involvement into the social situations he or she finds

singularly. Subsequently, student-to-student discourse serves in that regard. Worthman and

Kaplan (2001), in a study undertaken to define Cuban literacy, found that it has come to

encompass much more than the comprehension of textual content. Literacy, as Worthman and

Kaplan (2001) discovered, developed both within and outside the realm of individual reading

comprehension mastery. Literacy conceptually includes ways of talking, listening, reading,

writing, acting, believing, and valuing. In this sense, the narrow definition commonly associated


with content literacy (reading comprehension) is broadened to include influences more socially

experienced (Worthman & Kaplan, 2001).

As Vygotsky (1978) and Bahktin (1981) theorized, experienced social practices trigger

the affective catalysts of personal cognitive development. Likewise, when these encompassing

aspects of literacy become grounded and emerge out of students’ lived experiences, they too can

contrastingly become diluted and then mislabeled when that lived exchange is suppressed

(Bandura, 2001; Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970; Kohn, 2011; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990; Shor,

1992).

The Origins of Philosophy for Children

Matthew Lipman, in the late 1960s, surprised and appalled by a consistent inability in

young adults to reason and resolve conflicts through communication with other peers and adults,

established (along with Ann Sharp) a communal elementary school program whereby students

could participate in a public space in order to do philosophy (Lipman, 1991; Weber, 2011).

Philosophy for Children, as Lipman’s (1980) program became known, argued for an active,

practical understanding of philosophy – a divergent program that distinguished itself from the

traditional knowledge-based teachings associated with the history of philosophy (Weber, 2011).

In essence, Philosophy for Children (also identified as P4C) has remained tied to an effort to

define philosophy in terms of an idealism aimed at promoting a relativist, subjective form of

pedagogy – one associated with the ancient Greek conception that represents its true nature

through reasoning (Weber, 2011).

Sharp’s (1993) pedagogical concept for teaching reasoning became manifest by way of

integrating methods of philosophical inquiry and the pragmatist ideal of Community of Inquiry


in order to facilitate critical, creative, caring, and communal thinking skills – skills essential in

the promotion of democratic citizenship (Bleazby, 2011; Fisher, 2013; Noddings, 2007). In fact,

Lipman (1991) constructed precise criteria toward the achievement of reasoning within the

Philosophy for Children platform. Relevance, precision, consistency, and sufficiency are to be

followed in order to attain good reasoning (Weber, 2011). Yet, in diverting slightly from the

ancients, the creators of Philosophy for Children came to endorse Deweyan meaningfulness over

truth as its goal for its methods of inquiry. To explain, Dewey’s notion of truth-as-meaning

enables P4C to facilitate varying and seemingly incompatible personal attributes, ideals of

thinking, and social practices toward the construction of individual meaning (Dewey, 1916;

Vygotsky, 1978). Through linear participation, one derives -- from this type of cognitive

wrestling between the mind of the self and an understanding of the perceptions of others a

problemization of experience – an individual provocation of self-reflection and inquiry which

leads to self-transformation and growth (Bahktin, 1981; Bleazby, 2011; Lipman, 2003;

Vygotsky, 1978). Toward this ideal, it is that Philosophy for Children integrates a Deweyan ideal

of truth that it is able to overcome the educational problems associated with absolutism and

relativism. Within the P4C program, absolute beliefs of the self are in perpetual struggle with a

myriad of relative perspectives from the group (Bahktin, 1981; Bleazby, 2011; Dewey, 1916;

Lipman, 1991; Vygotsky, 1962). The more one exercises one’s own thinking, actively

participating within the Community of Inquiry, the more those external dialogues become a part

of one’s internal development (Mercon & Armstrong, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). Moreover,

Philosophy for Children has a precondition: it requires that its participants acquire a self-critical

view of oneself. Those involved must temporarily step back from set beliefs to put into

perspective the role one plays in society (Lipman, 2003; Sharp, 1993; Tibaldeo, 2010).


Community of Inquiry within Philosophy for Children

Dialogue is both ontological (reflecting the way we are shaped as human beings) and

ethical – the way we should be (Bahktin, 1981; Rule, 2011). Life, reasoned Bahktin (1981), is

naturally dialogic. Bahktin’s (1981) maxim can be interpreted as: Humans participate in dialogue

in multiple ways and this dialogic engagement defines what it means to be human.

Communication through dialogue is present not only in the form of speech but also through the

use of gestures, facial expressions, postures, and a whole range of body language; even apparel

and social behavior constitutes distinct qualities of a dialogue (Bahktin, 1981; Rule, 2011). By

linking the essential assets that initiate a dialogue and the participation of students within a

classroom, the potential exists for the emergence of a Community of Inquiry (Lipman, 2003;

Mercer & Wegerif, 1997; Weber, 2011).

Community of Inquiry, as Lipman (2003) described, is a “playground of thought”,

serving as a public space where children can reconstruct and reinvent their own understandings

of reality within a classroom group to form a coherent connection between passions and certainty

(Weber, 2011, p. 237). Community of Inquiry emphasizes the idea that knowledge is inevitably

fixed within a social context and requires intersubjective agreement within a group inquiry to

bring that knowledge forth, bearing in mind that all findings are temporary and subject to

modification (Bakhtin, 1981; Pardales & Girod, 2012; Seixas, 2012; Shields, 2012; Vygotsky,

1978). In essence, a Community of Inquiry must therefore begin with this shared aspiration.

Furthermore, participation in a Community of Inquiry hopes to give children the tools they need

to question their situation and to begin the search for practical means to change or transform it

(Lipman, 1991; Fisher, 2013). Participants must similarly agree to share in a “commitment to

reasonableness”: a pledge to mutually recognize the need for collaborative involvement


(Tibaldeo, 2010, p. 3). The crux of expression identifying this form of inquiry is, as Lipman

(2003) asserts, philosophical dialogue. This type of talk differs from conversation, debate, and

mere communication (Burbules, 1993; Lipman, 2003). While philosophical talk can be

argumentative and critical, it can also elicit notable significance for being both creative and

caring. However, not every classroom community is a Community of Inquiry because, for such a

community to exist, there must exist acknowledged and common commitments, norms, actions,

and responsibilities (Lipman, 2003; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 2008).

Identifiable characteristics leading to the realization of reasonable participation within a

community dialogue, maintained Lipman (2003), materialize as both individual and social

competencies. Ideally, those students engaged in a philosophical Community of Inquiry have

been found to possess the following: autonomy, reflectivity, self-correction, sensitivity to

context, ability to use critical thinking, as well as creative and caring thinking, aptitude to argue

and to sustain reasons for personal choices, actions and views (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003).

Within this model of inquiry, a group of students is given a stimulus, such as a story, a

moral dilemma, a news article or clip, or a scientific problem, and is asked to generate questions

from it regarding anything problematic, perplexing, or interesting (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003).

The group then reasons aloud – through dialectical speech, pushing forward individual ideas

while also responding to and building upon the ideas of others. This dialogue continues with the

group producing further questions until it becomes satisfied with how they have dealt with the

problem. Participants are then asked to reflect on answers that have arisen and to demonstrate

proof of their learning (Dewey, 1916; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003). Ultimately, the overall

content of a discourse becomes less important than the quality of the reasoning displayed (Fisher,

2013; Lipman, 2003). Through the act of vocalizing their thinking together, students, following


the norms and procedures of inquiry, learn to think reasonably (Lipman, 2003; Mercer, Wegerif,

& Dawes, 2008). Critically, in Lipman’s (2003) opinion, students culminate this experience with

a new, or perhaps, continued understanding of important social and collaborative fluencies that

develop listening, empathy, respect, and friendship (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003; Reed &

Johnson, 2010). This engaged collectivity necessitates three pivotal elements of thoughtful

engagement essential to the Philosophy for Children program: criticalness, creativity, and care

(Davey, 2005; Fisher, 2013).

Community of Inquiry as a catalyst for critical thinking.

The foremost concern and purpose of Philosophy for Children (P4C) is to free

participants from a subservient and fixed existence (Lipman, 2003; Sharp, 1993). Through the

combination of both egocentric and social acts of questioning, reasoning, and investigative

thinking, P4C aims to liberate students from a determined life that becomes acquiescent to

objective ends. Children possess an acute sense of what is happening around them, but they do

not necessarily have profound conceptions of how things can be sequenced so as to begin to

mature on their own (Vansieleghem, 2006). A good thinker, as explained by Fisher (2013), is

reflective in the sense of exercising his or her own powers of being receptive to the thinking of

others.

By entering into a philosophical classroom dialogue, an individual’s actions and

expressions are constantly being transformed via self-agreements, forging their validity from

logical thinking strategies (Anderson et al., 2001; Lipman, 2003; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes,

2008; Vansieleghem, 2006). In fact it is such engagement that identifies a participant as being

critical or reflective (Davey, 2005; Fisher, 2013). Additionally inset into this interactive program,


Community of Inquiry turns the dialogue into an argumentative game in which a participant’s

self-awareness, at every vocal movement, is being converted through a specific code system

(Anderson et al., 2001; Vansieleghem, 2006). Those who then apply this thinking for

themselves, as noted by Bahktin (1981), Vansieleghem (2006), and Vygotsky (1978) are able to

articulate arguments and conclusions which support specific points of view. Community

participants similarly become more adept at formulating new ideas and possibilities that may

have nothing to do with the original arguments in question. This sort of social engagement serves

to elevate the voice of participants involved with P4C from the oppression of a fixed form of

knowledge (Cazden, 2001; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003). Active participation in such classroom

dialogue sparks critical thought, allowing for the philosophical nature of a student to manifest

itself explicitly through his or her urge to question, to wonder, and to fantasize (Lipman, 2003;

Vansieleghem, 2006).

Creative thinking and engagement within a community of inquiry.

Dialogue is creative if it involves students generating and extending ideas, proposing

hypotheses, applying imagination, or expressing new or inventive ideas (Fisher, 2013). The

promotion of this type of creativity is anchored in a questioning classroom environment whereby

teachers and students value a diversity of opinions. Here, both parties involved ask unusual

questions, make new connections, represent ideas in different ways, try fresh approaches and

solutions to problems, and thoughtfully evaluate new, constructed actions (Cazden, 2001;

Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990).

As posited by Lipman (2003), creative thinking is involved with making meaning

through claims. For instance, allowing a dialectic argument at hand to lead where it may go is


stipulated as a vehicle for engaging participants. This act of conversation lenience proves

intrinsically creative since being allowed to think for oneself serves to indicate the most

appropriate paradigm of creative though (Lipman, 2003). Lipman (2003) further elucidates this

claim when he contends that invention is at the heart of creative thinking because constructed

P4C dialogues are based on the ideas of children and the arguments that stem from those talks.

Generating ideas that charge these types of dialogues requires inventiveness, not to mention

originality, uniqueness, novelty, productivity, freshness, imaginativeness, and capacities to

synthesize (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003). Conclusively, a resulting significance toward

improving children’s education rests on the improvement of the quality and creativity of

dialogue between students and their teachers (Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Fisher, 2013;

Lipman et al., 1980).

Caring thinking: The expression of empathy in a community of inquiry.

Community of Inquiry, as the curriculum model within Philosophy for Children, creates

conditions that exemplify equal, democratic rights and becomes characterized by what Lipman

referred to as “caring thinking” (Fisher, 2013, p. 12). Philosophy for Children associate creator,

Ann Sharp, defines caring thinking as honest and diligent concern for the communal process of

dialogue within a democratic environment (Davey, 2005). With this, Sharp (1993) reflects

Gilligan’s (1977) and Noddings’ (1984) perspective on the ethics of caring with a description

that care exemplifies more of a pedagogical care than an emotional, popular view of care.

Likewise, it becomes important to understand care as a pedagogical caring rather than an

emotional one inasmuch as we can see its benefits to the inquiry process rather than a personal

and emotive worth (Davey, 2005).


Noddings (1984) further described caring as possessing a regard for the views and

interests of others. For caring to be fulfilled, the individual doing the caring must receive some

sort of endorsement from the one being cared for in order for the act to be complete. Noddings

(1984) held that the meta-dialogue and the processes of caring include such ideas as listening,

turn-taking, respecting, and accommodating differences. Caring for the process and the outcomes

of a classroom community dialogue proves paramount to a successfully engaging inquiry session

(Davey, 2005). By engaging with only limited teacher-facilitation within a particular dialogue,

holding that the participants themselves will take responsibility for the inquiry therein, students

must care for the process to make it useful or else it will simply be a conversation without a

purpose for finding the existing truths present in the talk (Davey, 2005; Reed, 1992).

Community of Inquiry as a Process of Reflective Thought

For Socrates, the dialectic founder of the Community of Inquiry, philosophy was an

activity, an act of doing, rather than a horde of truths to be learned, especially by direct,

authoritative means (Reed, 1996; Fisher, 2013). A principle characteristic of the method

attributed to his name and deeds was the implementation of inductive reasoning: arguing from

particular cases or dilemmas toward the attainment of general truths. Yet, the Socratic Method

was more than this; it was more a diverting from what others thought and said toward an

opportunity for a learner to be the responsible force in his or her understanding. It was an act of

being drawn away from the philosophic tradition of being instructed toward an awareness of

questioning and reflection through the use of the words used to express those beliefs (Fisher,

2013; Lipman et al., 1980; Noddings, 2007). Philosophy, in the Socratic sense, originated as a

linguistic act, emerging as a way to seek structure and echo reality through words (Reed, 1996;

Fisher, 2013). Of what we gleaned from Socrates, knowledge is in fact obtainable in theory but


must always be questioned in practice. As Socrates believed the posing of questions to be a

process at least as important as finding answers, practitioners today must be aware that perceived

certainty of answers brings about a stop to inquiry, concluding the process toward deeper

thinking (Fisher, 2013; Lipman et al., 1980; Reed & Johnson, 2010).

Lipman’s philosophy can also be said to belong to the tradition of reflective education --

a tradition in which learning to think merits as much value to educational aims as the

accumulation of knowledge and skills (Kennedy, 2004). Lipman et al. (1980) came to understand

thinking as a process of investigation and regarded the classroom as a potential place of inquiry

in which consideration is paid to good thinking and its improvement. Students, within Lipman’s

design, are encouraged to learn cooperatively through actively listening to one another, sharing

their opinions, considering a variety of viewpoints, and exploring differences by casting attention

to their own thinking and the thinking of others (Burgh, 2005; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011).

Lipman’s Community of Inquiry, as a matter of course, emphasized questioning strategies and

the improvement of a student’s reasoning abilities by having him or her think about thinking

through the discussion of concepts of personal interests (Burgh, 2005; Freire, 1970; Giroux &

McLaren, 1989; Shor, 1992). One singular, evolving outcome of such a typified way of using

language effectively for joint, explicit, and collaborative reasoning is the emergence of what

Mercer and Wegerif (1997) refer to as exploratory talk.

Toward an emergence of exploratory talk.

Exploratory talk, as first identified by Barnes (1976) and further defined by Wegerif

(1996), is a kind of interaction which combines clear reasoning through facilitated talk initiated

through a cooperative framework of ground-rules emphasizing the shared nature and the


importance of active participation of all engaged. Exploratory talk is that in which ideas are

engaged upon by groups both critically and constructively (Mercer, 2000). Corresponding with

Lipman’s (1980) guidelines for Philosophy for Children, Mercer’s (2000) findings for

exploratory talk indicate that facilitated information should be offered for joint consideration and

eventual consensus. Equivalent to norms of Philosophy for Children, student proposals during

exploratory talk may be challenged and counter-challenged, yet reasons should be provided and

alternative ideas offered (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). Engagement in exploratory talk, as with

Philosophy for Children, requires participants to maintain an emotional detachment from their

own beliefs (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Fisher, 2013). Identifiable with participation in

exploratory talk is the notion that participants ultimately side neither with one’s own self nor

with the group but instead with the dialogue itself (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Often, teachers trust the notion that students know how to engage in productive

discussions (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). In fact, the nature of participating in quality forms of

discourse is not normally a topic of teacher-student considerations (Burbules, 1993; Cazden,

2001; Rogoff, 1990). The effects of this neglect contributes to a general lack of shared

understanding of how best to engage in classroom critical talk (Cazden, 2001; Mercer & Dawes,

2008). However, a situation can be created, contend Mercer and Dawes (2008), whereby the

collective expression, analysis, and evaluation of ideas becomes a collective enterprise. For a

cooperative dialogue to present itself within an educational setting, a sense of trust, common

endeavor, and a shared understanding of how to engage in a productive discussions must be

made apparent to teachers and students alike. From a more dialogic perspective, specified and

agreed upon ground-rules must be established and abided by for the exploratory implementation

of Community of Inquiry to take shape (Lipman et al., 1980; Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Fisher,


2013). The enactment of workable, consistent ground-rules in pursuit of Community of Inquiry

through exploratory talk proves essential for both teachers and students toward the achievement

of reflective group talk. The ground-rules for exploratory talk allow for challenges and

disagreements, but these are contained within a cooperative and actively facilitated social

framework (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). The following list should be understood by practitioners

of exploratory talk (Mercer & Dawes, 2008, p. 12):

participants engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas

everyone participates

tentative, unclear ideas are treated with respect

ideas offered for joint consideration may be challenged

challenges are justified and alternative ideas or understandings are offered

opinions are sought after and considered before decisions are jointly made

knowledge is made publically accountable (and so reasoning is visible in the talk)

It was discovered by Mercer and Littleton (2007) that with teachers promoting awareness

of the importance of critical, creative, and caring dialogue, such interaction does increase the

likelihood of occurrences of exploratory talk. However, there exists at least two other

communicative relationships that indicate different ways of thinking together. While exploratory

talk embodies the concept of communicative rationality, disputational and cumulative forms of

talk also represent ways in which students orient themselves towards each other in a dialogue

(Wegerif & Mercer, 1997).

Many times students interact socially within a classroom dialogue in uncooperative and

competitive ways. This type of exhibited discourse resembles what Mercer et al. (1999) refers to

as disputational talk – that which originates out of the egocentric will and becomes manifest


through confrontational moves in attempt to win an argument. Disputational talk serves as the

epitome of self-centered engagement within a classroom dialogue (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). Its

emergence makes the classroom community a difficult endeavor since deep, reflective inquiry

hinges on students’ commitment to suspend personal beliefs in favor of philosophical exploration

(Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997). Disputational talk is made apparent by a

student’s consistent rebuttals and refuting analogies to previous comments, off-topic tangents of

controlling speech, and personal questions in which answers are already known but are asked for

the sake of continuing a rebuttal (Anderson et al., 2001; Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif & Mercer,

1997).

In contrast (yet its occurrence may hinder the emergence of reflective thought in whole

class discourse) the presence of an over-cooperative structure of dialogue known as cumulative

talk also exists. Cumulative talk, as shown by Mercer et al. (1999), arises when students share

and build information in an uncritical way, allowing for an absence of inquiry to infiltrate a talk.

While cordial in deliverance, cumulative talk is indicative more of affective, emotional growth

among speakers than showing of reflective or cognitive reasoning (Glina, 2013; Wegerif &

Mercer, 1997). Its emergence becomes apparent by the utterances of simply agreement or

analogies and personal narratives given in response to previous spoken explanations (Glina,

2013; Reed, 1992).

Conversely, exploratory talk, as the mode of engagement most indicative of critical

collectiveness, allows for students to participate constructively with ideas of others. For

exploratory talk to exist, according to Mercer et al. (1999), knowledge must be made publically

accountable and reasoning must be noticeably exhibited during a dialogue. Pursuit for the

achievement of a reflective dialectical condition presents a certain incentive for change in the


traditional roles teachers play in the day-to-day rigors of contemporary classrooms (Cazden,

2001; Lipman et al., 1980; Mercer et al., 1999).

Explaining the process of community dialogue.

The process of Community of Inquiry, reasoned Kennedy (2004), is a dynamic one and

requires participants to possess what Dewey (1910) calls the resolution to maintain a state of

doubt that stimulates exhaustive inquiry – inquiry that becomes linked with reflective thought.

Within such group inquiry, the origination of an argument materializes as, at once, chaotic but

gains direction (Lipman, 2003). It proceeds non-sequentially, unpredictably, and irreversibly and

many times is defined by moments of disorder and ineptitude (Kennedy, 2004). Since everyone

involved within the structure exercises some aspect of control, Community of Inquiry evolves in

a constant state of deconstruction and reconstruction. Therefore, the system is perpetually in

transition (Kennedy, 2004).

Within the space of dialogue, once a generative question emerges, that question becomes

a universal focus – belonging as much to the addressee as to the universal group (Shor, 1992).

This dialogue becomes a space where participants search together for enlightenments to be

shared (Kennedy, 2004; Sharp, 1993). For Socrates, and likewise for our contemporary selves,

the aim of the dialogue was and is to achieve consensus (Fisher, 2013; Reed, 1996). It assumes

that (although we are not so naïve as to think we can ever reach the plain of unified perspective)

it is in fact human nature to move toward an oxymoronic realm of differentiated unity (Kennedy,

2004; Lipman, 2003).

Dialogue, as Community of Inquiry, is the clash of egocentric, internal beliefs assembled

with the collective, external opinions of the community as a whole (Kennedy, 2004; Lipman,


2003). Within that community, dialogue happens between individuals, between each participant

and the whole group, and between all possible arrangements on the continuum between those

two (Kennedy, 2004; Lipman, 2003). For the individual, it demands a certain extensive process

of thinking for oneself: evaluating and synthesizing the group’s assembly of thoughts in light of

one’s own. This “thinking with others”, as Kennedy (2004, p. 259) suggests, makes possible the

effect for the individual to evaluate his or her own structure of judgment in light of group

determination. Since Community of Inquiry is an open system, this entire process transpires as

nonlinear and unpredictable (Kennedy, 2004; Lipman, 2003). The group may choose to self-

correct as a result of one participant’s influence or, in contrast, the individual may reevaluate

according to the progressing perspective of the group. Regardless, such signs of self-correction

help to define the cognitive suspense that active open systems such as Community of Inquiry

allow. This ability to enter into and sustain dialogue is the capacity for hope – the capacity to

keep up the embrace of the other, to recognize the perspectives of the other, to follow through

with the process as one that is always arriving (Bahktin, 1981; Freire, 1970; Kennedy, 2004).

Necessary shifts in the role of a dialectical teacher.

The Community of Inquiry pedagogy necessitates a shift in the role of the teacher who,

through traditional application, has, more often than not, come to embody Freire’s banker of

knowledge – the provider to inexperienced and acquiescent starved masses (Freire, 1970;

Giroux, 1988; Kennedy, 2004). In contrast, Sharp (1993) reimagined philosophy by exploring a

pedagogical transition: a transition from teacher to facilitator and from a transmission model to a

dialectical model. Moreover, Sharp (1993) drew on Dewey’s (1910, 1916, & 1938) social theory

and logic of inquiry, Peirce’s (1966) concept of knowledge and philosophy of science,

Vygotsky’s (1978) relational, interactional learning theory to reconstruct and develop a term


originally used by Peirce – Community of Inquiry. Hence, this synthesis recreated philosophy as

a communal, dialogical activity (Lipman et al., 1980; Kennedy, 2004; Kennedy & Kennedy,

2011).

In its origination, Lipman’s (1980) conceived foundations of Community of Inquiry

served as a reassertion of Socratic practice aside from a key and seminal difference: the direction

of argumentation and the source of self-correcting talk were to be no longer controlled by one

leading member of the group (Kennedy, 2004). The distinction is that Community of Inquiry

becomes facilitated by the collective, dialectical process of the group itself. Within Community

of Inquiry the Socratic process of deconstructing and reconstructing participant opinions is

distributed among all partakers, instead of being centralized with a sole leader (Kennedy, 2004).

In other words, the foundation of control within a philosophical Community of Inquiry transfers

from the one to the whole (Lipman et al., 1980). Here, borders are explored, investigated and

pushed against, erected, removed, and altered in a continual progression toward self-correction

(Kennedy, 2004).

The facilitator’s role.

Given that the implicit aim and direction of the group within Community of Inquiry is

progression toward autonomous enablement (so that each individual may exercise some degree

of leadership), the aim of the facilitator becomes to allocate his or her role and thereby become

just another member of the group (Kennedy, 2004; Sharp, 1993). Accordingly, the facilitator

becomes a coach and a catalyst – a stimulus to the overall gestalt of the dialogue. On the most

visible level, the facilitator begins by describing and modeling a sort of language game (as

indicated in Tables 3 and 4, Chapter 3) which initiates the Community of Inquiry (Gregory,


2007; Fisher, 2013; Kennedy, 2004; Lipman, 2003). Necessary skills like restating the points of

others, calling for clarification, asking for or offering examples of definitions, pointing out

contradictions, and correcting oneself and others in the interests of full and balanced

participation become part of the consistent structure of a facilitator’s job (Anderson, et al., 2001;

Gregory, 2007; Fisher, 2013; Kennedy, 2004). Accurately enough, the facilitator of a dialogue is

still an authority yet an authority who must be conversely dissolved by the group in order for the

group to exude the facilitator’s functions (Kennedy, 2004).

Facilitation as a form of expertise should be governed by a relationship between indirect

and background knowledge – such as Socrates presumes to play in his own dialogical and

historical conversations (Kennedy, 2004; Reed, 1996). The more an expert knows, the more

intuitive he or she becomes at applying that knowledge and understanding that there are no

secure rules for what can or cannot be part of Community of Inquiry pedagogy (Kennedy, 2004;

Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011). An apt facilitator understands each group as a particular collective

of individuals who form a pattern that will in fact never be repeated. Likewise, the way in which

the discussion emerges from a certain group’s discourse will transpire like no other discourse

before or to come (Gregory, 2007; Kennedy, 2004; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011; Lipman, 2003).

Furthermore, no verbal move made by a facilitator will necessarily have the same impact as the

same move made in another situation. It is only in the influence of active listening, those

reflective moves by which no new ideas come forth but make visible and connect what has

already emerged, that dialogical space and sameness are expected and also maintained (Gregory,

2007; Kennedy, 2004; Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011; Lipman, 2003).

Perhaps the biggest difference between facilitating Community of Inquiry and teaching

within a traditional model is that the facilitator lives the discourse – is an active part of both the


teaching and the learning of it (Kennedy, 2004; Sharp, 1993). In order for such a dialectic system

to exist, the facilitator must grant its existence – he or she must properly avoid controlling it –

although any move within the dialogue signifies an attempt to control it. However, a dichotomy

ensues as a dialogue progresses toward harmony since ultimate harmony registers the death of

reflective inquiry (Bahktin, 1981; Kennedy, 2004). Consequently, the facilitator should look

upon the system of Community of Inquiry not so much as the source of knowledge but more as a

type of matrix by which knowledge will emerge (Gregory, 2007; Kennedy, 2004; Kennedy &

Kennedy, 2011; Lipman, 2003).

The facilitator as a bridge toward student reflectivity.

The questions that emerge from a discourse group normally mirror a text’s philosophical

dilemma of the world or problematize the text from a philosophical point of view (Fisher, 2013;

Hunter, 2008; Kennedy, 2004; Lipman, 2003). Each individual in the group should be

encouraged to offer a question, and the resulting set of questions makes up the program for the

emergent discourse (Glina, 2013; Kennedy, 2004). These questions also move the discussion

away from the unstructured exchanging of personal anecdotes, items of knowledge or

unsupported remarks, to a discussion with purpose and direction (Reed & Johnson, 2010; Fisher,

2013). Such a discussion plan serves as a backdrop through which the group and individuals

participating move in it as they talk (Kennedy, 2004). The location at which the students meet

the knowledge organized in the designated stimulus, as asserted by Dewey (1896), must be

consistent of their own experiences. Students bring with them psychological knowledge as

opposed to a logical knowledge of conceptual material (Dewey, 1896). Within the Community of

Inquiry, the prior knowledge and assumptions of each participant are distributed throughout the

group, and the facilitator acts (or chooses not to act) with the purpose of bringing participants to


express in a way that makes individuals available to each member (Kennedy, 2004; Kennedy &

Kennedy, 2011). In other words, the aim of the facilitator here is to move the participants from

the personal-psychological to the social-logical. An attentive facilitator is then consistently

looking for the boundaries, larger pieces of the argument, and possible transformations or the

potential kernels indicative for social transformation to occur (Gregory, 2007; Kennedy, 2004;

Kennedy & Kennedy, 2011).

The most straightforward strategy for a dialogic facilitator is to act iteratively. In this

sense, a facilitator circles his or her moves back – restating, connecting, or contrasting current

arguments with previous ones, summarizing – while at the same time looking forward by

offering suggestions for arguments and trying out analyses of the whole developing argument on

the group. Serving as a bridge, the facilitator is constantly observant of the possible associations

among the finest rudiments in the dialogue (Anderson et al., 2001; Gregory, 2007; Kennedy,

2004; Lipman, 2003).

Therefore, effective facilitation requires a form of compassion toward otherness -- to

difference -- and an ability to cultivate a potential in others that may already be present in

himself or herself but has not been drawn out prior (Gregory, 2007; Kennedy, 2004). A

Community of Inquiry facilitator triggers system change by identifying with the system of talk to

the point of where it triggers a psychological bend in himself or herself. This is the result of an

observant state that surfaces behaviorally as a balance and a tension between monitoring and

intervening (Hunter, 2008; Kennedy, 2004). If the facilitator holds back too much, the system of

inquiry is likely to fester and decay. If the facilitator speaks too much, claims Kennedy (2004),

he or she both dictates, and closes the system, or insights chaos. In accordance, a facilitator


within Community of Inquiry contributes to a flourishing dialogue only when certain

preconditions are met (Hunter, 2008, p. 3)

Readiness to reason;

Mutual respect (of children towards each other, and of children and teachers

towards one another);

An absence of indoctrination.

What distinguishes Community of Inquiry from other pedagogical forms is that the

facilitator, because he or she cannot take a set position outside the group, shares every effect,

every belief, with every other group member. Any movement he or she enables or instigates

within the talk will affect him or her as much as any other participant (Glina, 2013; Gregory,

2007; Kennedy, 2004). This, above all else, seems to be indicative of the major paradigm shift

associated with solving the student-teacher contradiction (Freire, 1970). Through dialogue,

Freire posits, “the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a

new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teachers” (Freire, 1970, p. 67). As discussed,

Community of Inquiry, as a distinctive educational form, has vast effects toward the evolution of

the formation of social life that seeks to impede the relations of domination (Kennedy, 2004;

Lipman, 2003). Beginning with forging a transition between the traditional adult-child

relationships, the apt facilitation of communities of dialogical inquiry serves as an indispensable

form of power toward the maintenance of individual and group order and constancy (Kennedy,

2004).

The participant’s role.


As has been discussed, the teacher/facilitator creates central talk-related aims for the

success of a group dialogue, and the further generation of norm-specific ground rules serves an

important pedagogic feature of a Philosophy for Children program (Hunter, 2008; Kennedy,

2004; Mercer et al., 1999). A class’s ground rules exemplify the main characteristics of

exploratory talk, and once established, students are expected to follow them when engaged in

any joint class discourse (Mercer et al., 1999). It is also important for dialogue participants to

feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for any adherence to such ground rules. An example

which seems to typify consistent structures of pre-dialectic ground rules read as follows (Mercer

& Dawes, 2008 p. 12):

Discuss things together. That means:

o ask everyone for her/his opinion,

o ask for reasons why,

o listen to people.

Everyone participates.

Think before you speak.

Respect the ideas of others – do not use only your own.

Unclear ideas should be treated with respect.

Ideas offered for joint consideration may be challenged.

Challenges should be justified and alternative ideas or understandings should be offered.

Be prepared to change your mind.

All opinions are sought and considered before decisions are jointly made.

Share all ideas and information you have.

Seek agreement.


Since philosophy can be defined as the application of critical and creative thinking to

questions that are difficult, problems, in essence, have more than one possible solution; resolving

those problems is a matter of exercising judgment (Fisher, 2013). Since asking good questions is

at the crux of engaging a group in a philosophical Community of Inquiry, analyzing the make-up

of a good question can be very useful for children to understand (Fisher, 2013). As they become

used to asking and thinking about questions, their inquiries will become more fluent, more

reflexive, more intricate, and more original. Some strategies used to extend and develop student

thinking include (Fisher, 2013, pp. 146-147)

thinking time (Stahl, 1994) – encourage pauses for thought or some quiet moments of

meditation on a topic

think-pair-share (Lyman, 1981) – allow individual thinking time about a question,

invite discussion of the question with a partner, and then allow for the immersion into

class dialogue

ask follow-ups (Zingaro, 2012) – help students to extend or clarify what they have

said by asking questions that challenge their thinking, such as ‘Why?’, ‘Do you agree

or disagree?’, ‘Can you say more?’, ‘Can you give an example?’

withhold judgment – respond to student answers in a non-evaluative way, not saying

whether you agree or disagree, for example, with a positive but neutral response such

as ‘Thank you’, ‘Okay’, ‘That’s interesting’, ‘All right’, ‘A-ha’, ‘I see’

invite the whole group to respond (Glina, 2013) – encourage a response from the

whole class, for instance, by conducting a survey of opinion

ask for a summary – promote active listening by asking for a summary of what has

been said so far


allow students to nominate speakers (Glina, 2013) – give students the chance to

choose the next speaker in the discourse

play devil’s advocate (Tomlinson & McTigue, 2006) – challenge students to provide

reasons for their views by presenting opposing points of view or by asking students

for a counter-example

invite a range of responses (Lipman et al., 1980) – model open-mindedness by

inviting students to consider alternative viewpoints

encourage student questioning (Dillon, 1988) – invite students to ask their own

questions before, during, and/or after the discussion

Implementing such a critical, creative, and caring approach to methods of inquiry means

taking seriously what children say and think, what they mean, and in what ways utterances make

sense (Fisher, 2013). Children therefore require clear models and frameworks of good dialogue

to assist them in adopting and improving the skills of dialogue and inquiry (Barnes, 1976;

Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Fisher, 2013).

Criticisms of Philosophy for Children

Implemented as a pedagogical program promoting change in educational theory,

Philosophy for Children has also garnered criticisms as well. Contrasting perspectives related to

Philosophy for Children’s purported endorsement of humanism, support of critical pedagogies,

supposed dedication to concretely limited thought, and devotion to the inadequacies of popular

class discussion model, Socratic Method, have called into question the practice of the program.

The act of engaging in philosophy in the classroom aligns itself seemingly with

twentieth-century humanism – the possibility for human beings to define their own essence and


origins (Biesta, 2011). The problem with humanism, as Biesta (2011) imparts, is that it specifies

a norm definition of what it means to be human before the actual presence of humanity arises.

Ultimately, it stipulates what a child or student must become before providing them the

opportunity to show who they are and who they will be (Biesta, 2011; Vansieleghem, 2005). If

such forms of humanism exist in our educational forums, the possibility also exists for

newcomers to the system to be unable to alter fixed understandings of what it means to be human

(Biesta, 2011). Subsequently, methods tied to the program of Philosophy for Children create an

education focused, to its theoretical detriment, on the production of a particular type of

subjectivity (Biesta, 2011).

Likewise, Gregory (2011) notes that Philosophy for Children’s ambition of equating

critical thinking with an indirect advancement of critical pedagogies seems to have crossed a

political line. Critical thinking, defended on both ends of the political spectrum as a cognitively

and morally neutral aim of deep examination into the problem of how to think, has created recent

uneasiness (Gregory, 2011). Opponents of the Philosophy for Children program sense that an

adherence to the aims of critical pedagogy teach children what to think. Although the thinking

skills that Philosophy for Children instills have been historically supported by conservative

parents, as well as professional philosophers, what has been deemed as a change in the topics

presented for class discussion has, as of late, spurred animosity (Gregory, 2011). Emancipatory

topics, such that have traditionally been discussed within a student’s own home with his or her

parents have, as some critics suggest, ventured to include talks endorsing an anti-heterosexual

and anti-capitalist way of life – topics that conservative parents suggest they would rather have

their children examine in their presence, under their influence (Gregory, 2011). As discovered by

Gregory (2011) and Murris (2000), religious and social conservatives who would rather not have


their children question traditional values or who view the teachings of critical theorists such as

Dewey, Freire, Vygotsky, Lipman, Mathews, Giroux, and McLaren to be politically motivated

have found disdain with not only the Philosophy for Children program but with the aims of

classroom critical thinking in general.

Such topics have also been admonished under the concern that young children do not

possess the cognitive faculties to do real philosophy at all (Murris, 2000). Claims have been

made imparting that children are only capable of doing concrete philosophy – absent of any

abstract notions of philosophical thought (Murris, 2000; Piaget, 1977; Santrock, 2008). To

illustrate, Lipman et al. (1980), Sharp (1993), Matthews (1984), and Kennedy & Kennedy

(2011), have indicated that children are only capable of concrete reasoning when talking about

such subjects as: death, dreaming, bravery, time-travel, the material composition of foods, and

sharing the television set (Murris, 2000). Moreover, these examples specify that the gateway to

abstract thought, the qua principle (a theory underlying concrete-thought research), cannot be

comprehended by young children. Murris (2000) further contends that it is true to insist that

children cannot think abstractly from concrete examples. There exists a difficulty for pre-

adolescents to construct general conclusions and apply those to other more concrete cases in

order to form analogies (Murris, 2000).

Murris (2008) does however approve of the kind of traditional Socratic deconstructive

techniques that some practitioners of Philosophy for Children have promoted since the

beginning. She argues that a Philosophy for Children methodology can initiate the process of

removing the certainty with which people take for granted the meaning of ordinary abstract

principles (Smith, 2011). On the other hand, de Bono (1994) is somewhat critical of the Socratic

Method. De Bono (1994, p. 216) claims that the Socratic Method is practiced in schools in such a


way that it “uses adversarial argument and refutation to explore a subject, and it is fashioned

upon dichotomies and opposites in order to force a judgment choice from which we seek to

derive true definitions.” De Bono (1994), along with critical theorists Freire (1970), Giroux and

McLaren (1989), Shor (1992) and Gadotti (1996), debunk the Socratic Method structure, which

has become very pervasive and influential in Western schools. They have found fault with the

Socratic Method’s rigid rules, harsh judgments, and high degree of righteousness whereby, they

claim, the loss of autonomy will become manifest during its practice. As mentioned previously,

de Bono (1994) struggles with an inadequacy he perceives as prevailing within the practice of

Socratic Method (which has been defined as a group-search for objective truth within developing

contemporary societies) (Copeland, 2010). Conversely, de Bono (1994) speculates that what is

needed for modern life is a creative, more effective approach to problem solving. He introduces

what he argues is a more fundamentally different method of thinking – parallel thinking.

De Bono’s (1994) notion of parallel thinking rejects the adversarial framework of

Socratic Method in favor of a type of thinking out loud that emphasizes the possibility and

creation of understanding (Burgh, 2005; de Bono, 1994; Lipman, 2003). Parallel thinking entails

the presentation of ideas alongside each other. Within this model there exists no clash, no

dispute, and no either/or dichotomies. There instead exists a genuine exploration of a subject

from which conclusions and decisions may be derived through a design process whereby choices

are not limited to the rejection of one idea in favor of the other (de Bono, 1994). Furthermore, if

a problem cannot be solved initially through parallel thinking by removing the cause, an

alternative course of action is presented as a way forward (Burgh, 2005). Burgh (2005), in

contrast, contends that the Socratic Method, if used properly in Philosophy for Children, is not

adversarial and is in fact tied to the ancient philosopher’s quest to foil an unexamined existence


by means of applying a thirsty embrace of opinions. Serving as a provision for dialogic

practitioners, Fisher (2013, p. 137) developed a comparison chart between Philosophy for

Children and Socratic Method indicating certain commonalities and differences in their

approaches (see Table 1). Yet de Bono (1994) raises the argument that if a proper method is so

readily neglected and so rarely used well, then that method is defective and further claims that

there is little point in saying that it ought to be used properly (Burgh, 2005).

Table 1

Philosophy for Children and Socratic Method

Philosophy for Children Socratic Method

Philosophical story as starting point Philosophical question as starting point

Free-ranging discussion Focus on one question or problem

Expression of alternative viewpoints Aim for consensus of opinion

Inquiry through dialogue Dialogue includes a meta-discourse

Questions written before discussion Questions written during discussion

Oral review of discussion Written review of discussion

Follow-up activities and exercises Further dialogue

Chapter II Summary

Social learning in the classroom has been theorized about, empirically examined, and

practiced as an extension of what best elicits critical, creative, and caring thinking with students.


The crux of a social learning pedagogy develops through language, and through the process of

thinking out loud students are enabled (with an adherence to dialectical norms) to gain reflective

insights and understandings about presented dilemmas and paradoxes within class disciplines.

Whether or not students learn more dialogically (growing through the acceptance of differences)

or more dialectically (growing as differences are overcome), learning has been shown to be

developed best within the facilitated interactions of class dialogues.

Though closely tied with conversation (subjectively) and/or debate (objectively), class

dialogues tend to occupy a middle ground which allows for reflectivity to emerge in various

forms of talk. A program implementing the consciousness of middle-ground reasoning through

facilitated talk is known as Philosophy for Children. The curriculum model for Philosophy for

Children exists with instruction promoting a classroom culture known as Community of Inquiry.

Community of Inquiry, manifest by its presentation of textual dilemmas, student delivery and

control, and respect for speakers and ideas has made it a constructive learning environment both

praised and admonished for its allowances directed toward student autonomy.


CHAPTER III

Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of the current study was to document, analyze, and understand the

relationships existent between presented dilemma-texts and paradoxes and how a class of early

adolescents thinks out loud. During this study, the application of theories and findings connected

to social learning through language, Philosophy for Children (along with P4C’s pedagogical

method, Community of Inquiry), and modes of discourse (exploratory, disputational, and

cumulative talk) were employed to assist an analysis of collected narrative transcripts, participant

interviews, and participant surveys. The current study intended to unite the liberating social

learning theories of Dewey (1916), Freire, (1970), Vygotsky (1978), Bahktin (1981), Lipman

(2003), and Shor (1992) with the dialogic procedural norms instituted by Barnes (1976),

Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999), and Anderson et al. (2001) toward understanding the nature

of adolescent thinking resulting from whole-class talk generated by dilemmas present in

literature and those emerging from lived experience. By incorporating predicaments posed by

suggested dilemma-texts and student-generated topical ideas ripe for discussion (Fisher, 2013;

Kohlberg, 1981; Lipman, 2003, Shor, 1992; Wartenberg, 2009), the emergence of reflective class

talk originated. Initiation into class dialogues further transpired through the integration of

problems posed by traditional/classical stories, since the school curriculum of the research site

adhered to E. D. Hirsch’s (1987) Core Knowledge pedagogy – a classical education model.

Findings from this study will potentially extend the knowledge connected with adolescent social

reasoning and the catalysts promoting reflective engagement. Conclusions derived from the


current study open avenues for future research of facilitator roles within whole-class talks,

question-prompt construction, dilemma influences on dialogues, and participant responses in

relationship to their prior discourse experiences.

Research Questions

Research question 1: How do traditional/classical stories, philosophical stories/moral

dilemmas, factual narratives, and student/teacher generated prompts influence early adolescents’

thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class dialogues?

Research question 2: Can Community of Inquiry exist with the included presence of


Research question 3: Do ground-rules promoting exploratory talk influence its actuality?

Research Design

The current study implemented a qualitative approach, grounded experimentally and

iteratively from data collected through whole-class dialogic observations, individual student

interviews and surveys, and previous theoretical and empirical studies described in Chapter II of

this dissertation. The qualitative, ethnographic design employed in this study allowed me, as

facilitating participant, to gain an understanding of the relationship between dilemma-text

choices and those reflective dynamics exhibited by early adolescents while thinking out loud. As

maintained by Howe (1988) and Lincoln and Guba (1985), a ethnographic researcher becomes a

mechanism for data collection as he or she observes, interviews, and interacts with research

participants. As described by Glesne (2011, p. 17), ethnography allows for the researcher to

cultivate and build “thick descriptions” needed for understanding how groups construct and share


meaning. My immersion into these classroom talks as a facilitator also allowed me to observe

and document students’ vocal thoughts and facial cues more so than if I took part as a direct

participant in deliberating posed questions along with the students. Active participation, as

asserted by DeWalt and Dewalt (2011) and Glesne (2011), does not indicate full participation,

whereby the participant-observer takes part in all aspects of the immersion process. Active

participation allows for an observer to remain somewhat removed from the totality of an activity

or event in order to lessen influences from observer to major participants. As an active

participant, researchers take part inasmuch as their involvement can limit biases in their collected

data. Full participation conversely melds the roles of both the observer and participants, making

dual roles difficult to accomplish (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011). In my roles as both

active participant and teacher, I was able to jot field notes and also guide students to extend and

develop their thinking.

Close analysis related to the effects of dilemma-texts and student generated topics on

reflective thought added a phenomenological characteristic to this study. While observations and

analyses of students’ vocal thoughts proved paramount to the findings of this study, occurrences

of thinking out loud were also investigated in regard to their catalysts. A major part of the current

study was to understand the dynamics of how prompted textual predicaments help generate a

Community of Inquiry and sustain vocal thinking. As this study progressed, the element of

mystery that existed before the initiation of data collection gave way to understanding during my

analyses. A better cognition of the effects of read-aloud dilemmas and topic-question

constructions on vocal expressions, as well as the importance of facilitator dynamics toward the

emergence of exploratory talk, became understood because of the environment presented for the

enactment of this study.


Researcher Identity

As a middle school teacher at Core Knowledge Academy as well as a doctoral candidate

at Texas Wesleyan University, I conducted the current study in a dual role. As both the grade 7

English/Language Arts teacher to this study’s participants and the author of this dissertation, I

served as an active-participant observer. Active participation in this study was identifiable by

me, as ethnographer, engaging in the facilitation of whole-class dialogues (DeWalt & DeWalt,

2011). The active-participant role for me in the current study functioned under three divisions.

My role as the classroom’s authority, as Glina (2013) asserts, necessitated me to be the teacher

(who interacts to cultivate shared possession of the discourse and to redistribute control of the

talk amongst participants), the facilitator (who is an equal participant in the discourse and who is

positioned to model the norms of exploratory talk), and the researcher, maintained by DeWalt

and DeWalt (2011) and Glesne (2011) (who documents the witnessed and observed experiences

of seventh-graders thinking out loud). This division of identity was actually well suited for

instruction within a constructivist model (Cazden, 2001; Freire, 1970; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff,

1990; Shor, 1992). Here, the teacher engages in minimal direct instruction before allowing his or

her students to use their interactive capabilities to determine the direction of the learning –

permitting the teacher to assist students with extending and developing their thinking (Bandura,

2001; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). As a teacher keen on creating a classroom

template that embraces social discovery and the exploratory thoughts that spring forth from it, I

had been involved in multiple pilot studies under this division and was comfortable with

immersing myself into a three-part role during this study as well.

The background of the researcher as a learner.


Growing up and being formatively educated in a rural town, I did what I was told. I

listened to directions, took notes for regurgitation, excelled with lectured facts, did my

homework, and steadfastly negotiated the path set before me, and others, to follow. In

classrooms, I spoke only from a raised hand, and a monologue was never intended unless I was

called upon to produce a monologue: my utterances were purposely short and objectified. I was,

and still consider myself, slow to critically examine instances quickly.

In my youth, personal, critical reflections raced up and down the same two-lane street:

What I evaluated, what challenged or solidified my belief, came by way of authority – the

teacher in the room. Second-guessing was only a personal, mental exercise -- never a vocal one.

However, I rose in this way to “academic” prominence. I became “smart” and maintained the

outward and inward perceptions of an ideal student: the type of student I anticipated my

authorities desired to cultivate. At home, I was much the same. As our familial adherence to truth

was a more objective one; reflective, outward thinking was not a pastime in which we engaged.

Talking at home revolved more around wit, humor, and directives more than around the depth of

subjective discourse. When I left for college, I was reflectively impoverished – destitute in the

ways of critical thinking, wealthy with the triviality of facts and skills.

In college I became more exposed to group discussions and intended talk – in the

classroom and in the dormitory. I rarely offered outwardly to any group. My mind was always

set from the narrowness of my upbringing. If I did engage, my expressions emerged in the form

of quips and humor – as a defense for my reflective insecurities. Classroom talk, to me, was a

cop-out designed for others – a wishy-washy exercise for avoiding the facts of a thing. However,

the more incidences of subjective dialogue I encountered (and the more topics of interest I

became exposed to), the more I eventually wished I possessed the instincts to reflectively join in


with something topical or profound. Yet I couldn’t risk the blunder – the letdown to others and to

myself -- an embarrassed acknowledgement of my inexperience as an outward thinker.

Nevertheless, within this period of inner, mental confinement, I took a chance to find myself. By

chancing a leap toward critical social interaction – a conscious embrace and participation in

reflective talk that mattered -- I steadily became a more openly thoughtful me.

All along there existed an apprehension to break away from my confines as an absolutist

– someone confident only in the truths deriving from his own experiences. At the age of twenty-

one the theories and beliefs accumulated from my formative education gave way to an embrace

and an integration with the pluralistic perspectives in which I was becoming more exposed. I

began to thirst for opportunities to learn collaboratively, philosophically, and dialectically.

Mentors to emulate were entering into my life, and they were (either directly or indirectly)

influencing a crystallizing change in me that would come to define me as a thinker and,

eventually, a teacher. The “me” hidden within my psyche, rarely considered of personal value,

had been engaged. Professors, their children, and their network of acquaintances and friends at

the university I attended guided me toward a path of critical thought. Philosophy and religion

professors along with Philosophy for Children scholars opened my mind to think differently

about the world. They initiated a belief that I came to grasp some twenty-five years ago:

Understanding can be constructed by an individual through experiences and dialogical

interactions with others – through thinking out loud.

The background of the researcher as a constructivist teacher.

As I entered into the classroom as an afterthought (I was desiring an exit from a corporate

job), I was fueled through the early years of my certification process by realistic opportunities to


emulate my mentor. He was a philosopher in the classroom, a great respecter of opinions -- a

listener who would seemingly only interject his own thoughts if asked directly or if the

discussion at hand was at an impasse. He calmly and politely posed questions which prompted

his students to pry deeply into their own belief systems in order to evaluate the worth of their

thoughts. In essence, he opened cerebral caverns that allowed his students to fall into themselves.

I found his instructional methods ingenious, liberating, and compassionate; I hoped, as a new

teacher, to hone my own skills as a thoughtful facilitator of learning. He personified how I

wanted to teach and to live.

As a new teacher at a middle school in the rural Texas town in which I was raised, I had

my mind set on interjecting my worldly discoveries on youngsters who I assumed were copies of

my former self. However, without the experience and technique that a teacher accrues through a

certification program or a study of pedagogy, I was presenting myself to my students as a mere

misperception of what my mentor personified. My students, likewise, were not at all falling into

themselves, and I was struggling to keep my wits from steadily drifting toward the skills-driven

existence of a standards-teaching robot. Somehow, though, I knew I could do better; I knew I

could become the type of teacher I had imagined.

I was and have never been privy to consistent and planned reflective interactions with

other teachers, made possible by the administrators of school districts in which I have worked.

The gist of my experience as a constructing participant in professionally engaging talk has only

existed in a university setting. When I returned to the university of my undergraduate degree to

pursue teacher certification with a Master’s degree, the positive force by which I entered the

classroom returned. Equipped with the support of likeminded, constructivist ideas from

professors and students in various classes of pedagogical methodology, I was again revitalized to


exemplify the confidence required to resonate as a teacher who allowed for a mutual interaction

with my students in the construction of knowledge. Again it was the opportunity to participate in

reflective talk with others that energized my confidence and well-being as a teacher. It was the

active listening, the pursuit of clarification through questioning, the generation of socially

constructed ideas, and the comfort and means by which to offer my own critical and creative

sentiments that activated my own learning. Through this second experience in college, I had

learned more definitively how to practice the methods of my mentor and, perhaps more

importantly, I was falling into myself as a teacher and as a person through an asset of his legacy:

thinking out loud.

The researcher’s experience at Core Knowledge Academy.

As a current seventh- and eighth-grade English/Language Arts teacher going into my

third year at CKA (my twentieth year overall), my perceptions of the school have been mixed.

While given the freedom from my principal to apply a constructivist, instructional approach, this

approach is not conceptually practiced by other teachers in other disciplines on our grade 3

through 8 campus. Most teaching techniques witnessed in grades 6-8 (the middle school) have

revealed the instructional variations of direct lecture. While the lecture/note-taking method has

existed as a staple throughout the tenure of classical education, its mandated use has not been

officially promoted by administrators at CKA or by Core Knowledge founder E. D. Hirsch

(1987).

The Participants and the Setting

Setting foundations.


Core Knowledge Academy (CKA), a kindergarten through grade 8 charter school located

in a large suburban area of the North Texas metroplex, was formed, as many public charters, out

of parental displeasure with traditional public school options. According to founding member

(and CKA’s first board president), Patrick Barton, the absence of a basic-skills focus within the

public school curriculum of the late 1990’s led him and other parents to explore the charter

alternative for their pre-school aged children. At that time, the only schools matching that

description were expensive private schools located away from Barton’s suburban home-district.

After a casual meeting with William Schulman (then administrator of the Texas Education

Agency and now current Texas Education Commissioner), Barton got the intuition to pursue a

charter school option for his child and for the children of other likeminded parents. In search of

an established curriculum that pedagogically supported the Trivium hierarchy of classical

education and a Latin program, Barton became familiar with and aligned the fledgling charter

school with E.D. Hirsch’s (1987) Core Knowledge approach in 1999. For the past fifteen years,

CKA has existed in cohesion under the Core Knowledge umbrella – which aided in accrediting

the school in its formative years (“P. Barton”, personal communication, July 17, 2014).

The Core Knowledge approach and the trivium hierarchy.

The Core Knowledge approach originated as an educational reform sequence based on

the foundation that a grade-by-grade core of common learning is essential to ensure a sound and

fair education (Hirsch, 1993). As claimed by Hirsch (1993), the Core Knowledge sequence

subsists to provide students with a scope for achieving high academic skill. Hirsch (1993)

contended that such high levels of skill are based upon the acquisition of broad general

knowledge, and offering universal access to this shared knowledge should be the primary duty of

schooling.


An underlying belief within the Core Knowledge program is that superior reading skill is

highly correlated with most other academic skills. The ability to write well, learn rapidly, solve

problems, and think critically are tied to reading skill (Hirsch, 1987). Therefore, according to

Hirsch (1987 & 1993), to concentrate on helping students to acquire high level reading skills is

to focus on a whole range of educational issues. To this end, the Core Knowledge sequence

supports a focus on its students learning a wide range of fundamental knowledge (Hirsch, 1987

& 1993). As maintained by Hirsch (1987 & 1993), fundamental knowledge is the key to rapid

assimilation and the learning of new skills. Hirsch (1987 & 1993) postulated that it is because the

needs of a modern economy are so unpredictable that students require a broad base of general

knowledge in order to prove successful. For that reason, high literacy provides the flexibility to

learn new things at a faster rate (Hirsch, 1987 & 1993). Since the Core Knowledge sequence sets

no requirements about how specified knowledge should be presented, individual schools (like

Core Knowledge Academy) can allow their teachers great scope for independence and creativity.

In fact, Hirsch (1987) recommends that the Core Knowledge list of accelerated texts comprise

only fifty percent of the classical method content for reading. Teachers are encouraged to expose

their students to other reading texts outside of those suggested by the core. The only stipulation

mandated upon Core Knowledge schools is an adherence to the three-stage Trivium hierarchy for

truth-finding (Hirsch, 1987 & 1993).

A staple instructional progression implemented within the Core Knowledge sequence is

that of the Trivium hierarchy (Hirsch, 1987). The Trivium is a systematic method of critical

thinking for deriving truth from any information coming into the mind through the five senses

(Sayers, 1947). As constructed in medieval universities, the Trivium is comprised of three


subjects, taught in a specific order: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If the three steps become taught

out of order, according to Sayers (1947) and Joseph (2002), truth cannot be clearly resultant.

Transitions from grammar to logic to rhetoric reflect the development of students and

their education progresses (Joseph, 2002; Sayers, 1947). Grammar, as identified by Sayers

(1947) should be taught first, indicating the fundamental study of different basic disciplines.

Grammar, as the input or knowledge stage (tied to but not solely descriptive of language skills

associated with sentence structure), exists as the step by which students come to terms with

defining the objects and information around him or her. Grammar provides the basic simplistic

symbols of language necessary to communicate. As such, the basics of reading, writing, and

mathematical computation are instilled during the grammar stage of the Trivium. Grammar

school, as it was once commonly identified, normally continues through grade 5 (Joseph, 2002;

Sayers, 1947).

Logic pertains to a more detailed stage of the Trivium, as contended by Sayers (1947)

and Joseph (2002). Analytic questions begin to arise to be pondered during the logic stage. Logic

(also referred to as dialectic), as advanced by Joseph (2002), forms the mechanics of thought and

analysis. The logic stage, in a sense, is defined by processes of working through speech and

writing allowing for an individual to construct truth. During the logic or understanding stage,

students from grades 6 through 8 move toward identifying fallacious arguments and the removal

of contradictions in speech and writing, allowing for the symbols learned during the grammar

stage to be pieced together (Joseph, 2002; Sayers, 1947). As maintained by Sayers (1947) and

Joseph (2002), logic produces a body of knowledge that can now be trusted and progresses

toward truth.


The final stage of the Trivium is a progression of the first two whereby the teaching of

rhetoric addresses the place where previous knowledge is brought to fulfilment. Rhetoric (also

referred to as wisdom), usually implemented during grades 9 through 12, is the use of language

to instruct and persuade. An activity such as debate exemplifies an assignment related to rhetoric.

In debate, the basic grammar skills associated with word identity in combination with a certainty

achieved from the phase of deliberation (logic) allows for an individual to exceed at winning an

argument and ultimately persuading an opponent to alter his or her beliefs. In this sense, rhetoric

takes the comprehensive knowledge gained in the logic stage and manipulates it as a means to an

educational end (Joseph, 2002; Sayers, 1947).

Further description of Core Knowledge Academy.

The Core Knowledge Foundation and CKA’s mission is to provide its students with a

high-quality, well-rounded education at an accelerated pace. The aspect of high-quality stems

from the Core Knowledge sequence and a classical approach dictated by the Trivium hierarchy

(Core Knowledge Foundation, 2014). CKA supports well-roundedness through its multi-

disciplinary course offerings reminiscent of a traditional liberal arts approach. The school no

longer offers Latin, yet high school level Spanish and Algebra are credited to enrolled middle

school students (J. Herr, personal observations, August-May, 2013).

As Sayers (1947) and Hirsch (1987) asserted, a central focus of the classical model of

education is on students’ ability to read at a high, critical level in order to acquire fundamental

knowledge, progressing through the Trivium toward truth and certainty. Likewise, CKA’s

principal intent is to provide a means for the acquisition of essential knowledge through the

reading and analysis of accelerated texts. Accelerated texts, as identified within the Core


Knowledge sequence (Core Knowledge Foundation, 2014), include classical and traditional

poems, stories, novels, essays and speeches, autobiography, and drama lauded throughout the

canon of Western civilization. The Core Knowledge sequence (Core Knowledge Foundation,

2014, p. 178-179) delineates a listing of these classic texts in such a grouping as to accelerate

each grade level (1-8) one year above average. Therefore, my grade 7 students will be exposed to

texts generally accessible to eighth-graders in a traditional public school setting. Furthermore,

my own student-participants will read various texts from this listing (see Table 2), and my study

will incorporate six Core Knowledge reading recommendations.

Table 2

Textual Listing of the Grade 7 Core Knowledge Sequence

Poems

Annabel Lee (Edgar Allan Poe)

Because I could not stop for Death (Emily Dickinson)

The Charge of the Light Brigade (Alfred Lord Tennyson)

The Chimney Sweeper (William Blake)

The Cremation of Sam McGee (Robert Service)

Dulce et Decorum Est (Wilfred Owen)

Fire and Ice; Nothing Gold Can Stay (Robert Frost)

Heritage (Countee Cullen)

Macavity: The Mystery Cat (T.S. Eliot)

The Negro Speaks of Rivers; Harlem; Life is Fine (Langston Hughes)

This is Just to Say; The Red Wheelbarrow (William Carlos Williams)

Short Stories


“The Gift of the Magi” (O. Henry)

“The Necklace” (Guy de Maupassant)

“The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” (James Thurber)

“The Tell-Tale Heart” (Edgar Allan Poe)

Novels

The Call of the Wild (Jack London)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Robert Louis Stevenson)

Essays and Speeches

“Shooting an Elephant” (George Orwell)

“The Night the Bed Fell” (James Thurber)

“Declaration of War on Japan” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Autobiography

Diary of a Young Girl (Anne Frank)

Drama

Cyrano de Bergerac (Edmund Rostand)

A current site description of Core Knowledge Academy.

Currently incorporating grades K-8 at two campus locations (K-2 at the primary campus

and grades 3-8 at the intermediate/middle school campus), Core Knowledge Academy has

operated as a charter school option in North Texas for fifteen years. The site used for my study,


the grades 3-8 campus, was acquired by the school in 2011 from a private, parochial school.

Grades 3-5 are housed in one main building while grades 6-8 operate in various other portable

buildings and in a three-story brick castle, the latter location perhaps fitting for a school so tied to

the classical model of learning.

The overall student population of CKA is approximately 1,400 -- kindergarten through

grade 8. The ethnic make-up of Core Knowledge Academy has steadily begun to shift and

diversify since the expansion to dual campuses in 2011. The Anglo majority has decreased to 48

percent of the total student population while the African-American population has risen to near

21 percent since the expansion. CKA’s Asian-American, Arab-American, and Hispanic

populations have also risen slightly since the 2011 expansion to 11 percent, 10 percent, and 10

percent respectively.

Core Knowledge Academy is fed largely by students from two very populated public

school districts: Llano Vista (city population of over 400,000) and Muller (city population of

over 100,000). As these burgeoning districts have continued to increase in size, so too has an

identifiable movement by some parents to relocate their children to schools with smaller overall

populations and significantly smaller class sizes. This coming school year (2014-2015), Core

Knowledge Academy’s enrollment will increase from the last, yet its numbers will still remain

substantially less than neighboring public school populations. Middle grades 6-8 at CKA (the

division from which my participant sample will come) will house approximately 340 students

this school year (2014-2015), and of that population, nearly 120 students will be enrolled in the

seventh grade. From the roughly 120 total seventh-graders, I teach 51 of those students. One of

my two seventh grade classes was chosen for this current study.


Participant Selection

The participants of this study originated wholly from a single seventh-grade

English/Language Arts class at Core Knowledge Academy. This past spring I was informed by

the middle school principal that I would teach two sections of seventh-grade ELA. From one of

these two classes of seventh-graders, I identified my study-sample of participants. I chose to

study a class of students from B-block, fifth-period. The sample class of participants was

comprised entirely of mixed-gender twelve and thirteen year-olds of various ethnicities: Anglo,

African-American, Asian-American, Arab-American, and Hispanic. Although comprised of 25

students, the ratio of girls to boys coupled by an even mix of ethnicities identified my B5 class as

the better exploratory option for the current study. Fourteen girls and 11 boys were enrolled in

this research class. My research class was comprised of 14 Anglos, five African-Americans,

three Asian-Americans, two Hispanic-Americans, and one Arab-American. Twenty-two of 25

participants had a previous experience in sixth grade at CKA, but none had had me as a teacher.

This class of participants was exposed mainly to an Initiate-Response-Evaluation (IRE) structure

of schooling, and their prior experiences with class dialogues, Community of Inquiry, and

exploratory talk were non-existent to the point of this current study. Furthermore, the

participants’ acquaintances with this study’s examination texts were vague or totally unfamiliar

as the dilemmas and paradoxes chosen for discussion derived from the accelerated Core

Knowledge canon for seventh-grade. Furthermore, the philosophical/moral dilemmas were

chosen from a learning program (P4C) in which participants were also unfamiliar. Within this

researched class, nine students emerged as dominant-speakers who consistently always led the

group in verbal engagement. A small number of other participants proved to be non-dominant

speakers who gained confidence in engaging as their relationships with our lead-speakers


deepened and matured. Also within this participant-group there four or five students who

consistently engaged very little or perhaps not at all. Cues of understanding gleaned from silent,

selective, and dominant speakers were observed and analyzed during this study.

Data Collection

As an active participant, facilitating and observing all aspects of examined dialogues for

this study, I collected narrative data that resulted from natural English/Language Arts instruction

within my classroom. As the teacher, I presented the norms for discussion, chose and provided a

means for dilemma-text comprehension, and facilitated whole-class dialogues which extended

and deepened the thinking of individual participants. As the researcher of this study, I focused

my observations on the vocal moves and facial cues participants made during enacted dialogues.

During each examined dialogue, I intently engaged in active listening and visual observation,

transferring mental notes to field notes within a hard-copy, spiral journal. Each dialogue’s field

notes of participant/facilitator responses were then typed into a verbatim transcript (via iPad

audio recordings that were deleted following transcription) and filed and saved electronically

into Microsoft Word 2013. Each dialogue’s transcripts and its coinciding field notes were then

coded, analyzed, and triangulated (twice) with associated individual interviews and surveys

(conducted during the next class period following the dialogue) along with theoretical and

empirical conclusions gleaned from Bahktin (1981), Barnes (1976), Fisher (2013), Lipman

(2003), Shor, 1992, Vygotsky (1978), and Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999). Table 3

represented the type of narrative transcript that derived from my compilation of audio recordings.

This template was further indicative of student-to-student/student-to-teacher relationships and

facilitator moves consistent in Philosophy for Children discourse.


Table 3 (Fisher, 2013 pp. 138-140)

Philosophy for Children Transcript Example (11-12 year-olds): Do you think all the time or just

some of the time?

Facilitator: Do you think all the time or just some of the time?

Richard: It depends on what you mean by thinking.

Facilitator: What do you think it means?

Richard: When you’re asleep you are not really thinking because you are not talking to

yourself in your mind.

Mark: You only think some of the time.

Toby: You relax.

Nick: You rest.

Alex: You’re not just relaxing… you can sleep.

Paul: When you’re asleep, your mind is still working… like it is dreaming and stuff like

that.

Facilitator: So thinking is different from your mind just working?

Sarah: Thinking is talking to yourself in your mind. You say things to yourself, like you’re

talking.

Lucy: And talking to other people.

Emma: I think that thinking is talking in words.

Facilitator: Can you think without words?

Tom: You can think without words… you can think in pictures as well.

Leonard: I agree with Tom. You can think in words and pictures, like I’m thinking of a

cartoon, and that’s words and pictures.

Facilitator: Does everyone agree that you can think in words and pictures?

Students: Yeah.

Facilitator: Have we decided that we think while we’re asleep?

Tom: No, you’ve got to be conscious. You’ve got to know you are thinking, otherwise you

are not thinking.


Duncan: I disagree with Tom. If you dream you are thinking…

Tom: No, because you can’t change anything about it. You don’t know what’s happening.

Nick: Thinking is your thoughts. Your thoughts is what you get when you think. I think he

thought…

Facilitator: Perhaps it would help to ask… can you think without thinking of something?

Toby: You can’t think without thinking.

Helen: You’ve got to think of something. If you don’t…

Lisa: You can’t think of nothing.

Helen: No, I agree with Paul, there is always something going on in your head. There’s no

time when there’s nothing going on or you’d be dead. A dead head.

Richard: What happens when you’re unconscious?

Lee: You’re still thinking, but you don’t know what you’re thinking… if you’re knocked

out. That’s what it means. You’re out… you are out of your mind. (Laughter)

Nick: You can think of nothing.

Tom: But if you thinking of nothing, you are thinking of something. You can’t think of

nothing. If you are thinking of nothing, you are not thinking.

Toby: If you have nothing in your mind, you are still thinking of something.

Richard: That’s impossible. That’s not how it works.

Facilitator: If you were thinking of the word ‘nothing’, would you be thinking of nothing?

Nick: Yes, that would be nothing. If you’re thinking of nothing… it’s nothing.

Ashleigh: I disagree with Nick, because if you think of the word ‘nothing’ you are still thinking

of something.

Facilitator: (seeking summary and consensus) What can you say now about the difference

between thinking and dreaming?

Richard: You can control your thoughts, but you can’t control your dreams.

Lee: Yeah… dreams don’t always make sense.

Gerald: In the day you’re thinking all the time. You have millions of thoughts… but only a

few dreams, or no dreams.

Kirsty: You can’t control your dreams, but you can start thoughts by thinking of something.

Lydia: Like we’re doing now.


Annika: You can’t control your dreams…

Facilitator: Thank you. I think we’ll have to stop now… can anyone think of any other questions

about thinking we’ve not asked?

Henry: Can you think in your mommy’s tummy… I mean, before you’re born?

Facilitator: That’s interesting, thank you. Okay… Can you write down any thoughts you’ve got

about what we discussed or any questions or ideas you’ve got ready for another

time…?

______________________________________________________________________________

It was my intent for each dialogue’s transcriptions to serve as a record for each

participant’s dialogic identity. From the thorough evaluation and analysis of collected transcripts

from each talk, findings and conclusions were applied toward the understanding of how

adolescent participants think out loud with one another and me, the facilitator. Findings, from

thorough coded analyses, indicated how each participant (within each dialogue) engaged within

the three modes of dialogic thinking (exploratory, disputational, and cumulative). Coding

methods used to delineate the emergence of uttered argument stratagems aided me in the analysis

of individual and whole-class reasoning. In relationship to the indicators signifying the

development of a Community of Inquiry, dialogue transcripts were also scrutinized so as to

identify instances of critical, creative, and caring talk.

In an overall sense, the vocal thoughts of each participant aided in grounding a theory for

understanding each student’s own thinking. The overall body of collected data (from the

transcripts, field notes of four months of class dialogues, post-dialogue surveys, and exit surveys)

iteratively produced thorough conclusions of how this class of participants thought out loud in

relationship to the four categories of dilemma-texts presented: philosophical/moral dilemmas,


traditional/classical stories, factual narratives, and non-textually generated topics of popular

interest.

Doing class dialogue.

For me as facilitator of the current study, the implementation of dialogic teaching

combined instructional elements from both Philosophy for Children and Socratic Method. Both

presented interactive attributes important for sparking critical, creative, and caring forms of

inquiry with adolescents, as compared by Fisher (2013) in Table 1 of this study (p. 77). While

much of how this study’s initiation into examined talks were constructed through Lipman’s

(2003) P4C model, the inclusion of a post-dialectic, expressive written element (as proposed

through Socratic Method) was initiated to help students solidify their own understandings of

what just transpired. K-W-L charts were used throughout the dialogic processes of each of the 14

observed talks. Furthermore, in order to extend students’ abilities to think out loud with breadth

and depth, deconstructive, more Socratic methods using adversarial, deconstructive

argumentation were also required, especially by the teacher-facilitator. Adherence to the

Philosophy for Children methodology was most present in two areas: question construction and

speaker prompting. Within this study, participants constructed nine topic-questions and choose

12 of 14 questions for discussion by voting; two others were chosen without student input.

During these talks, participants identified and called-on other participants who wanted to engage

vocally. A goal (according to established exploratory talk norms) was for everyone to participate.

While the aspects of critical, creative, and caring talk were essential to the promotion of a

classroom community, a delicate balance was enacted by me as facilitator to maintain the

inclusion of all three.


The initial starting points for dialogic data collection from this study occurred after the

dilemma-texts were read-aloud and the ground-rules were reviewed. Participants next engaged in

an individual-brainstorming activity to fill in What I Know and What I Hope to Learn sections of

a K-W-L chart before the beginning of each dialogue. The activities from the K-W-L chart were

designed to allow individual participants a chance to take their initial textual comprehension and

construct critical questions for submission in the next phase of the dialogic process: Questions

for Discussion. At the Questions for Discussion stage, individual participants nominated aloud

any questions they thought the entire class would like to engage in philosophically. As the

facilitator, I jotted all student-question suggestions onto a whiteboard in the order which they are

announced. If questions were submitted through our class social learning website, Edmodo®, I

also included those onto the main dry-erase board. From that list I next allowed students to vote

(heads down so as not to be too influenced by peers) on the questions they would prefer to

discuss. Student-participants voted as often as they wished, and after the class had voted on each

question from the list, the order of our discussion, based on votes given for the topic-questions,

was established. The question that received the most votes was discussed first; other questions,

based on the next highest number of votes received, fell into the discussion queue if time

permitted. Only once, during Dialogue 8, did the class discuss a second topic-question because

time permitted.

As the student’s desks were already positioned in a horseshoe fashion, I next proceeded

with my recording devices and notebook to a seat within the arrangement where I could best

observed all participants’ faces and hear their voices for potential cues of information. At this

point I posed our initial question aloud and allowed for students to think out loud. Since

engagement is essential for the depth of a dialogue, it became imperative for students who


wished to speak to get a chance to do so. As the facilitator of these examined talks, I modeled for

the participants initially by calling on the first speaker. Thereafter, the participants called on the

next students who would join the dialogues. I would occasionally interject procedurally if

dialogues were drifting off-topic or if speakers were monopolizing the conversation with lengthy

monologues. As facilitator, I also modeled care and respectful engagement by acknowledging

something about the previous speaker’s opinions expressed. These utterances and chances to

inquiry substantially with participants were the moments of active participation that I most

anticipated as facilitator.

As dialogues stabilized, I was primed to engage in my multi-faceted role of facilitator,

teacher, and researcher. Although I made time to jot observation field notes during a given

dialogue, much of my time during a given talk was consumed by active listening – listening to

participants’ thinking and forming my own substantial questions (see Table 4) that would prove

critical for extending and developing the depth of their thinking. However, I was generally

careful not to rush forward my questions, mindful that an in-tune participants probably had

similar questions forming, and his or her delivery of that question meant more for the overall

critical and creative construction of Community of Inquiry.

Table 4 (Fisher, 2013, p. 118)

Questions to Stimulate Philosophical Discussion of Stories

Questions Cognitive function of questions

What happened? Identifying facts in a story

What did they do?


How did they feel in the story? Responding to experience

What did you feel when you read that?

What did they think in the story? Reflecting on personal/social issues

What did you think about it?

What choices did they have? Exploring moral decisions

How might the story have been different?

Why do you say that? Reasoning

Can you give me a reason?

What do you mean by…? Defining/analyzing/clarifying

Can anyone explain that to us?

Has anyone got another idea/thought/example? Generating alternative views

Who else can say something about it?

How could we tell if it was true? Testing for truth

How do you/we know?

Who agrees/disagrees with ____? Why? Sustaining dialogue/argument

Can you say who/what you agree/disagree with?

Who can remember what we have said? Summarizing

What are the ideas/arguments we have said?


Once a dialogue ended (normally because of time constraints), student-participants were

asked to reflect via a survey questionnaire attached to the end of their initial K-W-L charts. In the

What You Learned section of the chart, student-questions regarding the strengths and

weaknesses of the talk were analyzed, identification of members who uttered important thoughts

were jotted, and a personal response to the major question of the talk was documented (by

participants). It is this completed page (the K-W-L chart) that existed as the only graded attribute

of a given dialogue.

With a dialogue and its post-talk evaluation complete, student-participants were asked to

extend the dialogical experience of the talk in writing. A post-dialogue handout was made

available for students to identify further their impressions about the topic-question question or

the process of the talk itself. This survey activity served participants as a follow-up extension

helpful for the development of their sense-making skills and expressive attributes. Furthermore,

the post-dialogic time (the next class day) provided student-participants a chance to extend their

understandings of the dialogue question(s) with an opportunity to collaborate on one of various

follow-up mini-projects (narratives, poems, expository writings, video diaries, web-page design,

etc.) as a progression through the rhetoric (application) stage of the Trivium. This collaborative

engagement after an examined talk also allowed me an optimal occasion in which to interview

participants with the prospect of gathering more data about individual perceptions of posed

questions and the structure and procedures of the previous talk. The interview protocol (as

indicated by Table 5) aided in the data collection process by jogging a participant-interviewee’s

memory as I inquired through the stages of the previous dialogue. The format helped data


analysis in that the interview questions posed strived to uncover further information regarding

the three research questions of the current study.

Table 5

Potential Post-Dialogue Interview Questions for Participants

Dilemma related:

Was the controversy from the story interesting to you?

How so?

Do you like talking about the type of controversy that was in this story?

Why or why not?

What could have made the problem or controversy more interesting?

Dialogue process:

Did you submit a question to be voted on?

Which question did you offer us?

Who said something during the dialogue that you agreed with?

What was said?

Who said something during the dialogue that you disagreed with?

What was said?

What was the most important thing you said during the dialogue?


What agreements, if any, did the class come to?

What is your truth to the main question we talked about?

Was there anything that you said that you wished you hadn’t?

What was the most interesting part of the dialogue according to you?

Participation concerns:

Did you feel comfortable speaking out during this dialogue?

Why or why not?

What might have made you feel more comfortable?

Do you feel you got to say all that you wanted?

Explain.

Norm concerns:

How do you think our dialogue rules were followed?

Explain.

Timeline.


Data was collected for this study from September 5 through December 18, 2014 at Core

Knowledge Academy. It was my intent to engage my grade 7 participants in whole-class

dialogues for four months – roughly one discourse per week from Labor Day until the end of the

fall semester. Feasibility to engage in extended student-led talks more than once per week was

lessened this school year at CKA because middle school classes met every-other-day. What this

meant for my study-class was that, while we were afforded more time per period to engage

(potentially 60 minutes), the class actually met half as many times as a traditional class that

might meet every day did. In reality, during one given week we convened three times, and during

the following week we met only twice. Even posed with an abbreviated meeting schedule, my

intent turned into reality, as I was able to provide a weekly opportunity for my study-class to take

part in an examined class discussion throughout the fall semester.

Initially, pilot dialogues during the first three weeks of school were also enacted to

familiarize participants with the basic procedures of exploratory talk and to expose them to

critical, creative, and caring discourse. In an attempt to meaningfully involve student-participants

into the first examined process of thinking out loud, I enticed their interests to engage together

with a chance to discuss a non-textually generated topical situation. Since there were four

categories in my talk-rotation sequence, variations of dilemma types did not repeat for a time

period of four weeks. In this configuration, for example, non-textually generated topics did not

come open for discussion again until after a dilemma from each of the other three categories

transpired. My commitment to vary dilemma categories from dialogue to dialogue followed this

presented sequence (see Table 6): non-textually generated topic, philosophical story/moral

dilemma, traditional/classic story, and factual narrative.


Table 6

Dialogue Schedule

Open Observation Weeks Category/Dilemma Text

Week of September 2-5 Non-Textually Generated Topic

Week of September 8-12 Philosophical/ “The Heinz Dilemma”

Week of September 15-19 Traditional/ “The Necklace”

Week of September 22-26 Factual/ “Shooting an Elephant”

Week of Sept. 29- Oct. 3 Non-Textually Generated Topic

Week of October 6-10 Philosophical/ “Frederick”

Week of October 20-24 Traditional/ “The Tell-Tale Heart”

Week of October 27-31 Factual/ “The Night the Bed Fell”

Week of November 3-7 Non-Textually Generated Topic

Week of November 10-14 Philosophical/ “The Runaway Trolley”

Week of November 17-21 Traditional/ “A Sound of Thunder”

Week of December 1-5 Factual/ “Declaration of War on Japan”

Week of December 8-12 Non-Textually Generated Topic

Week of December 15-18 Philosophical/ “The Afghan Goatherds”

Treatment of the Data

Data collected from this study was observed from four school months of dialogic

narrative transcripts, coinciding interviews with participants, and the results analyzed from post-

dialogue and exit surveys obtained after each talk and at the culmination of all dialogues,

respectively. Foremost, the analysis of Research Question 1 (How do traditional/classical stories,

philosophical stories/moral dilemmas, factual narratives, and non-textually generated prompts


influence early adolescents’ thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class dialogues?) lended

knowledge to the other three essential questions. Therefore, coding all transcriptions using a

narrative analysis technique aided in understanding the effects of disputational and cumulative

talk on the construction of critical, creative, and caring discourse, and how participant knowledge

of exploratory-talk ground rules related to the existence of such talk (Soter et al., 2008).

Soter et al. (2008) essentially constructed three divisions from nine literary discussion

approaches in order to code his study of 36 narrative transcripts. Similar to Soter et al. (2008), I

established three major coding divisions for thirteen verbal stratagems (Anderson et al., 2001;

Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2006) uttered by my class of participants. The three divisions which

constituted thinking out loud, as found by Barnes (1976) and Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes

(1999), were categorized as exploratory, disputational, and cumulative. Seven of 13 verbal

stratagems, as identified by Anderson et al. (2001) and Reznitskaya and Anderson (2006), served

this study with a base of specified utterances common to empirical research (Dong, Anderson,

Kim, & Li, 2008; Kim, 2001; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2001;

Reznitskaya et al., 2009 & 2012) enacted to explore post-dialogic reasoning abilities.

Seven additional question-utterances were included for the current study’s coding bank as

well. As indicative of exploratory talk, student questioning, for the most part, is an attempt to

gain further clarification toward critical, creative, and caring knowledge and is suggestive of the

emergence of reflective thought (Dewey, 1916; Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003; Reznitskaya et al.,

2001). Unless a personal question posed by dialogue participants was uttered to provoke a

rebuttal, the six other interrogative inquiries reflected honest inquiries toward social learning and

were attributed to the division linked to exploratory talk (Reznitskaya et al., 2001). Two other

identifiable utterances to be ascribed to the disputational division were related to off-topic and


anecdotal speech. Moves by which participants delved into personal stories of remembrance

were indicative of speech made in a disputational, uncritical way. Talk that blatantly shifted the

course of the discourse to the speakers’ benefit was likewise revealing of a merge toward

disputational aspects of dialogue as well (Reed, 1992; Reznitskaya et al., 2001).

It was also essential that, as asserted by Glina (2013), coding for facilitator utterances

was viewed more as substantive then intrusive. As recognized by Glina (2013), facilitators are

equal participants in dialogic engagements who are positioned to model proper inquiry

techniques, foster shared possession of the talk, and help to reorganize power amongst all

participants. Facilitator utterances carry great authority in a given dialogue even when the intent

is to host a student-led discourse (Glina, 2013). Since facilitators generally speak procedurally

(to direct participants within the established norms) or substantively (influencing the direction of

individual’s thinking and the movement of the talk), coding categories applying to me, as the

facilitator, were included within the exploratory talk division (Glina, 2013).

All combined (see Table 7), 16 participant utterances and two facilitator categories were

applied to three modes of thinking out loud to form the code-scheme for this study (Anderson, et

al., 2001; Reed, 1992; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Soter et al., 2008). Although originally more

utterance-moves were considered in the construction of this discourse coding scheme (22 codes),

several of those considered overlapped or were never expressed to be coded. Therefore,

following the first read-through and coding attempt for all 14 dialogue transcripts, I decided to

condense the original list of codes to fit the actual utterances that were expressed by participants.

Table 7


Discourse Analysis Coding Scheme

Modes of Thinking Out Loud Verbal Stratagems/Identifying Questions

Exploratory talk = Explorations

- Critical and constructive reasoning Request for reasons = RR

combined with caring interactions Inference/deduction = ID

Clarification/restatement = CR

Passing to request = rr

Divergent question = DQ

Assessment question = AQ

Information question = IQ

Position statement = QP

*Procedural interjection = Pro

*Substantive interjection = Sub

_____________________________________________________________________

Disputational talk = Disputes Simple disagreement w/o reasons = SD

- Applies disagreement and Counterargument = CA

individual decision-making Rebuttal = RB

Argumentation = AR

Topic shifting = TS

Personal question = PQ

Speaker disregard = RE

Non-reasoned response = NR

_____________________________________________________________________

Cumulative talk = Agree Alignment of previous ideas = Agree

- Cooperative, uncritical talk

______________________________________________________________________________

Note. * indicates facilitator-talk category

Provisions for Trustworthiness

The collection of data for this study was triangulated through a four-part iterative

process: field notes, dialogue audio recordings, participant-interviewee comments, and


participant, post-dialogue survey results were transcribed and coded according to a designed

Discourse Analysis Coding Scheme as indicated by Table 7 (Anderson et al., 2001; Reed, 1992;

Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Soter et al., 2008); conclusions from data collection were then matched

with theoretical and empirical studies from Bahktin (1981), Barnes (1976), Fisher (2013),

Lipman (2003), Shor, 1992, Vygotsky (1978), and Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999). Also,

appendices to include all field notes, transcription copies with coded notes, interview questions

with complete comment narratives, and post-dialogue surveys are part of this dissertation’s audit

trail and are available for perusal.

Chapter III Summary

This qualitative, ethnographic study exploring the relationships between provided

dilemma-texts and the vocal dynamics of student-participants’ thinking out loud was observed,

documented, and facilitated by the author of this dissertation. One seventh-grade class at charter

school Core Knowledge Academy was chosen to engage in four school months of whole-class

dialogues in order to better identify and understand the relationship of each participant and each

talk to three divisions of discourse and to the formation of communities of philosophical inquiry.

While adhering to the accelerated mandates brought forth by the Core Knowledge curriculum,

methods and procedures were conducted in accordance to general instructional practices within

an English/Language Arts classroom. Participant vocal utterances during examined dialogues,

interview comments made following, and survey data elicited following talks were further coded

and triangulated alongside critical philosophies and emergent empirical studies in an attempt to

ground any developing findings the current study ultimately presented.


CHAPTER IV

Analysis of Data

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to document, analyze, and understand the emergent and

ongoing relationships between textual/non-textual dilemmas and peer-to-peer vocal expressions.

This study prompted one class of 25 seventh-grade English/Language Arts students to vocally

react and reason out loud to class-constructed dilemma topics over a period of four months.

Read-aloud stories of traditional fiction, factual narratives, and moral dilemmas along with topics

of student interest were discussed and analyzed throughout the data collection period. Recorded

whole-class narrative transcripts, participant interviews, and participant surveys aided to

iteratively serve in the interpretation of dynamics gleaned from 14 different Thinking Out Loud

discussions. Interpretations of this study’s collection of narrative data focused on exploring

comparable and merging dynamics existent between the practical implementation of Philosophy

for Children and the structural application of achieving exploratory talk. Findings collected from

this study will potentially extend the body of knowledge connected to adolescent social

reasoning and the catalysts promoting reflective engagement in the classroom.

Research Questions

I identified three overarching questions to explore through the collection of narrative data

in this ethnographic study. Foremost, I wanted to understand the influence of presented

dilemmas (fictitious, factual, moral, and student-interest) on individual and group vocalized

reasoning through the enactment of whole-class dialogues. Next, as the dialogical environment I

presented merged aspects of Philosophy for Children’s Community of Inquiry and those of


Barnes’ (1976) exploratory talk, I wanted to explore whether or not representations of

Community of Inquiry were possible in the midst of disputing and cumulative sequences of

discourse. Finally, I wanted to discover if by following posted procedural norms for engaging in

exploratory talk, participants became influenced to express themselves in more exploratory

ways.

Research question 1: How do traditional/classical stories, philosophical

stories/moral dilemmas, factual narratives, and non-textually generated prompts

influence early adolescents’ thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class

dialogues?

Research question 2: Can Community of Inquiry exist with the included

presence of disputational and cumulative talk?

Research question 3: Do ground-rules promoting exploratory talk influence its

actuality?

Chapter Overview

The findings and interpretations of this study are divided into four parts: Part I provides

an analysis of all observed data collected from four months of whole-class dialogue

transcriptions. Part II addresses Research Question 1 through the further interpretation of

dialogue transcripts in correlation to topics presented in class. Part III, focusing on Research

Question 2, offers an exploration of existent relationships between Community of Inquiry and

argument/agreement talk. Part IV examines the effect of ground-rule norms and their connection

to the promotion of exploratory talk – as posed by Research Question 3.


In this study of whole-class dialogues, whereby each of the 14 observed discussions

centered around one read-aloud topic question, 25 grade-seven student participants were “given

the floor” to think out loud. As research and dialogue facilitator, I interjected procedurally to

keep the talk moving in a respectful way so that the discourse environment was an accepting

place to speak freely, creatively, and socially. I interjected substantially to prompt deeper and

more critical reasoning from participants. While I played an essential role in each of the 14

observed talks, my vocal moves were not to be the focus of these dialogues: The focus was to

provide a weekly outlet for students to construct a related question of interest and to explore it by

thinking out loud.

Part I: Discourse Analysis

Class Dialogue 1 – September 5, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (21:00).

I decided to ease students into the dialogic process with an autonomous motive: Allow

for the participants to construct the topic for our first discussion. In this sense, participants might

come to understand that these talks would be engineered by them and that my role as facilitator

would be immediately exemplified by a constructive leniency. Shor (1992) had found the

emergence of student-generated topics as a construct that could penetrate the schism existent

between that of authoritative talk and peer conversation. According to Shor (1992), allowing

students to generate topics for whole-class discussions led discourse into a “third idiom” by

which teacher and student talk could merge into a relational talk much like conversation. The

presence of a more natural conversation was also an intent of mine within this first dialogue. All

23 of my participants (later to be 25) had had no prior experience related to whole-class dialogue


as a way to reason through a question. For that reason, I wanted student-generated talk to set the

tone for the constructive take that would typify all of our Thinking Out Loud talks.

Our first topic was chosen by student participants from a list of 20 possible talking points.

This list of topic questions was created from participant-logged queries into Edmodo® (our

classroom social-learning website), formerly-successful exploratory discourse questions

provided by me, and topics of philosophical yet grade-level interest -- as made available in

Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom by Robert Fisher (2013). Students

then voted (for as many of the questions as desired) to determine which of the topics would spark

our discussion. Voting this time was done with the participants’ heads up, allowing for them to

see the raised hands of others (This heads-up method happened just this once, as I believe that

peer-influenced hand-raising occurred here). The topic question receiving the most hand-raised

votes with 21 was Becca’s query: Why don’t we pay attention more to lyrics in music?

Receiving the second most votes with 17 was a topic associated with disdainful feelings toward

our uniform student dress code.

With student-desks positioned in a horseshoe semicircle around the classroom, each

touching the tip of the next, I stood before the whole group to talk directly. Before commencing

this dialogue, as with all talks that followed, I led a short discussion about our 12 ground-rule

norms essential for doing Thinking Out Loud (These were a close variation of those norms

produced by Mercer and Dawes in 2008, found on page 71 of this study). Since this was the first

time enacting a class dialogue with these students, I found it necessary to spend extended time

defining and providing examples for each of the 12 ground-rules posted at the front of the

classroom. These norms were visible in class in bold dry-erase marker colors on four small

white-boards – two on each side of a large, centered dry-erase board. They read as follows:


1. Discuss things together.

2. Everyone participates.

3. Think before you speak.

4. Respect the ideas of others.

5. Unclear ideas should be treated with respect.

6. Ideas may be challenged.

7. Challenges should be justified.

8. Alternative ideas should be offered.

9. Be prepared to change your mind.

10. All opinions are considered before decisions are made.

11. Share all ideas and information you have.

12. Seek agreement.

At the onset of this first discourse, and before each observed future dialogue, I briefly

spoke about a facet or facets from the ground-rules list. I purposely made aims to inform the

participants often that this type of talk was different from a debate or an argument where there

would be a winner and a loser. In Thinking Out Loud, I extended, the goals of our conversation

would be focused on exploration: trying to find out as much as we could about a question by way

of listening and probing the thoughts, ideas, and further questions of all students in our

classroom community. I directed the class to invite all students into our conversation during the

course of each talk. To do so I indicated that we should adhere to a system of speaking one-at-a-

time, trying to avoid interruptions. Interruptions, I specified, would be tolerated by me as

facilitator only if the interjection emerged in the form of a question to the one who “had the

floor.” I further expressed my desire for new speakers to enter into our talks by way of being


called on by the previous speaker. Students, I directed, should make known their aspiration to

talk by raising a hand.

I further spoke to all participants about the equal importance of respect for all uttered

ideas. Arguments would happen and could even lead to future exploration of a topic, but arguing

respectfully so as to allow speakers to complete all initiated thoughts would have to be

maintained as a paramount ideal toward the achievement of a caring community of exploration. I

made clear that arguments could be made but that such challenges to the ideas of others must be

justified with supporting evidence or perhaps could be explored with alternative viewpoints not

yet presented in our talk.

My next point of concern during the ground-rules lecture was a request for students to be

open to altering their opinions on firmly held beliefs. This, I insisted, would be difficult yet

essential if our Thinking Out Loud talks were to foster the idea of full participation and respect

for all ideas – even those in which a majority may initially disagree. I made clear that the

changing of one’s mind was not mandatory but that the consideration of other sides of an issue

must be made if true exploration and learning is to happen. To close, I indicated that if all

opinions on our topic became spoken and that if all information was shared in our circle, we

would be able to seek class agreement – a move not mandated but nonetheless useful for

providing natural closure to a dialogue. As this first ground-rules lecture ended, I closed with a

discussion goal that I would continue to offer before each ensuing talk: a request for students to

honor the rules put in place so as to help us have a deep, creative, and caring talk. I requested

that students try to follow these rules throughout the entire talk. With the prerequisite requests

and norms delivered, I started the audio recording, took my seat at our horseshoe’s opening, and

started the first observed dialogue by delivering our student-generated question to the class: Why


don’t we pay more attention to lyrics in music? Due in part to the extended time spent discussing

the ground-rules coupled with my aspirations in having student-participants complete the

Learned portion and the Post-Dialogue Questions section of the accompanying K-W-L chart

following the talk, our first dialogue proved to be our shortest at 21 minutes exactly.

Initially, upon commencing Thinking Out Loud, five girls joined the discussion

indicating their secure social presence in interacting with whole-groups. Becca, Elizabeth, Kathy,

Shannon, and Jamie registered exploratory positions as an answer to why song lyrics are

potentially not as important to young listeners. Aside from the observation that these first

exploratory moves were spoken as personally-supported views instead of queries to the group,

the lack of acknowledgement toward the previous speaker’s ideas or utterances made me wonder

whether this talk would evolve past a selfish discussion of claims. By the time the first boy,

Calvin, joined in with an agreement statement, an interruption, and an argument rebuttal, I was

diligently thinking to myself how I might use my own questions to guide the talk toward

community exploration. Dialogue 1 began as follows:

Mr. Herr: Why don’t we pay more attention to lyrics in music?

Becca: I think it would be because of we just think of lyrics as a side-note, and the

lyrics in front are about sexual activities, and I don’t think that parents should let their

kids listen to lyrics like that until after marriage. Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Okay, so I think that we’re so into the beat of the music that we’re not even

worried about what the words sound like, so… Kathy.


Kathy: It could be that sometimes there’s just songs that we listen to have a beat that

just makes us happy and stuff, but if you listen to it, it has a lot of bad words that we

shouldn’t listen to. Um… Shannon.

Shannon: Half the time when we’re listening to music, the words are warbled and we

can’t understand them, or they have the music playing louder than the words and the

words are just the background. It’s just hard to pay attention to them. Uh, Calvin.

Calvin: I agree with all of you. Basically what is happening is that the music is

getting better, and better, and better, but the lyrics are getting worse, and worse, and

worse and immoral. And basically they are thinking stuff and are thinking that kids

don’t need to be thinking about that. But they’re making this music with a really good

beat to disguise that so that people will not listen to what the song is actually saying.

Becca.

Becca: When we listen to music and don’t really know what the lyrics are and maybe

buy a song on iTunes or something, that gives them money, and when you learn the

song has bad lyrics in it, you don’t know that you just made them realize and made

them go so ‘people like it’ and they get the idea that people like it and they don’t

realize that sometimes people can’t hear the lyrics. Uh, Jamie.

Jamie: I don’t really agree with you, Calvin, because not all lyrics are bad and not all

of them get worse. Like you’re so into the beat that you’re saying the lyrics but you

don’t actually know what you’re saying. So, it’s like, you don’t really know it’s bad,

but you’re really just saying the lyrics.


Calvin: Um, that’s basically what I’m saying, but not all the lyrics have to be bad. I’m

pretty sure you guys are familiar with the song, “Why You Gotta Be So Rude”? If

you look at the video, the dad actually has a point of ‘I’m not going to actually marry

my daughter. You live in a small-story house. You can’t even provide for yourself, so

why do you think you can provide for my daughter?’ He has a point; the dad has a

point.

Mr. Herr: If I may interject here – just for a moment, Calvin. You’ll have the floor

when I get finished. If I may interject, it seems that you and Jamie are talking about

lyrics of a song that you know. The question seems to be, ‘why don’t we pay attention

to lyrics?’ Would you like to answer that question a bit more, Calvin?

My procedural request to Calvin, intended to guide him toward delving more

introspectively into our topic, did not trigger a more exploratory interplay between participants.

If anything my attempt to better steer the dialogue toward inquiry was met by more of the same:

selfish claims and anecdotes about what constitutes “bad” lyrics, restated cumulative agreements,

and desires to engage for the sake of expressing self-promoted ideas – in disregard of positions

uttered by previous speakers. As the discussion continued, it became clear to me who our lead,

secure speakers were going to be and that they would have to be prompted, procedurally, by me

to relinquish control of the floor for the sake of allowing forth the ideas of our less-assertive

participants. Table 8 shows the ordered breakdown of moves by individual participants during

Dialogue 1. The order of student names indicates the position at which each joined our

discussion or passed at the chance to speak. Explorations expressed are identified with the

following codes: POS = statement of position, CR = clarification/restatement, ID = inference or

deduction, DQ = divergent question, and AQ = assessment question. Disputes uttered are coded


as: RE = disregard for previous speaker’s thoughts, TS = topic shift, NR = non-reasoned

response, AR = argument initiation, RB = rebuttal, and CA = counter-argument.

Table 8

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 1: Non-Textually Generated Topic #1

Participant Explorations Disputes Agreements Passes

Becca POS/DQ TS/RE/AR/AR/RE/AR/RB 1 0

Elizabeth POS/CR/AQ RE/AR/RE/RB/NR/RB 2 0

Kathy POS RE/RE/AR/RE/NR/RE/AR 2 0

Shannon POS/ID/POS RE/RE/AR/RE/NR 1 0

Calvin CR RB/AR/RE/AR/CA/AR 3 0

Jamie POS/POS RE/AR/RE/AR/RE/TS 2 0

Ron RE 1 1

Piper POS RE/RE/AR/RE/TS 3 0

Javier POS RE/RE/AR 0 0

Mallory RE 1 0

Audrey RE/AR 1 0

Marcus RE/AR/AR 0 0

April RE/AR 1 0


Kasey 0 1

Aaron C. RE/AR 0 0

Cindy 0 1

Trevor 0 1

Everett 0 1

14 speakers 14 56 18 5

Facilitator moves: Procedural interjections – 8; Substantial interjections - 2

As is evident from the Participants column, 14 of 23 students engaged vocally in our talk – with

four others called upon but who refrained from joining. Also indicative of the control posed by

more dominant speakers during this talk was the total number of moves made by the engaged 14.

Only nine participants entered into the discussion with three or more moves, six of whom were

girls. For the most part, six initial lead-speakers (Becca, Elizabeth, Kathy, Shannon, Calvin, and

Jamie) with the addition of Piper contributed 69 of 88 total student-moves (78%).

As shown by the Explorations column in Table 8, eight of 14 moves were delivered as

statements of position (POS) that were either uttered in direct answer to the dialogue question or

that followed directly after a procedural or substantial prompt from me, the facilitator.

Exploratory questions, however, were rare during this talk. Only four of 14 exploratory moves

registered as questions (divergent questions = DQ and assessment questions = AQ), and two of

these questions were voiced to gain clarification or restatement (CR) from a previous speaker. In

total, only 16% of the 88 total moves were delivered as exploratory in this talk, and only two of


those 14 exploratory moves were delivered by boys, Calvin and Javier. In fact, the only

indication of exchange that represented a series of exploratory moves back-to-back was initiated

by me, as facilitator, prompting Shannon to provide more depth to her reasoning:

Shannon: I’m going to go back to what Ronnie said about going in your ear and out

your mouth. Because I want to compare it to reading a book. Sometimes you get

caught up in it, and you’ll start reading and you’re not actually paying attention to the

words. We’ll just skim the words and then you’ll get to the bottom of the page and

realize that you didn’t learn anything.

Mr. Herr: So are you somewhat agreeing with what Javier said – that music is for

listening and that words are more for reading?

Shannon: Uh huh. But the problem is, we’ll just zone out when we hear it and

memorize it without even knowing it. And you’ll walk around singing the lyrics, not

even paying attention to everything else. So you don’t even notice that you’re

singing. So, that’s part of the problem – we don’t pay attention to the words because

we’re subconsciously memorizing it.

Mr. Herr: Huh. So you believe that it is a problem?

Shannon: Uh huh. Marcus.

Marcus: I going to have to disagree with you and Kathy because some kids, they

know what they’re saying, but they don’t care what it means. Other kids – they don’t

what they’re saying and they don’t know the meaning of the actual words. But some

kids do and they do it on purpose. Um, Audrey.


Following this short, respectful exchange, Marcus joined in in disagreement, and the dialogue

continued toward its end, encompassed by interactions of arguments, rebuttals, and passes. My

own interjections (totaling 10) were comprised mainly of procedural requests (8) in the

promotion of involving more of our participants, guiding class-members on-topic, and restating

procedures for joining in respectfully. I did enter into the talk two times in substantial ways – by

which I posed more divergent questions to certain speakers in an attempt to trigger their

responses toward new ideas, positions, and ultimately, exploration.

Dispute, whether generated through vocal exchange or through a lack of

acknowledgement of previous speakers, came to identify Dialogue 1. Fifty-six of 88 total student

moves qualified as disputational (64%). Of those 56 disputational moves, 26 were conveyed

through a lack of respectful acknowledgement for the previous speaker (RE). Argument-

initiation (AR) accounted for 19 additional moves while rebuttals (RB), unreasoned responses

(NR), and topic shifts (TS) accounted for four, three, and three moves, respectfully. Our nine

most vocally active students (Becca, Elizabeth, Kathy, Shannon, Calvin, Jamie, Piper, Javier, and

Marcus) contributed 48 of 56 total moves of dispute (86%). The following exchange provides an

accurate summary of the consistent moves of dispute prevalent throughout this talk:

Mr. Herr: Elizabeth, try to get someone in who perhaps has not joined us.

Elizabeth: Cindy.

Cindy: Oh, I pass. Um, Trevor.

Trevor: Pass. Ronnie.

Ronnie: Um, pass. Javier.


Javier: So, if you’re so interested in this, then why are we giving money to the

people that are making the lyrics that we don’t even remember? So, we should be

giving the money to the people who do the beat -- if that’s what we like about all the

music. Kathy.

Kathy: What I was going to say was that… I forgot. Uh, Everett.

Everett: Pass. Jamie.

Jamie: If you just like the beat, then just listen to an instrumental. Kathy.

Kathy: Okay, I remember. What I was going to say was that if you hear like a catchy

song, then you keep wanting to sing it, maybe if you stop and actually pay attention

to the lyrics, then you might hear like, on some radio stations they bleep out the

words. And so if you actually stop and listen and hear that, then you would wanna go

look up the lyrics, and you would see like how bad some of the songs you’re

listening to. But you wouldn’t recognize it because you were so caught up in the beat

and the music. Um, Marcus.

Marcus: But the thing is is that there are some kids who like, who think it’s cool to

say the bad things about the song or say bad words or basically use profanity and say

the inappropriate things, but there are also some kids who don’t know what it means,

but they’re mainly the kids who say the bad things. Um, Piper.

Piper: I think it’s like a chain. So we don’t listen to the music – like the lyrics, and

we say that this is a great song and we download it. But we don’t know the lyrics.

Then that makes the pop star that sings this say, ‘They like this, okay I’ll put out


more like that.’ And people listen to more songs like that, and it’s a never-ending

pattern, and then kids that listen to that music and hear bad words and think it’s cool,

say it and sing it because they think that the pop star saying it is a great thing and

that it’s awesome and it’s cool to do because they’re popular and pop stars, and

they’re the best singers.

This exchanged happened near the end of our dialogue and new, different students were

initially called on to join in, but with their choices to pass, our more dominant speakers

obtained the floor again and resumed arguments over positions stated earlier in the talk.

Seemingly, our nine lead-speakers were more anxious to express personal claims and

arguments than they were toward exploration of the original question, or delivered positions,

with moves of inquiry.

Cumulatively, the moves of agreement delivered in Dialogue 1 were of special note.

Eighteen moves of 88 total (20%) related to agreement talk. This number of agreements

proved higher than any other observed dialogue during the four-month span of data

collection for this study. Interestingly enough, 15 of 18 vocal moves of agreement were

delivered by eight different lead-speakers. Of the nine participants identified as lead-

speakers, only Marcus did not express an agreement statement during this talk. Apparently,

while our discourse was centrally defined by argumentation and a lack of speaker-

acknowledgement, there did exist an inconsistent air of acknowledgement within moves that

seemed to indicate some participant-attention to previously delivered positions. While an

exchange among Shannon, Ron, and Piper highlighted a lack of initial acknowledgement of

the previous speaker, and further, while none of the speakers in this excerpt mentioned an

agreed-with student by name, their ideas became reiterated a second time by these speakers.


Here, Shannon restated Jamie’s position about singing songs without thinking. Ron reiterated

Elizabeth’s original position about the power of the beat in music, and Piper agreed with

Elizabeth, Becca, and Jamie with an inference to the hypnotic qualities of songs:

Shannon: I’m kind of going back to what Calvin said in the beginning about how

music’s getting better instead of getting worse. Uh, it’s not necessarily true because

music is actually – we’ve gotten to a point where we’re using the same pattern, the

same melodies, and we just know the melody – or the chords – so well that we sing

those automatically, and we’ll just go with whatever lyrics we know. And you’ll sing

the lyrics and you’ll stop yourself and go, ‘Wait, what?’ And you just listen to them,

you pay attention, and when you don’t – just that. You don’t pay attention because

it’s the same. Uh, Ronnie.

Ronnie: I think that most songs are like supposed to go in one ear and out the mouth

because they listen to the beat and the lyrics and say what they hear, and it goes in

their ear and out their mouth. So, yeah… Piper.

Piper: Um, I think that we get so caught up in the world around us that when we listen

to music, we don’t really, truly listen to it. We just kind of zone it out. We listen to it,

yes, but we don’t realize that we’re either listening to something bad, something

good; we don’t know what we’re putting in our brains and that could be why.

This exchange emphasized a consistent materialization of how agreement statements were

issued throughout this talk. Through discourse analysis it seems that these reiterations were

made by secure speakers, oblivious to the realization that their positions had been delivered

to the class previously. Coupled with a lack of previous speaker acknowledgement, these


moves of agreement could very well have been attributed to the coding-category of disputes.

Either the deliverers of these reiterations were unaware that the points they were making

were restatements, or they wanted to prove a point with the only positions that had surfaced

during such a dispute-heavy discussion.

In post-dialogue interviews, participants repeated that the emergence of restatements

were a major part of this talk’s dynamics. Lead-speakers and less-assertive speakers alike

summarized the discussion from the viewpoint of its cumulative properties. Cindy, a student

who passed during the talk, indicated:

People kind of like said the same thing over and over again -- how close to the beat

people pay attention.

Mallory, who contributed two moves to the discussion, echoed by saying:

Everyone agreed that we don’t listen to song lyrics because we’re too busy focusing

on the beat.

Jamie, a lead-speaker who contributed eight moves to the talk, also noticed a pattern to the

discussion:

They were kind of like saying you pay attention to the beat more than the words.

Everyone was agreeing with that.

Of the 23 participants present during Dialogue 1, only two identified the talk with the

highest rating on a Likert, post-dialogue survey. No students identified Dialogue 1’s question as

their most memorable of the 14 initiated in the four-month span of data collection. In

accordance, the 5-point, Likert survey indicated an average score of 3.0 to represent the question


posed for Dialogue 1. Coding analysis data (as shown by Table 8), researcher observations,

interviewees’ responses, and post-talk survey data collected indicated that Dialogue 1 was

generally a disputational talk, identifiable by participant disregard for the thoughts of immediate,

previous speakers. Discussing ideas together was not a goal here, as only four total exploratory

questions were uttered. Everyone did not participate, nor was it the intention of those lead-

speakers to involve all the others. What this dialogue did in fact establish was the emergence of a

set of speakers who would prove vocally secure and lead our whole-class in and out of

exploratory inquiry in dialogue chances to come.

Class Dialogue 2 – September 11, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text –

“The Heinz Dilemma (24:00).

Next, as an assessment of our whole-classes’ dynamics in thinking out loud, I chose

Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1958) seminal moral reasoning study-text, “The Heinz Dilemma”, for

read-aloud and discourse observation. The dilemma, a short one, prompts readers not only to

determine what he or she would do in Heinz’s predicament but to indicate why. Although

Kohlberg’s (1958) initial study served as an evaluation and analysis of moral constructs of

the human mind, my reasoning for choosing his dilemma-text was that it could function as a

trigger toward eliciting critical and creative engagement from this study’s participants. “The

Heinz Dilemma” reads as follows:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one

drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist

in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the

druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the


radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband,

Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means,

but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the

druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later.

But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from

if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking

into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

For “The Heinz Dilemma,” following the in-class read-aloud, I stated to the group that

this situation had a fairly obvious essential question to be answered, but that I would allow for

them to pose questions for the board. Calling on all who wished to contribute a question for his

or her K-W-L chart, I listed 12 questions for voting on the large dry-erase board. Mallory

provided the recommended question that served as a companion prompt for many discussions of

this dilemma: Should Heinz steal the drug? Remarkably, this question got the third most votes in

our class tally. Winning the vote, with 14 of 25 raised hands, was a question that I thought would

still lead us toward an exploration of Heinz’s dilemma: What would you do in Heinz’s situation?

I was concerned that the “what” lead-in might prove difficult to elicit deeper, critical reasoning;

on the other hand, the major semantics could still spark exploratory talk. My desire to follow our

rules and to provide an autonomous outlet from which to launch our discussions outweighed my

intentions to choose the dialogue question for the class.

Upon establishing our main question for discussion in Dialogue 2, I reviewed the 12

exploratory ground-rules with the class. I gave special emphasis to the guidelines that I observed

were not demonstrated from the last dialogue. Discussing things together, I claimed, was not a

priority during Dialogue 1. I announced that the materialization of only four questions of inquiry


showed that most speakers were not intent on exploring, and that most of our lead-speakers had

shown no intention of being open to new ideas. I then reiterated an addendum inserted in

Dialogue 1 regarding our policy of joining into a given talk: Students would not have to be called

upon by a previous speaker if they interrupted with a question. Interruptions would be tolerated if

the interrupting person did so with inquiry. This, I indicated, might allow for more students to

join in with the natural flow of conversation and thinking out loud.

I also informed the group that ground-rule 2 (Everybody participates.) was not adhered to

since only 14 of 23 students joined into the discourse. I reiterated that the quest to invite more

voices into our talk would increase our chances to explore and would also help to create a more

caring classroom community. I pointed out that nine students did the majority of the talking last

discussion and that this occurrence seemed to lead to greater disputes since the talk stayed

centralized amongst a select few.

Dialogue 2 lasted only three-minutes longer that did Dialogue 1. At exactly 24 minutes,

this talk registered in as the second shortest dialogue of the observed 14 talks. Initially of interest

in Dialogue 2 was the overall inclusion of 22 vocal participants. In contrast to the previous

discourse (14 of 23 participants), the outcome of Dialogue 2 indicated a more steady frequency

of non-dominate speakers. Only one student (Aaron W.) passed on speaking altogether, while

two others (Maria and Everett) were not called on to join the talk. This increase in participant-

representation was created in part by the facilitation sequence in which I employed during

Dialogue 2. Since our main question prompted students to inform the group “what” each would

do in Heinz’s situation, I made it an intention to procedurally interject when students who had

offered an explanation previously attempted to join in multiple turns before those who had

spoken once. In this discussion I found myself interrupting our lead-speakers more, prompting


them to invite in other, less-dominate speakers. My strategy here was to elicit a greater variance

of voices into our talk. The fact that 22 of 25 total participants provided at least one move to this

discourse seemed to point to a certain success in my interjection initiative.

My procedural interruptions coupled with my pre-dialogue suggestion for our lead-

speakers to involve a greater number of others did in fact initiate a more judicial start to

Dialogue 2. Judging from the excerpt that follows, dominate speakers Calvin and Elizabeth did

take initial chances to bring in students who were less involved during our first talk:

Mr. Herr: What would you do in Heinz’s situation? I’ll call on the first person, but

after that, I generally don’t call very much. Go ahead, Calvin.

Calvin: I would steal the drug, go to trial, and then, this is what is right to do, so I

could save my wife’s life – I would take whatever punishment you give to me

because it worsted saving my wife, so, you know what, give me whatever you want.

I’m just letting you know – you charge way over what it cost to make –

Mr. Herr: Calvin, I’m sorry to have to pause you, but let’s try to stay with our topic

for a little bit. If you wouldn’t mind calling on the next person.

Calvin: Yeah, sure. April.

April: Why me? Pass. Um, Ana.

Ana: I would just take the drug and leave… yeah. William.

William: All I want to say is life is more important than money, so I would want to

steal the drug to save my wife’s life, and if the druggist doesn’t want me to pay a little


or something or let me have it for free, I would still take it because it’s more

important to care about your wife. Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Okay, I have to disagree with you all just a little bit. What I would do in

the beginning – I would try to figure out where he bought the $200 drug from. So, if

you contact them, and they don’t have it – I’m sure they would – I mean where else

would they get it? I mean I’m sure they would make some more or they could tell you

where they got it from to sell it for $200, and then, if your couldn’t get it for no

matter how hard you tried, you could find that place, you could find out where they

made it or how they got it. Then I would steal the drug for my wife – or husband.

(Light laughter). Trevor.

Trevor: Um, well, if I was in that situation, I would just persuade the druggist to

maybe not sell it for $1,000 – or persuade him to lower it. Kathy.

While this exchange showed a consistent trend toward lack of acknowledgements toward

previous speakers and a greater desire for participants to shift our topic, it did indicate more of a

progression toward care – dominant speakers trying to involve those less-assertive speakers early

on in the conversation. This was a less visible occurrence throughout the previous discourse.

On the whole, Dialogue 2 could also be characterized as disputational more than

exploratory or cumulative. Sixty-four of 96 total student moves were evaluated and registered as

a move of dispute (67%). Twenty-seven of those 96 moves could be attributed to explorations

(28%), while only five total moves were delivered in agreement (5%). Table 9 indicates the order

of participants into the talk their individual moves of exploration, dispute, and agreement.


Abstaining passes from vocalizing during Dialogue 2 are also represented here. An additional

Exploration coded within Table 9 was RR, request for reasons.

Table 9

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 2: Moral Dilemma Text - “The Heinz Dilemma”


Calvin POS TS/RE/AR/NR/RE/AR/CA/AR/NR 0 0

April RR 0 1

Audrey POS RE 1 0

Ana RE/NR/RE 1 0

William POS RE/RE 1 0

Elizabeth CR/CR/POS TS/NR/AR/RB/RE/TS/AR/RE/AR 0 0

Aaron W. 0 1

Trevor POS RE 0 0

Mallory ID/POS 0 0

Kathy POS/POS RE/RE 1 0

Marcus POS AR/NR 0 0

Ron RE/TS/RE/TS/RE/AR 0 0

Tripp POS RE/NR 0 0


Aaron C. POS/POS/POS RE/RE 0 0

Cindy POS RE/RE/AR 0 0

Javier POS RE/AR/RE/AR 0 0

Piper RE/NR/RB 0 0

Jamie POS/DQ/DQ RE/RE/AR/RE 0 0

Kasey POS RE 0 0

Shannon CR RE/AR/RB/RE/AR 0 0

Becca POS RE/RE/AR 1 0

Michelle POS RE 0 0

Niles POS RB 0 0

22 speakers 27 64 5 2

Facilitator moves: Procedural interjections - 11; Substantial interjections - 9

As shown by Table 9, Explorations into what participants would do in Heinz’s situation

consisted largely of delivering positions on the topic. Exploratory positions (POS) in Dialogue 2

accounted for 20 of 27 moves (74%). Exploratory questions (RR, CR, and DQ) only contributed

to six of 27 moves (22%). The only other move attributed to exploratory talk was Mallory’s

induction/deduction (ID) verbalization. While exploration of our question was spread out over 19

of 22 participants, the act of stating a position dominated this area. Position stating, while an act

of vocalizing one’s ideas, is considered a part of exploration, positions did not aid in approaching

a more caring establishment of exploration. Inquiry, when not delivered in argumentation, had


the distinctness to hold exploration through multiple back-and-forth moves between students.

Position stating begins and ends with the self. The upcoming transcript excerpt showed a

progression of exploration consistent in Dialogue 2. In this sense, while position-giving students

vocalized their own newly constructed thoughts, those were simply presented for the group to

hear. Exploration to involve the thoughts of others was not elicited by these positions:

Mr. Herr: Javier, did you already say what you would do in Heinz’s situation?

Javier: I would steal it.

Mr. Herr: And what was your reason?

Javier: Because life is more important than money. Like Calvin said, other people

have broken the law, but it’s the right thing to do. Like breaking the law is sometimes

right; sometimes the law is unfair in other places than here.

Mr. Herr: Thank you for sharing that.

Marcus: I would have to agree with Javier. There are some pros and cons to this

situation. I think that life is more important, but there is a con to that. Say the drug

does not work, then you’d be spending your life in jail. I mean there’s pros and cons

to this situation. We just need to dig a little deeper into it to figure it out. Um, Audrey.

Audrey: I agree with Mallory. I wouldn’t steal the drug because it might not work.

Because the doctor said ‘it might save her.’ I’m not sure.

Mr. Herr: Wouldn’t you want to take a chance to save a loved one?


Audrey: Yes, but if you’re going to go to jail for stealing it, and it might not work, I

would rather make her life as comfortable as it would be since the drug that you get

might not work. Jamie.

Jamie: I have something – would you want to live with the fact that one of your loved

ones had died because you didn’t take the chance of trying to save her? Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: I have to disagree with you, Javier, because you could get the radium and

you could take it somewhere else so it could get made anywhere else. So this is the

last thing I want to say: So what I would do in this situation is I would look around,

get the radium from someone else who could actually make it into a drug and then I

would take it back to my husband slash wife and see if it works and if it didn’t work,

then – and if I couldn’t get it – I would probably steal the drug then. So I’m pretty

much in the middle.

While the position statements delivered by Javier and Marcus flowed with an air of natural

conversation, those provided by Audrey and Elizabeth represented a self-interested delivery of

beliefs on topic.

In relationship to the disputational majority of moves spoken in Dialogue 2, the previous

excerpt provided examples of the personally-focused disregard for previous speakers (RE) that

consistently identified the disputes present in Dialogue 1. While Javier and Marcus built their

respective position statements off previous ideas, Audrey, Jamie, and Elizabeth each followed

with a disrespectful neglect in the identification of previous speakers’ thoughts. This example of

lack of acknowledgement (RE) permeated Dialogue 2 with 31 of 64 moves (48%). While such


moves did not occur with the frequency as they did in Dialogue 1, near 50% of the moves in

Dialogue 2 were still initiated out of disrespect for the previous speaker’s thoughts.

As previously mentioned and as present in Table 9, Disputes contributed to 67% of the

grand total of 96 moves. Beyond the moves of disregard, argumentation (AR) attributed to 19 of

64 utterances (30%). Pockets of started arguments materialized throughout the talk at various

intervals. Aside from Cindy and Ron, 17 of the 19 arguments were initiated by those secure

speakers, identified from Dialogue 1 (Calvin, Elizabeth, Marcus, Javier, Jamie, Shannon, and

Becca). Each of these dominate speakers contributed more disputational moves than exploratory

to Dialogue 2, and this advent seemed to indicate that those who joined most in this class did so

in attempt to get points across and to win arguments. An example of such a pursuit to argue can

be realized in the following sequence:

Mr. Herr: Why is stealing okay?

Jamie: I would steal the drug, and there’s no saying that stealing’s okay, but in a

situation where a family member was dying, would you rather live knowing that you

could have saved them, living in anguish the rest of your life, or would you rather be

in jail knowing that you did everything you could? Um, Kasey.

Kasey: What I would do is not try and steal it, or I would not try and buy it. I would

just try to make the person who is dying – their life as comfortable as possible.

Shannon.

Shannon: Good, my hand is going numb. Elizabeth, I disagree with you.

Elizabeth: Ahh.


Shannon: Because he discovered the drug; he can’t buy it from somewhere else. And

if he did sell it to someone else, they would charge even more than $2,000 because

they would have to make money off that too.

Mr. Herr: Make sure that if you’re just disagreeing with somebody that you’re

disagreeing about the topic question: ‘What would you do in Heinz’s situation?’ is

our question.

Calvin: Calvin here. And I would like to disagree with Piper. Why would you give

back the money when you could leave the money where the drug is? Or when you’re

in court you could say, ‘he paid $200 to make the drug. I gave him five times that

much.’ Shouldn’t that count at least? And I could pay him back later. Shouldn’t that

count for something?

Piper: This is Piper. I have to disagree on that because it’s their money and they gave

it to you and your family member was about to die. If your family member was about

to die, and you were going to care enough to give the money. But if you’re not going

to use it for anything, then why would you keep it for yourself? It’s kind of like being

really selfish about the topic.

Calvin: Hey, Calvin here. I’m not saying that I’m keeping the money. I’m saying I’m

giving it to the druggist. And I’m giving to him to pay for it – not to keep it, to pay

for it in a way as in ‘hey, I didn’t pay enough but I still gave you half – which is still

more than you paid for it.’

Bearing in mind that the initial question in the sequence prior was a substantial one raised from

me, only Jamie took a chance to answer it. Furthermore, and perhaps more indicative of blatant


moves of disregard for the comments of previous speakers, once Jamie posed her divergent

question (one of only four total questions), the inquiry she attempted to engage was disregarded

to the extent that not one of the upcoming speakers in the sequence made even the remotest

move to return to it. While on-topic, Kasey seemed to be responding to the original question – as

if she had been waiting anxiously to speak, and once she finally got her chance, she simply

uttered forth the idea she had been constructing since the beginning. Shannon, likewise, was

speaking in hopes of returning back to a previous idea to argue it. Calvin wanted also to initiate

an argument with Piper, who last joined in before my question at the beginning of the sequence.

Seemingly, small battles were initiated ever so slightly on the topic of what should be done in a

case like Heinz’s. Inquiry and exploration were all but shut-down aside from slight, sporadic

moves of position that were delivered by way of procedural pleas from me to the group.

Thinking out loud during Dialogue 2 was expressed more out of self-interest.

Moves of agreement were thusly absent more so in Dialogue 2 than in Dialogue 1. When

delivered, utterances of agreement were done so at the beginning or end of participant moves of

position or argumentation. Four of the five agreement moves materialized as attachments to

longer speeches. Only Ana spoke distinctly to agree with Michelle at one point during the talk:

Ana: Wait, I would like to agree with Michelle that the drug might not work, so just

try to make their life comfortable.

Ana initially made this move without regard for the speaker before her, and seemed to identify

Michelle as the originator of the idea even though Kasey had first uttered the thought about

helping the dying to achieve comfort.


As facilitator trying to model our progression through and adherence to our 12 ground-

rules, I posed a procedural question to find out if the class, after 20 students had engaged, could

come to an agreement about what they would do in Heinz’s situation. It was more of an

opportunity to reset the talk, knowing that many moves of dispute indicated a solid division in

the classroom. Also, I posed the agreement-check question to reflect Kohlberg’s original inquiry

in order to see if a slight alteration of our question’s syntax might elicit more in the way of

exploration. My change seemed to trigger more position statements than before (as a prior

excerpt sequence noted), yet only a couple of minutes after the agreement-check I had to end the

talk due to time constraints. My procedural check for agreement went as follows:

Mr. Herr: Thank you. I would like to do an agreement check in the room. So, raise

your hand if you believe Heinz should steal the drug. Hands down, now – about 15 of

you. Raise your hand now if you believe Heinz should not steal the drug.

Elizabeth: Is there other?

Mr. Herr: Okay, about eight. Raise your hand if you feel somewhere in between those

two. Alright, thank you for your hands. (About three hands for ‘other’) I did that to

check to see if how we’re hitting on any sort of agreements. We still have groups of

people who feel differently about this, so, who was our last speaker? You, Becca?

Please feel free to call on the next.

In summary, respect for ideas was generally neglected for the sake of laying claims for

argumentation and/or rebuttal. Dominate speakers seemed intent on trying to debate while those

less secure with joining in became even less apt to engage. Because of the barrage of

argumentative volleys and a disregard for inquiry and ideas, members hoping to explore seemed


to find it disheartening to try. Not one less-assertive speaker joined in Dialogue 2 on more than

two occasions. However, as indicated by a post-dialogue survey, Dialogue 2 averaged a 3.7 on a

5-point Likert scale summoning participants to designate how memorable it was. In contrast,

Dialogue 1 received a Likert mean of 3.0. When interviewed after the talk, perhaps Elizabeth

summed up the classes’ perception when asked about the most interesting part of the dialogue to

her:

Arguing, I guess.

Class Dialogue 3 – September 19, 2014, Traditional/Classical Fiction – “The

Necklace” (28:30).

Our next whole-class talk stemmed from a central question related to Guy de

Maupassant’s translated short story, “The Necklace” (2011). This story is recommended for

study by seventh-graders at CKA; it is included within the canon of the Core Knowledge

curriculum. It is the tale of a pretty, young newlywed who is unhappy with her social position in

life. Growing up, her experiences led her to believe that she would later live a life in the upper

class of Parisian society. However, her eventual marriage to a clerk of the middle class brought

her to the realization that she is stuck where she is in society. Mathilde’s depression does not

brighten any when, one evening, her husband brings home from work an exclusive invitation to a

party thrown by the Minister of Education. She claims she has nothing impressive enough to

wear around such wealthy and important people who will be in attendance at the party.

Mathilde’s husband, intent on making her happy, permits her to use savings of his own for the

purchase of a rightful gown, fit for the event. Still, only days before the party, Mathilde is moody

again; she is distraught by the fact that she has no jewel to wear around her neck for the party.


She is concerned that she will look poor around other women of the upper class. Prompted by her

husband, Mathilde pursues the idea of visiting her old friend, Mdm. Forestier, married into

wealth and the procurer of many jeweled accessories. Finding the perfect diamond necklace at

Forestier’s, Mathilde is happy and confident as she attends the party; she is the hit of the evening

– dancing with many important men until 4:00 am while her husband sleeps waiting in the foyer

of the party hall. Finally home from the party and reliving her evening of glory in her mind, in

her mirror, Mathilde comes to the sudden awareness that the borrowed diamond necklace is

missing from her neck. In panic, Mathilde sends her husband out into the night to retrace their

steps, but returning without success in finding it, he fashions a plan to stall the return of the jewel

to Mathilde’s friend. For a week following the ordeal, the husband borrows inheritance, makes

promises to friends, and deals with suspicious lenders all to purchase an identical necklace

valued at 36,000 francs. Once procuring the new, replacement necklace, Mathilde “returns” it to

her friend, sorry for any inconvenience. The story’s falling action details in summation the

hardships the couple endures for the ten years’ time it takes in paying back their enormous debt.

Mathilde, during this time of hardship is described as having become a hard, calloused, and burly

woman, used to the chores befallen upon women who are without social class. One day, out for a

stroll, her debts paid in full, Mathilde comes upon her friend, Mdm. Forestier. Forestier does not

recognize Mathilde at first and inquires as to what had become of her friend all these years.

Mathilde, content with the paying of the debt, explains the truth to Forestier upon which her

friend reveals to Mathilde that the borrowed jewel was merely fake. Here, the reader for the first

time, realizes that Mathilde and her husband spent much time, effort, and money over a missing

piece of costume jewelry, and that Mathilde wasted precious years of her life toiling to pay a

debt that did not necessitate such effort.


Following our read-aloud and the initial portion of the K-W-L chart, students submitted

questions to me for inclusion on the dry-erase board. Once again, as with Dialogue 2, a

seemingly more obvious question such as: “Could the situation with the missing necklace have

been handled differently?” was provided but not widely accepted by the class. Shannon’s query:

“Why did Mathilde marry a clerk if she was unhappy with her social position in life?” received

15 of 25 participant votes and became our main question of discussion. I had doubts that this

question would prompt participants to delve into issues associated with the essential theme of the

story, yet since this question began with a word necessary for critical engagement (Why), I made

no attempt to question its validity. Also, since part of my role of being a facilitator to these talks

was to allow for autonomous opportunities to exist within a Community of Inquiry setting,

student queries, even when they seemingly bent away from my initial intentions, were accepted

and explored.

The reiteration of our 12 ground-rules was reviewed more quickly this time. However, I

did spend more time on rules 4 and 5: the two norms that prompt respect for ideas. I indicated

that during the last dialogue, interruptions were more frequent and that speakers with “the floor”

should have a chance to finish his or her thought completely before another joins in to speak. I

pointed out that a speaker’s acknowledgement of the person’s thoughts who came immediately

before were essential to the promotion of care into our dialogues. Also, in close relationship to

this issue, I pointed out that as of late, several of our speakers were joining in to rebut against a

point that was made some time back into the talk. Realizing that students may not be called on

immediately upon raising a hand, I suggested that they continue listening intently, especially to

the speaker of the moment so that once called upon, they are not speaking in total disregard to

the person before. I insisted that all participant’s thoughts are important to our discussion, and


that an individual’s pressing thoughts should definitely be delivered but perhaps after they have

at least acknowledged an opinion about the person’s ideas who spoke before them.

With the norms reviewed, Dialogue 3 got off to an inauspicious start. Dominate speakers

immediately took to argumentation, shifting away from the main question. It was several minutes

into the discussion before a less-secure speaker (Everett) was called upon to join. Yet, as shown

by Everett in the previous two talks, he passed, and lead-speaker argumentation continued to

skirt the topic for several more minutes.

Whether it was an obtuseness of syntax attributed to our main question or the fact that

this dialogue had to be enacted several days after the in-class read-aloud, or a combination of

both, the lowest number of student moves for any of our 14 observed dialogues was recorded

here. Seventy-three student moves were delivered over the course of 28 minutes, 30 seconds –

our most time consuming dialogue of the first three. Like the two talks prior, Dialogue 3

revolved heavily around disputational moves as opposed to exploratory or cumulative

expressions. Forty-six of 73 moves (63%) were uttered in dispute, 23 of 73 in exploration (32%),

and only four of 73 in agreement (5%). A total of 16 of 25 students present joined in vocally, yet

only seven different students contributed more than three moves to this discourse. Five students

were asked to join but did not, leaving four others who were not called upon or who chose not to

join of their own accord. Table 10 displays the discourse coding breakdown of speakers and their

moves made in Dialogue 3.

Table 10

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 3: Classical Fiction - “The Necklace”



Calvin POS AR/AR/RE/NR/NR/RE/AR/AR/AR 1 0

Aaron C. POS/POS/POS AR/RE/AR/AR/RB 1 0

Shannon POS/ID RE/AR/NR/RE 0 0

Javier POS RB 0 0

Marcus POS AR/AR/RE/NR 0 0

Everett 0 2

Becca POS/DQ RE/RE/AR/RE/RE/TS/AR 0 0

Kathy RR AR/NR 1 0

Cindy 0 1

Jamie AR 0 0

Piper POS/AQ RE/RB/RB 0 0

Kasey POS 0 1

Elizabeth rr 0 1

Tripp rr 0 1

William POS/DQ/DQ/DQ AR/AR/RE/RE/RE 0 0

Maria RE/AR 0 0

Aaron W. ID RE 0 0

Mallory POS AR 1 0

Audrey POS RE 0 0


Michelle 0 1

16 speakers 23 46 4 7


At a mere glance of Table 10, there appears to exist an even spread of contributors. While

15 of the 20 participants’ names on the list supplied a move of exploration, a concentration of

moves still subsists in the upper area of the table. This seems indicative that confident, dominate

speakers (as evident in Dialogues 1 and 2) controlled the pace and structure of Dialogue 3 as

well. Perhaps misleading were three exploratory moves from participants who did not join on-

topic. At different points in the dialogue, Kathy, Elizabeth, and Tripp passed on a chance to

speak but, in turn, called on a student who had not been asked previously to speak. To me, as

researcher, the act of passing and then immediately calling on a student not yet participatory

specified a request for reasoning (rr). Not quite qualifying as an inquiry request, passing a turn to

allow for a non-participant to join still seemed exploratory – in a sense, ground-rule 2

(Everybody participates.) was being aided along. Since moves requesting another’s reasons are

deemed to be exploratory, these non-moves on-topic still registered in the Explorations column.

In the upcoming excerpt, Elizabeth and Tripp each pass but then “request reasons” (rr) from a

less-assertive speaker or a non-participant in their turns to choose the next talker:

Marcus: I agree with Piper and Kathy. I think she didn’t want it bad enough, so she

didn’t take the action like probably Mdm. Forestier. Like they said – she daydreamed;

she never actually took the action to what it’s like to be needed. Um, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Pass. Tripp.


Tripp: Pass. William.

William: Well, I think she tried to marry an upper class person, and she did. This

Loisel or whatever became fired or demoted. Um, Calvin.

Explorations during this dialogue, while limited to 23 of 73 moves, did increase slightly

from the two previous talks to 32%. Most moves of exploration once again were delivered as

position statements in answer to why the character of Mathilde, in her perpetual unhappiness,

married a clerk. Of the 23 exploratory moves, 13 position statements were uttered (57%). The

number of inquiries made was scant at five moves, and the percentage of questions delivered was

22%. At its most exploratory, Dialogue 3 featured a back-and-forth, on-topic quest by speakers

of confidence to answer the main question. The following sequence showed how exploration, at

its best here, was exhibited:

Mr. Herr: Thank you, Kathy, and are you wanting to answer William’s question?

Kathy: Well, kind of. Um, I think that if she didn’t like what her husband did, since I

don’t think she wouldn’t have gotten a job because she – I don’t know. Mallory.

Mallory: Okay, William, to answer your question. Why couldn’t she just get a job

because she was unhappy with how much money her husband made? I don’t think

because in those days women didn’t really get high, important jobs. Like you didn’t

really see a lot of women in government and politics, so I don’t think she could have

gotten a very important high paying job. She could have gotten jobs like, I don’t

know, doing laundry or cooking or sewing things, but she couldn’t have gotten a

higher-up job. So, um, Javier.


Javier: I would agree with you because they were still in like the middle class and

they couldn’t just get a high class job because of what class they are. So she couldn’t

just go get a job that would make a lot of money. She would have to be in a specific

class to get that type of job. But she was a middle class like sort of all clerks. Kasey.

Kasey: I also would have to agree with you because back then women really weren’t

allowed to get good jobs. They could probably be dress-makers and that was about

the highest thing you could be. Um, Aaron.

Aaron: Okay, Aaron C. I’m agreeing with you because – but there is very little jobs

women could have had back then, and (I know, I know – I’m just saying the same

thing) and in the middle class you probably had very, very, very little chance of – I’m

talking about men – to get a high class job. It’s like if you were a minor clerk, you’re

probably not going to end up being the principal – I don’t know – like that’s an

example. But –

Mr. Herr: Aaron, try real hard when you join in again to offer something new.

Here, the students involved remained on-topic for five moves. Albeit brief and the only example

of such a sequence delivered in Dialogue 3, the excerpt exemplified how conversation can be

sustained by participants in pursuit of respectful exploration. Although this selection showed

moves of agreement interspersed by Kasey and Aaron within the thoughts of exploration, the aim

of participants in this sequence was to understand the views of others. The succession occurred

roughly two-thirds of the way through this 28 minute talk. Before and after, argumentation and

continued disregard for prior speakers was the standard.


As indicated by Table 10, Disputes were not simply centralized amongst a few speakers

during Dialogue 3. Fifteen of 16 participants offered at least one move in dispute. More

specifically, 10 different students delivered two or more disputational utterances. Also during

this dialogue, the percentage of moves indicating a lack of previous-speaker acknowledgement

(RE) were down to 37%. The two dialogues prior established such speaker-disregard at 46% and

48% of all dispute moves, respectively. In accordance to evidence that lack of acknowledgement

moves were fewer, utterances exemplifying argumentation in Dialogue 3 rose to 39%, as 18 of

46 moves registered as arguments. Of the nine students who initiated argumentation during the

talk, eight had previously been identified as secure or dominant speakers from other dialogues.

Only Maria instigated argumentation as a non-dominant speaker.

Narrative sequences that exhibited argumentation combined with rebuttal moves totaled

22 of 46 disputational moves (48%) – up from the totals identified from the previous two talks.

Dialogue 3, more than the other two talks analyzed, was exemplified by argumentation and

showed consistent shifts away from our main question topic. As made evident in the following

selection, the dominant-participants’ will to win arguments (even those that drift off-topic) was

stronger than a will to offer consistent inquiry or positions on-topic:

Aaron: I think you make a good point, but I think she was forced to marry the clerk

because practically, this was like the 1800s, and back then the parents would like plan

a marriage.

Calvin: It was the turn of the century.

Many: Shh.


Aaron: For wealth or whatever. But since she’s beautiful, I think she would be able to

get a rich person if she had a choice.

Calvin: I have to disagree with that because in the story it said that she looked for

someone famous. But at that time it didn’t happen all that much in a different area

like Asia; I’m not quite sure. But it wasn’t in that very area that it happened all that

much.

Mr. Herr: Calvin, please call on the next person.

Calvin: Shannon.

Shannon: Um, if you think about it, the story really doesn’t say that she is unhappy

about marrying the husband. She’s not happy with her husband and her place in

society, but she’s never showing any extreme disrespect or hate toward her husband.

Mr. Herr: Shannon, did you vote for this question?

Shannon: No.

Mr. Herr: Okay. You may call on the next.

Shannon: Javier.

Javier: I disagree with that because when he came home and gave her the envelope,

she started being rude and telling him what will she wear and that’s really

disrespectful because the husband worked really hard to get that envelope. That’s

proof that she was disrespectful to her husband. Marcus.


Marcus: I agree with Javier because she used to daydream about other guys and how

she could become rich, and she wasn’t happy with her husband or the place in society

where she was. But I disagree with you, Shannon because she wasn’t also happy with

her husband either. Um, Everett.

Everett: Pass. Aaron.

Aaron: Okay, in the first paragraph it doesn’t say anything about looking for a

prosperous and famous husband, and then it says he was a minor clerk in the Ministry

of Education. So she was daydreaming about marrying a rich and famous person. She

never really looked for one.

Mr. Herr: I appreciate you looking into the text for your answer, Aaron. Thank you.

Aaron: Becca.

Becca: I think that I don’t think she was really happy with her husband because if she

was actually open minded about the banquet, she would actually see that how nice he

was to get her that envelop and get her invited to it ‘cause he could just let somebody

else have the envelop instead of him actually having an invitation to go to a banquet

that she had always dreamed about. But she has to go and say, ‘Well, I don’t have

anything to wear. What am I going to wear?’ She had to be rude about it and didn’t

understand how blessed she was with all of the things she had. She had food; she had

water; she had a home. And she has to go nag on her husband because she doesn’t

have any clothes or jewelry. Um, Kathy.


Kathy: I would have to disagree with that because to me that’s an opinion, but at the

same time, I guess I am disagreeing and agreeing with you because she’s not really

grateful, but yet again, these are opinions, so… Cindy.

As can be determined from this last sequence, students who delivered moves in argumentation

and rebuttal seemed to be drifting away from answering the main question. As facilitator, most

of my interjections were made as procedural deliveries to keep the talk moving on-topic. By a

ratio of three-to-one (12 procedural to 4 substantial moves), I joined in. Such a difference gap in

facilitator talk seems to demonstrate my focus on keeping the dialogue civil, on-topic, or on-

pace.

Also as shown, most participants during the last excerpt (aside from Aaron C. and Becca)

answered another question: Why didn’t Mathilde get along with her husband? This may have

been due to misunderstanding the context intended by the main question or a desire to make

points regardless of its context. In a post-dialogue interview, perhaps Piper and Marcus exhibited

this confusion best with an “answer” to the question – What are your thoughts about why

Mathilde married a clerk if she despised the middle class?:

Piper: People said there was stuff where she treated him badly and that’s why she

didn’t love him. So, um, she didn’t treat him badly because she didn’t love him; it was

because it was her own fault that she treated people badly because of how she felt

about herself.

Marcus: Mathilde just daydreamed her life away; she never actually tried to do

anything about it. And she never tried like Mdm. Forestier – tried hard enough. She

didn’t want it bad enough. She would daydream her life away.


Through these off-topic responses, the disputational excerpt prior, and the low overall count of

spoken moves, there is strong indication that entering, vocal participants were confused by the

contextual meaning of the main question. This evidence begs the question: How did our winning

question get the majority of the class votes if it was difficult to understand? The participants

perhaps wondered the same as indicated by the Likert mean taken from a post-dialogue survey.

When surveyed about the quality of the question prompting Dialogue 3, students collectively

established a mean score of 2.8 of 5.0 – the lowest mean established from our first three

dialogues of Thinking Out Loud.

Class Dialogue 4 – September 29, 2014: Factual Narrative – “Shooting an Elephant”

(26:56).

Our fourth interaction emerged following a read-aloud of George Orwell’s famous first-

person account of his times as a member of the Indian Imperial Police in Lower Burma,

“Shooting an Elephant” (2011). Orwell’s job, as detailed in the rising action, was to respond to

the death of a local man who was killed by an elephant that was in a frenzied state of must.

Orwell felt the collective will of a large crowd of townspeople urging him to shoot the elephant,

but, knowing that the elephant was probably no longer dangerous, had no intentions of shooting

the creature. Despite Orwell’s distaste for shooting the elephant, he suddenly became aware that

he would lose face and become humiliated if he did not shoot it. Orwell shot the elephant, but the

barrage of shots fired only seemed to deeply wound the creature. Finally, Orwell, unable to

completely kill the elephant and unable to watch and listen to its final sufferings, went away. At

the last, Orwell admitted to the reader that he was relieved that a local Burman was trampled

because it gave him a pretext for shooting the elephant. Fellow officers insisted that he did the


right thing; natives believed that he saved face. Orwell, however, concluded that he shot the

elephant solely to avoid looking like a fool.

Once student-questions were submitted to the board, it became apparent that an obvious

moral-reasoning query had been included by Javier into the grouping: Did George do the right

thing? Personally, this question was my favorite as I thought it would engage participants into a

depth of thinking out loud not yet witnessed in previous talks. Such prompts that dictate

responders toward choosing a side and then allow for extending their opinions through reasoning

seem ideal for laying the foundation for exploratory talk. Yet in holding with my frame toward

constructing an autonomous setting, I chose not to promote this question above the others. As

was the case, two of eleven questions listed made it to a run-off vote. The question, “Why didn’t

he do something about people being mean to him?” received six run-off votes in comparison to

the 17 votes obtained by the winning query: “Was not being humiliated worth the death of a

living creature?”

Following the vote, the focus of my ground-rules review was to highlight the lack of

participation absent in Dialogue 3. I continued to suggest that participation to me was more than

simply listening intently; it also involved engaging vocally in such a way as to explore a question

in greater depth. I insisted that those who were shy about talking might actually be waiting to be

called upon, desiring a request for their opinions. Even then, I noted, if those less-assertive

speakers did not wish to talk, they could always pass to another who might be willing to take the

floor. This scrutiny of ground-rule 2 (Everyone participates.) may have served as a reminder to

some during the talk since 19 of 25 students participated vocally – three more than did during

Dialogue 3. One participant, Kasey, raised her hand to be acknowledged just so she could call on

somebody who had not yet spoken.


While it was heartening to observe more vocal participants involved during Dialogue 4, it

was equally discouraging to note the goals of a majority of our speakers: dispute. Participation,

although spread out more from dominant to non-dominant speakers (as indicated by evidence of

a greater number who registered a vocal move), became centralized, especially in dispute among

nine dominant-talkers. These lead-speakers, more than during any other dialogue prior, took

chances to interrupt each other to argue supposed points. Also here, more than during other

observed talks, students were keen on venturing off-topic if there was an argument in which to

enter. It seemed that within Dialogue 4, slight shifts off-topic navigated the entire talk onto

different pathways altogether – away from any hopeful exploration of the original question.

Participants here were vocally willing to disregard the comments of others with ridicule: a

brashness not yet witnessed in previous talks. Secure-speakers Kathy and Jamie even went so far

as to engage in a side, whispering conversation in admonishment of certain comments in which

they disagreed. Of the 93 total student moves recorded during Dialogue 4, sixty of those were

delivered in dispute (65%). While consistent in percentage with the disputational evidence from

the other talks, this dialogue was made identifiable through strong argumentation, as 71% of all

disputational talk surfaced in the form of arguments, rebuttals, and counter-arguments.

Explorations were made meagerly and attributed to 23 of the 93 total moves (25%). Consistent

with exploratory moves witnessed in previous dialogues, most Explorations (14 of 23) came in

the form of position statements (61%). Questions of inquiry attributed to only 17% of

Explorations. Table 11 presents the discourse coding indicator for the Dialogue 4.

Table 11


Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 4 – “Shooting an Elephant”


Becca ID TS/RB/AR/AR/AR/RB 2 0

Niles POS RE/AR/AR 2 0

Ron AR/TS/AR/CA 1 0

Shannon POS/DQ/AQ/POS RB/CA/RB/RE 0 0

Jamie POS RB/AR/AR/AR 0 0

William TS/AR/NR/TS/RB/RB 0 0

Marcus CR AR/AR/AR/AR/AR 0 0

Audrey 0 1

Kathy RE/AR/AR 2 0

Everett 0 2

Aaron C. POS/POS/RR TS/AR/RA/AR/AR/AR/RB/NR/AR/AR 0 0

Calvin POS/POS AR/AR/RB/RB/AR/NR/AR/NR/NR 2 0

Cindy DQ/POS 1 0

Kasey RB/AR/TS 0 0

Michelle 0 1

Tripp 0 1

April POS 0 0

Trevor RE/AR 0 0


Mallory POS/POS RE 0 0

Aaron W. RR 0 1

Ana RR/RR 0 2

Piper POS 0 0

Javier POS 0 0

Maria 0 1

19 speakers 23 60 10 9


Visually, the array of disputes was again centered in the upper region of the table – indicative

that non-exploratory moves were more prevalent in the moves of our lead-speakers. The same

array was not present visually in regard to Explorations. While several dominant-speakers

uttered exploratory moves, the groupings of Explorations are not dependably present and isolated

as much with those secure participants. Lower in the table, there is present a noticeable drop in

disputational moves, while there remains a consistent row of single explorations extending

toward the bottom. There was reason to believe that during Dialogue 4 (as with other talks),

those participants who took the most chances to speak were more likely to deliver moves of

dispute. This revelation hints toward an idea that the initial structure of these dialogues

themselves triggered more Disputes than Explorations. Seemingly, vocal responses coincided in

accordance with the perceived context of our main questions. If an initial misunderstanding of

the question took place, then the likelihood that a shift away from its intended context would

generally occur as well. These confusions, in turn, were likely to lead to off-topic utterances that


were recognized by a few – a few whose concern for dispute became stronger than their concern

for exploration. The following excerpt indicated the initial point in the talk, the beginning,

whereby a misunderstanding by a lead-speaker triggered a steady flow of off-topic

argumentation, rebuttals, and counter-argumentation:

Mr. Herr: Was not being humiliated worth the death of a living creature? Becca, what

would you like to say?

Becca: I think that the elephant should have lived because George was being selfish,

and he never really took into consideration what the animal thought. Just think of the

elephant as a cute, little puppy. It has the same kind of situation as that and if he

would have gotten the consideration of what the elephant would have done – if he

would leave it alone and the person who took care of it came back – sure he would

have been made fun of but he would have done the actual right thing. Niles.

Niles: Like elephants shouldn’t be killed if it’s for the sake of humiliating, but they

should be killed because it killed another person. It should be killed but not for

humiliating. Ron.

Ron: Okay, cute little puppies don’t kill people – (laughter) and, um…

Shannon: Ron, I’d like to disagree with you –

Mr. Herr: Hold on just a moment. Ron, were you finished with your thought?

Ron: Um, oh yeah, and you left him alone, he might have killed another person or

like the whole town or go to India and kill everybody there.


Becca: I’d like to disagree with you. This is Becca. Um, puppies can kill people.

(Unidentifiable ‘Oh my gosh!’) If you left the elephant alone, like it said, it was out of

its state of must, it would have probably just stayed there and ate grass and laid down

and sleep or something. It wouldn’t have gone a rampaged because it was over it

already. Jamie.

Jamie: Even if it was a cute little puppy, it doesn’t matter what it is or who it is, if it

killed somebody, then I think it’s alright to kill it. Shannon.

Shannon: I disagree with you, Jamie, because what if it was an accident. It was

completely out of its mind. It was like it didn’t even see the man coming; it just

trampled him without knowing it. It kept going but it wasn’t on purpose.

Jamie: Listen, if you were messing around with a blindfold – you still killed

somebody.

Shannon: But it was an accident.

Mr. Herr: Your disagreement is fun and all, but shouldn’t we hear more ideas before

we get into this back-and-forth?

Shannon: William.

William: I would like to say that if it was a little puppy – even though it can’t kill

someone unless it thought your hand was a sausage. (Smattering of laughter).

Mr. Herr: I’m going to call a timeout and redirect the class to our question – our

question is number 11: Was not being humiliated worth the death of the elephant –


from the story, “Shooting an Elephant?” William, you may consider calling on

somebody else.

William: Marcus.

Marcus: Okay, so I kind of agree with Becca, but then I kind of don’t. Comparing it

to a puppy – think about it. An elephant and then a small puppy dog. Um, Audrey.

Audrey: Pass. Kathy.

In this sequence, Becca immediately began to drift away from our main question and

seemingly answered the question: Did Orwell do the right thing? Aside from the next speaker,

Niles, the others in the selection latched onto Becca’s off-topic analogy comparing the elephant

to a puppy and commenced to hold exploration at bay with a definitive concern over whether or

not the elephant-to-puppy comparison was a valid one. The selection highlighted the collective

mental force of our dominant-speakers and how easily they could be led off-topic – mere

moments after a detailed review of the 12 ground-rules. It wasn’t until Niles and Cindy, two of

our less-dominant speakers, reset the talk by providing clarity about the main question. It was not

until then that Dialogue 4 registered a sequence of exploratory moves. Even so, moments later

the insertion of analogies again caused a shift from exploration to dispute. Apt comparisons

offered by Shannon and Aaron C. began to receive greater scrutiny than the content of the main

prompt, and more quips of argumentation materialized:

Mr. Herr: Timeout, please. Niles, what would you like to say about our topic?

Niles: So, I totally disagree with this guy. (Much laughter). First, of all, of course it’s

the elephant doesn’t really deserve to live its life because of humiliation, but it did kill


a person and it’s not something controllable. Still, other humans might be able to

pursuit that guy, but it’s an elephant and you couldn’t really do anything about it. And

even if it’s an accident, it’s still dangerous. If a person killed someone accidentally,

do you just let them go? No, you don’t. And the person who died would be also

important. So I think it deserves to be killed.

Mr. Herr: Niles, do look around the room and call on someone who maybe hasn’t

joined us yet.

Niles: Cindy.

Cindy: So you’d rather not kill an elephant, but wouldn’t you be humiliated by the

rest of your life by not killing that animal? If you killed the animal, you would be

trans —

Shannon: If you killed an animal, you would be humiliated for the rest of your life –

because people forget. And another thing, everybody’s kind of getting off topic. I’m

doing a kind of analogy. What if some guy dumped your dad off the roof or

something? (Smattering of laughter).

Calvin: What?!

Shannon: I’m not saying it would happen but – and people say you should do it

because they killed your dad, and you’d be embarrassed if you didn’t. It was an

accident. Is it really worth not being humiliated?

Aaron C: Shannon, this is Aaron by the way. Okay, so that’s totally different because

it’s humans and there’s laws where you’ll go to jail for 10 years or whatever. You


won’t just be shot with an elephant rifle because you accidently pushed someone’s

dad off of a roof. Because the elephant was uncontrollable and he could have started

going on another rampage again. So, yeah, your analogy is false.

Calvin: I agree with that.

Aaron C: Uh, Kasey.

Kasey: You guys are all comparing elephants to humans. I mean humans at least have

a chance to get lawyers to go against and actually be free; animals have no choice.

Marcus.

Marcus: So what you guys are saying is your saying that a human’s life is more

important than an animal’s life? Is that what you’re saying?

Ron: Humans are animals.

Marcus: Thank you.

Aaron C: Duh!

Calvin: I have to – have to --

Mr. Herr: You will be called on by the previous speaker, or you will not join us.

At the beginning of this selection, Niles and Cindy pursued the gist of our main question

and even initiated exploration from a lead-speaker, Shannon. From the point of her analogous-

delivery, the sequence began to trigger a bevy of arguments and rebuttals. Calvin, Aaron C., and

Ron seemed to represent a side against Kasey and Shannon, causing the sequence, and the rest of

the discussion to progress toward an off-topic debate. Only single, sporadic inserts of position


statements (POS) and requests for reasoning questions (RR) materialized throughout the rest of

the talk. Even 6 of 10 Agreements were delivered in support of arguments that drifted away from

the main prompt.

When asked during the post-dialogue interview whether or not constant disagreeing was a

good part of our talks, all five interviewees confessed that it was. Jamie professed understanding

a relationship that exists between disagreement and the delivery of ideas:

If everybody agreed on something, then there wouldn’t be something to talk about. So

it’s good to have different ideas.

William went so far as to equate disagreement with providing a service to the person being

disagreed with:

If you disagree with someone, they can be able to change their answer and make it to

where an idea was changed to help the question being answered.

Becca epitomized the students’ ideals about the benefits of disagreement to the process of

exploration by claiming that disagreement could actually be perceived as exploration – if such

argumentation was done respectfully:

Say, ‘I fully don’t believe in what you’re saying.’ We’ve had a lot of people say, ‘I

disagree with you, I disagree with you.’ I think they’re being stubborn and what they

think is right is what he should have done. Like, really, they’re not opening up to

changing their idea and their perspective on what he should have done.

The students further iteratively supported the interview claims regarding Dialogue 4 during the

post-dialogue survey. As indicated by a Likert survey inquiring about memorable qualities of


Dialogue 4’s prompt, one-third of the class rated the question with a top-score of five. The

average rating on the scale was comparable to that received by “The Heinz Dilemma” prompt at

3.7. Becca, who provided our main question for Dialogue 4, even indicated on her exit survey

that “Was not being humiliated worth the death of a living creature?” was the best overall

question of the 14 prompts observed.

Class Dialogue 5 – October 3, 2014: Non-Textual Generated Topic (35:45).

Our prompt for Dialogue 5 was generated entirely from participants who posed questions

onto the classes’ social learning website, Edmodo®. Ten student-questions submitted on or

before the morning of October 3 were scribed onto the main dry-erase board for voting. Three

questions received nine votes each, while our chosen topic garnered 10 votes: Which school is

better, Texas Leadership Academy or Core Knowledge Academy? Unlike the student-generated

question chosen from Dialogue 1, I, as facilitator, did not provide any suggestions of possible

topics to choose for Dialogue 5.

The topic chosen, an issue understood by students to be important because of its

relationship to matters of competition between rival charter schools, did not remarkably trigger

an overwhelming bias favoring Core Knowledge Academy. Due to the recent enrollment at CKA

of two former students of Texas Leadership Academy (Marcus and Michelle), our class featured

participants who spoke from experiences about both schools. In turn, many other CKA-specific

students in our group called upon Marcus and Michelle to offer up information and explanations.

Not indicative during previous talks, Dialogue 5 provided a forum not dominated early by our

common lead-speakers. Dominate speakers still accounted for most moves (70 of 122 total), yet

other less-assertive speakers seemed poised to become involved earlier than in dialogues prior.


Specifically, April, Michelle, Trevor, and Cindy joined in vocally quicker than in any other

previous talk – even without my normal, procedural prompting of dominant-speakers to allow

others to join in. For Michelle, engagement throughout Dialogue 5 was due to the fact that

talking about her former school, TLA, held relevance to her life. For April, Trevor, and Cindy, I

can speculate that their offerings during Dialogue 5 had more to do with comfort. These three

students are not strong critical readers, and for each of them to engage more substantially here

than in other talks indicated their comfort in speaking about a topic in which reference points

were a matter of lived experiences – not a matter of textual comprehension. Moreover, with an

absence of early procedural prompting from me (as facilitator), more substantial, exploratory

questions (9) were interjected during Dialogue 5. This was the most insertion of substantial

moves from me since Dialogue 2 (“The Heinz Dilemma”).

My ground-rules review delivered before Dialogue 5 consisted of providing a summary

of the last talk, highlighting issues of disrespect that stemmed from participants making fun of

unclear and uncommon analogies. I made a point to focus this pre-dialogue review on the noted

problems participants struggled with in regard to respecting general and unclear ideas. I also

addressed the absence of inquiring questions by indicating that rule 9 (Be prepared to change

your mind.) really applied to our lead-speakers who were initiating more arguments than

explorations, and that to understand Thinking Out Loud as a debate was to miss the point of our

discussions. I emphasized that our talks were designed to create a community of care and

questioning: a chance for everybody present to gain an understanding from thinking together out

loud.

In comparison to previous talks, Dialogue 5 prompted a greater number of vocal

participants at twenty-two. Previously, only Dialogue 2 had elicited as many. Only one student


passed on speaking altogether (Everett), and two students went uncalled on (Ana and Tripp).

Twelve speakers offered three or more moves throughout the talk, and, as mentioned earlier, nine

dominant-speakers were more dispersed and spread out during the course of this near thirty-six

minute discussion. For the first time in the observed dialogues, participants delivered more than

one-hundred moves, topping out at 122. Dialogue 5 was still most defined by disputes, as the

total number of moves (75) registered at the lowest percentage of our talks yet (61%). Likewise,

a greater number of exploratory moves (41) contributed to its highest percentage yet at 33%.

More than being defined by disputational moves, Dialogue 5 was most identifiable by the

contributions of two participants: Marcus and Michelle. Serving the class with the knowledge of

experience, these former students of a rival school, TLA, were summoned often by others in

attendance to state opinions that might offer rare insights. Interestingly, starting with Becca near

the half-way point in the talk, once Marcus and Michelle were brought into the discourse, the

exploratory nature of the discussion became evident. Participants generally still missed out on

respectful acknowledgement of previous speakers during this sequence; however, there seemed

to materialize more of a thirst for inquiry, especially from Becca and Elizabeth. While the

upcoming sequence indicated distinct moves in exploration, it also allowed Marcus and Michelle

to fall into some disputing banter as they tried to flesh-out conflicting details from their

collective memories:

Becca: I have a question for Marcus and Michelle: Is it actually true, what I’ve heard

from some people, that TLA had problems with, uh, bringing drugs and alcohol and

doing that –

Michelle: Yeah.


Marcus: Just drugs. Which is not very good either but, yeah, drugs.

Becca: Uh, Michelle.

Michelle: Um, back to the education. Back in 5th grade, I was having trouble learning

all the 6th grade stuff, so when I went to 6th grade, they teached that grade, so it was a

lot easier. I got a better explanation of stuff in math, and yeah – Aaron.

Aaron C.: --

Becca: I have a question for you guys, Marcus and Michelle: Did they have high

school credits at TLA?

Michelle: Yes.

Becca: Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: I have a question for – you were the two, right? I have a question for both

of y’all: So, we don’t really know much about the school, ‘cause we’ve never been

there: Could you tell us like just a little bit of what you experienced when you were

there so we can get a better detail of it?

Mr. Herr: Elizabeth, you should choose one at a time so –

Elizabeth: Uh, okay, Marcus.

Marcus: Well, uh, what we’ve experienced there? We’ve experienced some good

things and bad things. We’ve gotten a good education; we know a lot of Chinese, but

there’s a lot more bad things – like they would use a lot of like profanity and they

would bring like illegal substances on the campus.


Michelle: They went to jail for that.

Marcus: Yeah, they went to juvie for that. Um, well, they would do terrible things –

like they brought guns and knives –

Michelle: No they didn’t.

Marcus: Yeah, they did!

Michelle: Well, Damon started to.

Mr. Herr: This back-and-forth’s going to be hard for me to transcribe if you don’t at

least identify yourselves.

Marcus: Oh, okay, this is Marcus speaking, passing it to Michelle.

Michelle: And I’m passing it to Becca.

Becca: Um, I had a question for Michelle. Um, was there any problems of bullying or

uh, any mistreatment of younger students or older students because they know

something is a certain class or they got bullied or punched or something?

Michelle: Yes, there was a boy at our school – what was his name?

Mr. Herr: No need to say names. Just say it was a boy.

Michelle: Okay, um, we had this huge assembly about it, but at lunch – it was his

birthday, right. And he brought cookies, and all these kids that were rude to him –

they kept asking for food. So he got a microphone and he made a huge speech about


how they used to be rude to him, and he expected them to do something nice, and

yeah, so – Aaron.

In combination, Marcus and Michelle contributed 41 of the 122 moves (34%). Their

delivery of 14 collective moves in exploration were, for the most part, offered as position

statements. While these statements did not initiate exploration for Marcus and Michelle, their

transfers of thought seemed to elicit exploratory moves, especially in the form of divergent

questions asked by Becca and Elizabeth. In prompting others to inquire, such position statements

were counted in the Explorations column of Table 12. Throughout the previous selection, a sense

of joint, collective exploration emerged for a few moments. While Marcus and Michelle did offer

some moves of dispute through argumentation, rebuttal, and non-reasoning, as a whole the

sequence showed more in the way of natural exploration among a small group. Even though

Becca and Elizabeth’s inserted inquiries derived as non-sequiturs, the context of their questions

still allowed for in-depth replies on-topic. Table 12 provides a visual description of move

sequences and types in the order that participants joined in the dialogue.

Table 12

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 5 – Student/Teacher-Generated Topic

Participant Explorations Disputes Agree Passes

Calvin POS TS/AR/AR/TS/CA/RE/AR 0 0

Niles POS RE 1 0

Marcus POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/RR RE/AR/RB/AR/AR/AR/NR 0 0


Javier DQ RE/RB 0 0

Kasey AR/TS/CA 1 0

Elizabeth POS/ID/DQ/DQ RE/RE/AR/RE/RB/AR/RB/RE/TS 0 0

Becca POS/DQ/DQ/ID RE/TS/RE/RE/RE 0 0

Audrey POS/POS/POS RE/RE 0 0

Kathy RR AR/RE/RE/NR 1 0

April POS RE 0 0

William AR/RE/TS 0 0

Aaron C. POS RE/CA/NR/AR/TS/RE/NR/RE/TS/RB/RE 1 0

Michelle POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/ RE/NR/RE/TS/NR/AR/CA/TS/NR/NR 0 2

POS

Trevor AR 0 0

Cindy RB 0 0

Mallory ID/RR/ID 0 0

Shannon AR/RE/AR/AR 2 0

Piper ID/POS 0 0

Ron DQ/CR AR 0 0

Everett 0 1

Jamie AR/AR 0 0

Aaron W. ID/POS 0 0


Maria ID RE 0 1

22 speakers 41 75 6 4

Facilitator moves: Procedural interjections - 16; substantial interjections - 9

The total number of Explorations reached 41. While the total number of delivered moves

was up (122), a greater register of Explorations in Dialogue 5 was dispersed among 16 students.

Six of these students contributed three or more moves in exploration. In the four dialogues prior,

no more than three participants offered more than 3 exploratory moves in total. This may have

been due to the extended length of some seven minutes in Dialogue 5 as compared to those

previous, or due to a heightened desire to explore the topic by a greater number of participants.

Less-dominant speakers contributed moves in exploration with greater frequency. As indicated,

Michelle played a major role in the talk, yet other secondary participants such as Audrey,

Mallory, Ron, and Aaron W. also offered more exploratory moves than in previous talks.

Most Explorations during Dialogue 5 were again delivered as position statements (POS).

Without the emergence of Marcus and Michelle as lead-speakers, exploration may or may not

have materialized differently. As it occurred, Marcus and Michelle contributed 34% of all

Explorations through their speech. Again, as in dialogues prior, position statements (POS)

accounted for most of exploration at 24 of 41 total (59%). However, offers of

inference/deductive exploration (ID) appeared more frequently during Dialogue 5 than in others.

Here, exploratory moves of induction/deduction (ID) attributed to 17% of Explorations. In

previous dialogues, inference/deductive moves had accounted for no more than 7% of

Explorations. Interesting to note, 5 of the 7 inference/deductive moves emerged during the latter


portion of the dialogue from less-dominant speakers. Mallory, more emergent as a conscientious

explorer in our talks, and Piper had previously shown deliveries of deductive logic into

discussion, but it was interesting to witness deductive thinking out loud as well from both Aaron

W. and Maria. Mallory uttered a deductive summary of previous thoughts in the construction of

her substantial point toward seeking agreement (ground-rule 12):

Mallory: Yeah, so we’re getting kind of low on time here. So, I think we should try to

seek an agreement: Which school is better, TLA or CKA? Okay, you all have your

opinions; you all have your ideas. And some of the ideas I’ve heard (examining her

KWL chart for ideas) is TLA has more sports, but CKA has better education. You

can’t really compare those two things – like Shannon said, it’s like comparing a

marshmallow to a giraffe – and I agree with that; you can’t compare two things that

are so wildly different. I think we need to find like what are we comparing the two

schools on – are we basing it on athletics, education, on other things like field trips?

Let’s try to find an agreement. Calvin.

The next selections exemplified deductive moves illustrating how Aaron W. and Maria

combined the previous thoughts of others to construct their own positions – aloud:

Aaron W.: Well, I don’t really think we really can agree because – like Becca said,

we’re kind of comparing to what school has better sports, what school has better

education, and we’re kind of putting them on the same line – being equal. I’m not

really saying one is more important than the other, but I’m trying to get to an engineer

– it’s what I’m going to do, so CKA would probably be a better school for me – I

don’t know; I just think CKA’s better for that. Um, Elizabeth.


Maria: Okay, so I agree with Mallory because it really depends on what you want to

do when you grow up and what school you go to. TLA may have sports, and if that’s

where you want to focus on in the future, okay. And CKA may have a better

education and that’s what you need in your future. So it really depends on what you

want to be.

This emergence of deductive moves seemingly helped to raise the overall percentage of

exploratory talk to 33% for Dialogue 5. Undoubtedly, information about prior experiences

provided by Marcus and Michelle triggered later speakers such as Mallory, Aaron W., and Maria

to draw conclusions aloud.

Moves of dispute accounted for much of the analysis of Dialogue 5. Yet 75 moves of 122

(61%) indicated a slight drop in disputational talk as compared to percentages in previous

dialogues. Dominant-speakers again delivered the majority of disputational moves here. Fifty-

three of 75 Dispute moves (71%) were offered by nine different lead-speakers. As indicated by

Table 12, most Disputes were identified as a lack of acknowledgement of previous speakers (RE)

and argumentation/rebuttal/counter-arguments (AR/RB/CA). Disregard for previous speakers

accounted for 26 of 75 moves (35%), while argument moves were initiated 21 times (28%).

Rebuttals and counter-arguments occurred in combination 10 times (13%), yet topic-shifts (TS)

were given with more frequency in Dialogue 5 than during others prior – 10 at 13%.

Despite the delivery of a majority of disputational moves in Dialogue 5, this talk was not

noticeably disrespectful or argumentative. Fifteen of 26 disregarding moves (RE) were delivered

within inquiring conversations with Marcus and Michelle. Many of the disregards (RE) were

immediately supplemented with new positions derived from the information provided by our two


lead-speakers. Even several divergent questions emerged following an immediate disregard for a

previous speaker. Argumentation was present most during back-and-forth discussions between

Marcus and Michelle. Only Calvin, Elizabeth, Aaron C., Shannon consistently engaged in

argument, rebuttal, counter-argument, and topic-shifts outside of conversations with Marcus or

Michelle. This number of argumentative lead-participants was lower compared with those of

other dialogues.

Distinct agreement was also not a defining trait of Dialogue 5. Only 6 of 122 moves were

made in agreement (5%). Contributing to such scant offerings of agreement was perhaps an

acute, thoughtful digestion of position-information provided by Marcus and Michelle. Also, as

the majority of the students had no previous experiences at TLA, yet had plenty of opinionated

experiences regarding CKA, the initial foundations were not ripe for producing agreements on

the whole. An absence of agreement was also indicated by the results of the post-dialogue Likert-

survey. Individual choices on the 5-point scale fluctuated more so in regard to Dialogue 5’s

question-rating than all previous others. Eight indications of 5.0 were logged, while, equally in

contrast, 8 indications of 2.0 were also signified. Although individual tallies varied in extremes

between 2.0 and 5.0 on the Likert scale, no student indicated a score of 1 for this question. This

general division from the bottom to the top of the Likert scale resulted in an overall tally of 85

and a mean score of 3.4 – lower than I had initially predicted for a dialogue that elicited 22 of 25

vocal participants. Yet four students on an exit survey query indicated that “Which school is

better, TLA or CKA?” was the best overall question of our 14 observed prompts.

Perhaps the moves generated from proffered information from Marcus and Michelle

triggered this influx of total speakers in general. Only four total passed-opportunities to vocalize

were issued, only one from a student who chose not engage at all (Everett). Three other passes


came from students who had either joined in prior to or after their choice to pass. As mentioned,

two other students did not raise hands to engage or were not called on to join altogether. Even in

the absence of facilitated procedural moves prompting an elicitation for more speakers, vocal

participation was at its highest level since Dialogue 2, “The Heinz Dilemma.”

Class Dialogue 6 – October 9, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma – “Frederick”

(32:20).

“Frederick,” like our previous other Philosophical/Moral Dilemma text, “The Heinz

Dilemma,” was shared aloud by me on the same day as Dialogue 6 took place. “Frederick,” by

Leo Lionni, is a classic, picture-book tale preeminent within a larger volume of Lionni’s stories

entitled, Frederick’s Fables (1985). Frederick, one of five in a family of field mice living in a

stone wall on the property of an abandoned farm seems idle while the rest of his siblings labor

hastily to collect enough food and bedding to last through the onset of a harsh winter. To the

other members of his field mice family, Frederick is simply daydreaming while they gather and

toil in the days leading up to winter’s arrival. When asked, reproachfully, by his siblings where

his supplies are, Frederick says that he is indeed gathering – gathering with his mind. Frederick

claims to be gathering sunrays, colors, and words because the in the cold, snowy days ahead,

these things will prove useful. Well into winter, with the surplus of food and warm bedding

dwindling quickly, Frederick’s siblings demand that Frederick present the supplies that he been

gathering. Frederick climbs a stone and asks for the others to close their eyes as he describes the

warmth of the sunrays. The mice miraculously begin to feel warmer as his description grows in

detail. Next, his siblings excitedly request for Frederick to present another “supply” to the group.

Frederick again asks the others to close their eyes. He then describes a myriad of colors by using

comparison imagery to help the others to picture fields of flowers in which Frederick’s family is


familiar. His siblings wonder if it was magic that enabled them to visualize the bright colors that

they had not seen in months. In great anticipation, the field mice plead Frederick next for the

words that he also said to be gathering. In the finale of the story, Frederick, atop a stone in the

wall, delivers a four-stanza, rhyming quatrain that makes comparisons to his siblings’

relationship to the importance and benefits of having four seasons. Upon completion of the

poem, Frederick’s brothers and sisters realize and accept the fact that Frederick is a poet.

Upon completion of the read-aloud and the initial stage of the K-W-L chart, students

began submitting Thinking Out Loud questions for me to include on the board for voting. Ten

questions were submitted, all by students, and most would have potentially led the class toward

an exploratory conversation. Question 6 received the most votes at 14: What is the purpose of the

story? I became leery that, like our last question to ask “what”, students might be mired in a rut

of selfish ideas, never venturing to reason through as deep a dilemma as this picture-book

presents.

Coming off our most exploratory and least disputational talk in Dialogue 5, I did not

orderly review and discuss each of the 12 ground-rules with the class. I did mention that

Dialogue 5 exhibited more student-to-student respect and more exploratory questions, and that

those attributes were ideas that the class should continue to work towards. I also mentioned, as I

had been for the past three talks, that disagreements can in fact be expressed in the form of a

question as well. Prompting a student to answer the question of “why” or to clarify thinking

about a position, I said, would prove a great way to disagree in a more exploratory manner.

Even with that being indicated, Dialogue 6 began and drifted immediately off-track.

Disputational talk crept into the discussion early and indicated to me as a researcher who of our


dominant-speakers seemed concerned most with entering into a discourse more to dispute and

argue than to explore and agree. The following excerpt indicated the starting exchanges of

Dialogue 6:

Shannon: This is Shannon. I think that the purpose of the story is to prove that art and

most things that people would consider expendable in our lives is actually just as

important as the things that we need to keep us alive. Uh, Jamie.

Jamie: I would like to disagree with you because I think the question’s more of an

opinion question because you can think it’s about what you said, or you could think

about how the changing of fall only happens once.

Becca: I have a question for you, Jamie. If it’s an opinion question, then why are you

disagreeing with somebody because it’s their opinion to disagree with their opinion?

Jamie: Oh, I don’t get the question. Opinions, you disagree with opinions sometimes.

Mr. Herr: Somebody help steer this thing. (Laughter.)

Marcus: Uh, I agree with Sheridan. I mean, it’s her opinion. I see where you’re

coming from. Basically, since I didn’t read the story, I really don’t know where

you’re coming from. So, but anyways, you really can’t disagree with somebody else’s

opinion. I mean, you can, but you really can’t. You have to really –

Mr. Herr: Timeout. Somebody steer this thing, please. Please call on somebody,

Marcus.

Surprisingly, however, many participants realized that this off-topic banter offered by Jamie,

Becca, and Marcus was counter-intuitive to exploratory processes and tried to steer it back early


in the talk. In fact, once the discussion focused back on track, it was never allowed to drift-off

for the duration of the dialogue. The resulting analysis of Dialogue 6 would indicate that, like no

other dialogue prior, this talk would be defined by exploration – especially deriving from

participants’ questions regarding the purpose of the story, “Frederick”. The following sequence

details a quick guiding of the talk back on-topic as well as a steady continuation thereof.

Marcus: Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Okay, so sometimes they have a purpose for the story but sometimes they

have no purpose for the story. You know, just for people to enjoy. I mean, I have a

question: Does anyone know like what the actual purpose is? I don’t see a purpose at

all. Mallory.

Mallory: Okay, it’s a fable which is one of those stories with morals. So the purpose

of the story is kind of to teach us a lesson, and I’m trying to find out what that lesson

could be. Kasey.

Kasey: I have a question for Calvin. Calvin, do you think this story is more

psychological or more like physical?

Calvin: I think it’s more like psychological ‘cause their food ran out. Eventually, at

that point the physical thing didn’t matter as much because they couldn’t go get

something, so now it matter on what can we do to make ourselves feel better? What

can we do to help us, but we don’t have anything physical to help us? So do we need

something mental to help us?


Kasey: Do you think Frederick could make them feel like they were hungry – like not

hungry anymore?

In the previous sequence, Elizabeth immediately steered the dialogue back to the main question

with her deductive statement and guiding request for reasons. At that point, Mallory joined in,

stating a position and supplying logical honesty. Kasey disregarded Mallory but then posed two

divergent yet purposeful questions around Calvin’s expression of reasoning. While this sequence

did not indicate a depth that might later be achieved in the talk, it did lay the foundation for a

more exploratory quest to predominantly follow.

In total, 19 of 25 students entered into Dialogue 6. In contrast to previous dialogues, 16

participants delivered at least three moves – four more than did so during Dialogue 5. Also, the

spread of vocal frequencies was diverse throughout the talk. Less-dominant speakers contributed

more so than in any dialogue prior. Interestingly, a consistency of moves spent exploring allowed

me as facilitator to pose more substantial inquiries to specific students in a quest to elicit deeper

reasoning. Students such as Cindy, Ana, and Maria offered more than four moves each due to

sequences of on-topic queries by me in an attempt to get them think in greater depth.

During Dialogue 6 I was able step away from being the procedural director and portray

the role of devil’s advocate through the asking of substantial questions. Once there emerged two

sides to the Frederick work-ethic argument, I was able to question participants on both sides by

taking an opposite stance. As indicated in Table 13, for the first time in our observed dialogues,

facilitator moves of substantial interjection (15) surpassed in number those made in a procedural

context (12). Such facilitator moves in which I posed divergent questions in an attempt to engage

deeper reasoning of individual participants were directed to Shannon, Elizabeth, Aaron C., Ana,


and Cindy. In the sequence that follows, I was able to draw-in Ana, a less-assertive speaker, to

engage in reasoning.

Mr. Herr: Thank you. Hold on; I have a question for the class to try to steer us: Must

everybody in a family or a community or any sort of society group -- must everybody

do the same job? Ana, what are your thoughts?

Ana: No, because some people need to do different jobs so they can build up and

make a community.

Mr. Herr: So, it is okay that Frederick did something different than the other family

members, Ana?

Ana: Yes.

Mr. Herr: Why?

Ana: Because it might encourage them to be more happy because they were going to

die. Elizabeth.

The result in questioning individual students contributed to the emergence of opportunities for

participants to explore – generally through position statements but occasionally through

divergent, assessment, or information inquires. During exchanges whereby I did play the devil’s

advocate, the interest of more dominant speakers was sparked regularly. Several understood such

prompting to be an invitation to argue. Regardless, on-topic discussion sequences uttered without

the hindrances of procedural interjections for steering the talk on-topic allowed for me as

facilitator to open up my own exploratory repertoire. Within these exchanges, greater overall

chances to witness exploration were exhibited. Table 13 indicates the coding breakdown of


Dialogue 6. Interesting to note in comparison to previous tables is the assembly of moves coded

within the Explorations column as opposed to past talks.

Table 13

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 6 – Philosophical/Moral Dilemma: “Frederick”


Calvin POS/ID/POS/POS/POS/POS TS/RE/AR/CA/AR 1 0

Shannon POS/RR/POS/DQ/DQ/IQ/DQ RE/RE 0 0

Jamie POS AR/CA 0 0

Becca POS/RR/RR/POS/ID/POS/CR RB/RE/TS/RE 0 0

Marcus RR/POS AR/RE 2 0

Elizabeth ID/RR/CR/POS/IQ/IQ/CR/ID/POS RE/RE 0 0

Mallory POS/ID/RR/ID/POS RB 0 0

Kasey DQ/AQ/POS/CR/DQ RE/RE/TS/TS/TS/RB/AR/RE/AR 0 0

Cindy POS/POS/POS/POS RE/NR/NR 0 0

Niles ID/POS/ID RE/RE/AR 0 0

Ron POS/POS NR 0 0

Ana POS/POS/RR/POS NR 0 0

Aaron C. POS/POS/POS/POS/POS AR/TS/NR 0 0


Kathy RE/TS 1 0

Javier RB 0 0

Maria DQ/ID/POS RE 1 0

Piper ID/POS 0 0

William RE/TS/NR/RB 0 0

Aaron W. POS/POS RE

19 speakers 67 47 5 0

Facilitator moves: Procedural interjections – 12; substantial interjections – 15

During a 32-minute time span, 119 student moves were uttered. Dialogue 6 was the first

of the observed talks in this study to be defined by exploratory talk. Here, exploratory moves

(67) eclipsed disputational moves (47) by twenty moves. Explorations were offered 56% of the

time, as opposed to Disputes at 39%. Extended sequences of participant exploration materialized

and thusly drove down the number of disputing moves. Overall initiation of arguments (AR) in

fact was at its lowest number thus far observed, coded 8 times (17%). Disregards for previous

speakers (RE) still attributed to 18 of 47 disputational moves (38%). Yet during extended

sequences of student-exploration, moves of previous-speaker disregard were fewer. An advent

contributing to this drop in Disputes seemed two-fold. Essential to this change was an increase in

substantial facilitator inquires directed toward individual participants and a greater desire by

students to pose their own questions for exploration. In fact, during Dialogue 6, 20 participant

exploratory questions were delivered (30% of all Explorations), eclipsing our previous observed

high by 13 questions. Contributing to this increased insertion of student-questions was an


upsurge in requests for reasoning (RR). During Dialogue 6, requests for reasoning (RR) occurred

most often as inquiries. Requests for reasoning (RR) moves were delivered eight times, yet on

six of those occasions, they took the form of a question. In the following sequence, Marcus

reiterates Shannon’s divergent question by making it his own request. His restatement of a

previous question indicated more of a plea or request for reasons:

Shannon: Isn’t the point of being alive to chase happiness?

Kasey: Actually, what I believe is that the point of being alive is to learn because

even whenever you’re dying – I mean what it means to die – what’s after death –

you’re always learning. So, Marcus.

Marcus: I have to agree with Shannon. Life is – what’s the point of life if you’re not

happy? I mean happiness makes life basically better. What’s the point of living if

you’re not happy, if you’re depressed all the time and sad? Mr. Herr.

Divergent questions (DQ) were also offered six times. Even information questions (IQ) and

assessment questions (AQ) were delivered three and one time respectively. Clarifications and

restatements (CR), which have tended to occur occasionally in our talks, totaled four. Statements

of initial position still accounted for the most moves of exploration at 36 (54%). More often

during Dialogue 6, position statements were delivered following teacher and student inquiries.

During sequences exhibiting multiple moves of such inquiries, moves of previous-speaker

disregard (RE) registered fewer. As is present in the upcoming excerpt, explorations of

participants’ ideas through statements of position occurred regularly following inquiries by both

myself and Becca:


Mr. Herr: Thank you. Hold on; I have a question for the class to try to steer us: Must

everybody in a family or a community or any sort of society group -- must everybody

do the same job? Ana, what are your thoughts?

Ana: No, because some people need to do different jobs so they can build up and

make a community.

Mr. Herr: So, it is okay that Frederick did something different than the other family

members, Ana?

Ana: Yes.

Mr. Herr: Why?

Ana: Because it might encourage them to be more happy because they were going to

die. Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Okay, so I have to say this: Um, what did you just say? I just heard it.

Ana: I said that they should do different jobs because it might encourage them if they

were dying.

Elizabeth: Okay, so if I were a mouse, and I was doing a good job and I was working

my butt off, I would probably want everybody to work too. I wouldn’t want

somebody sitting around on a rock staring at the sun and doing something other than

what I was doing. So, as long as you’re working or doing something else that’s not

sitting on a rock doing nothing, I’d be okay with that. But other than that, I would like

somebody to work and not be the only one working. Ron.


Ron: Uh, well maybe Frederick is working on his rock. Uh, Cindy.

Cindy: I think that if we all just stayed doing the same thing over and over again,

we’d never get anything done. Wait, can I answer your question?

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Mr. Herr: Yeah, does everybody in a family or community need to do the same job?

Cindy: I think that everybody should do the same job because if you work together,

you’d get more things done.

Mr. Herr: May I ask you a question? Um, will you tell us who your favorite musician

is?

Cindy: Uh –

Mr. Herr: Or a favorite? Somebody.

Cindy: One Direction.

Mr. Herr: Okay, so the members of One Direction – are you hoping also that they’ll

build our roads and be our doctors and also teach students and maybe also be

architects, or would you rather them just sing and play music?

Cindy: I would rather them sing and play music –

Mr. Herr: Why don’t you want them to be construction workers or be something else?

Cindy: Maybe because that’s what they do; they don’t work on roads and stuff. That’s

their job.


Mr. Herr: Okay, thanks for answering. You may call on the next person.

Cindy: Um, Becca.

Becca: Okay, um, I have a question to ask the class that really we need to focus on

more: What is the purpose of the story – number 6? Piper.

Piper: I honestly did not hear the story at all, but what I have learned that he was a

poet and everyone else was gathering food and they could have made better choices

when eating obviously, but I think that everyone in this world has something that they

should do, and not everyone is made to do everything correctly. So some of us are

good at math; some of us are good at reading and not everyone should do the same

thing because has a different thing that they’re good at. I think that even though they

may have been collecting food, just because he was thinking – good things can come

out of thinking and everyone can contribute no matter what they do. That’s what I

think. Uh, Ana.

Ana: I agree with Piper. And I think Frederick, he just sits on rocks because it’s what

he likes to do; he just likes to do that instead of what the others are doing.

Becca, in her determination to restate the main question, did not comprehend how the divergent

nature of my questioning could contribute to an on-topic construction of reasoning about the

purpose of “Frederick”. Yet the following speaker, Piper, in her deductive thinking, continued to

answer whether or not everyone in a community needs to perform the same job once she made

the disclaimer that she did not hear the read-aloud (due to a partial absence from class). Ana, in

the concluding move of the presented sequence, agreed with Piper but then offered an extension


that served as a new position. These types of explorations, triggered by moves of inquiry, aided

Dialogue 6 in functioning more as a Community of Inquiry.

In the post-dialogue interview session, interviewees suggested also that Dialogue 6 was

an exercise in exploration. Kathy provided thoughts that summed up the beliefs of the others:

I think we explored. There was more questions than in past dialogues and we didn’t

really get a right answer together because we each had our own opinions about

Frederick so we didn’t really agree. But we also didn’t disagree because we agreed on

some things but not the main topic I guess you could call it. So I think we explored

more.

Shannon provided insight regarding the question chosen for discussion. She identified a

relationship of the main question to the classes’ focus on exploration:

I think the class did really well. We explored almost all of the possibilities because

the way the question is worded, it’s kind of hard to get off track because it’s so broad.

Kathy indicated that the dialogue was interesting because of the frequency of exploratory

inquiries made by participants:

I think what was interesting was that every person said ideas and one person in

particular (Mallory) was asking questions and that was what helped us. It’s because

they kept asking questions about how they had new and different questions about

what the person said, and so I think that helped and I think that was interesting.

In accordance to the entire classes’ perception of the question discussed in Dialogue 6,

scores tallied from the post-dialogue Likert survey indicated a below average rating. Twenty-five


students indicated that our question merit a raw score of 71 of a possible 100 – the same score

attributed to Dialogue 3’s topic regarding “The Necklace.” The 71 translated to a mean score (on

a 5-point scale) of 2.8 – also tied for the lowest with that of Dialogue 3. Somewhat surprising

after the exploratory nature of the talk, only Ana identified the question from “Frederick” to have

been the best of our 14 overall, based on her indication from the exit survey. Such lackluster

opinions of the “Frederick” question, based on survey results, was somewhat surprising based on

what was deemed a successful talk in enacting a Community of Inquiry. However, based on the

dialogue questions which had achieved the highest Likert mean score, it was becoming apparent

that students appreciated those questions which elicited the most moves of dispute from

argumentation. Kathy, during a post-talk interview, perhaps echoed participants’ sentiments

toward the Dialogue 6 question:

I don’t think it was good one to discuss because not many people answered the

question. They were just going about other questions, and I think they wanted to

answer a different question because the main question wasn’t discussed many times.

But I don’t think it was a good one.

Class Dialogue 7 – October 24, 2014: Classical Fiction - “The Tell-Tale Heart”

(30:04).

Dialogue 7 was prompted by a dilemma related to plot circumstances existent in Edgar

Allan Poe’s classic, gothic tale, “The Tell-Tale Heart” (2011). In this short story, a nervous and

suspect narrator tells the story of events that have seemingly led to his incarceration. Claiming

that he has a nameless disease that causes acute hearing, the narrator pleads to the reader that he

is not mad but actually clever. His cleverness and sanity can be proven, he suggests, through the


precise details he enacts through the climax and falling action of the tale. The narrator proceeds

to tell of the ill-feelings he had for an old tenant’s deformed eye. The narrator insists that he does

not hate the old man; it is only his pale, filmy eye that sends him into a rage. To rid himself of

the eye, the narrator devises a plan to kill the old man. For seven nights the narrator sneaks into

the old man’s room, shining a thread of light onto his open but blind eye to increase his raging

anger toward his tenant. On the eighth night, the narrator goes through his normal act, but this

time, he rushes the old man in the dark of his room, wrestles him to the floor, and then pulls his

bed on top of him. With the old man dead, the narrator proceeds to dispose of the corpse by

cutting up the body of the old man, removing planks of the bedroom floor, and burying the body

within the scantlings. Hours later, officers of the police arrive at the narrator’s house to question

him since a neighbor heard a shriek in the night. The narrator leads the officers about the house

with nonchalant behavior, even pausing in the old man’s bedroom to offer the police

refreshments. The police seem satisfactorily convinced of the innocence of the narrator, yet the

narrator begins to get an escalating, uneasy feeling. His uneasiness leads to rage, and the narrator

commences to an inward raving while he perceives that the officers are mocking him in their

jovial talk with one another. The narrator’s raving discontent becomes unbearable and he bursts

with details of the murder and the disposal of the old man’s body. He insists that the police tear

up the planks in the floor to reveal the body. The narrator suggests that his rage was excited and

his guilt revealed by the beating of the old man’s heartbeat – a heartbeat from a dead man that

the narrator heard from underneath the floor.

This story was read aloud the class period before our dialogue, and upon completion of

the tale, we talked some about what the narrator might have actually been hearing that caused

him to give himself away to the police. We determined that in his nervousness throughout the


whole ordeal, the narrator was actually hearing his own heartbeat. His pulse became enhanced

because of the narrator’s feelings of guilt and he, ultimately, could not bear “hearing” it, perhaps

thinking it was a heartbeat from the old man.

Students prior to the dialogue were asked to submit their Thinking Out Loud question to

our social learning website, Edmodo®. Six questions were posed before our dialogue period, and

five more were added after the accomplishment of the first phase of our K-W-L chart. Question

4, submitted by me to Edmodo®, secured 16 votes and became our main question for discussion:

The narrator: crazy or clever? I submitted the question, not with the intent of being chosen (I did

not alert the students before or after voting that it was mine.), but because at the time of its

inclusion there were only two other prompts logged. I did purposely submit such a question that

would require vocal participants to choose a side – which I thought might prompt them to

explore with deeper reasoning.

Coming off our most exploratory talk a week prior, I kept any direct instruction regarding

our 12 ground-rules to a low minimum. I commended the class on joining in our last dialogue

with more questions and moves of exploration than ever before. I reminded students to keep up

the respect that was exhibited last and to continue striving to disagree by asking questions,

prompting deeper reasoning from those whose ideas might need development. The goal as

always, I said, was to explore by finding out what everybody really thinks about the topic of the

day. In order to do that, I suggested that students must inquire of each other’s thinking out loud –

even when they possess disagreements of opinion.

Dialogue 7 featured an exclusive group of dominant-speakers. In total 15 of 25 students

took part vocally in Dialogue 7, while even fewer participants joined in with 3 or more moves


(13). In fact, only a select group of nine participants took more than two turns to speak during

Dialogue 7. Three more students were called on to speak but declined; seven students did not

attempt to join or were not called upon to speak. Not since Dialogue 1 had so few students

engage in a discourse as were absent from speaking during Dialogue 7.

Participants contributed 130 moves in just over 30 minutes, surpassing the number

achieved in Dialogue 5 by eight moves. For that many moves to be delivered by a combined

number of 15 participants would generally point to an influx of disputational and topic-shifting

talk throughout. However, as indicated by moves of exploration (53) and agreement (12)

compared to those of dispute (65), the utterances delivered were closely even. Dominant-

speakers here broke traditions established by Dialogues 1-5 whereby our lead-speakers initiated

argumentation more so than they did exploration. In fact, five of nine dominant-speakers during

Dialogue 7 offered more moves of exploration than of dispute. The only previous dialogue in

which lead-speaker explorations eclipsed those made during Dialogue 7 was within Dialogue 6.

Visually, a depiction of Dialogue 7 is presented by the coding indicator in Table 14.

Table 14

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 7 – Classical Fiction: “The Tell-Tale Heart”


Calvin POS/ID/POS/POS/POS/ID RE/TS/AR/RB/RE/TS/AR/NR/NR/

RB/AR 1 0

Elizabeth POS/CR/POS/CR/DQ/RR/ID RE/RE/AR/TS/RB 0 0


Becca POS/POS RE 2 0

Shannon POS/POS/ID/DQ/RR/ID/DQ RE/TS/RE/AR/RE 3 0

Mallory ID/ID/CR/POS/ID/IQ/IQ/RR/CR/RR NR/RE/TS/AR/AR 1 0

Kathy POS RE/TS 1 0

Aaron C. ID/CR/ID/CR RE/NR/TS/TS/RE/AR/TS/NR/TS 1 0

Piper POS/POS TS/RE/TS/RE/TS 0 0

Kasey AQ/RR/DQ/IQ RE/RE/AR/TS 0 0

Niles RE/TS 1 0

Michelle ID/POS/ID/RR RE/NR/NR/NR/NR 0 0

Marcus ID/POS RE/NR/RE/TS/NR 2 0

William POS RE/NR/TS 0 0

Ana 0 1

Trevor RR 0 1

Everett RR 0 1

Cindy TS 0 0

April POS RE/NR 0 0

15 speakers 53 65 12 3

Facilitator moves: Procedural moves – 8; Substantial moves – 12


Explorations provided during Dialogue 7 were more devoid of statements of position

(POS) than in any dialogue prior. Eighteen of 53 moves (34%) were delivered as positions (POS)

that materialized as answers to exploratory questions – whether as restatements of the main

question or as inquiries made in solicitation of reasoning. A reason for a lower percentage of

position statements delivered during Dialogue 7 was a rise in the number of overall exploratory

questions offered by participants. Nineteen of 53 utterances (36%) were queries posed to solicit

reasoning from another class member. Even the percentage of questions posed in our most

exploratory talk to date, Dialogue 6, was slightly lower (30%) than it was in Dialogue 7. An

indication from Table 14 suggests that an accumulation of these participant questions contributed

to a rise overall in that percentage. Seemingly, consistent inquiries from Elizabeth, Mallory, and

Kasey aided the exploration process by questioning others. These three participants combined

delivered 14 of 19 questions of exploration. Mallory emerged as the most inquisitive of our

participants during Dialogue 7. She alone contributed 6 of 19 total questions of exploration. The

following excerpt provides a glimpse of Mallory’s inquiry method. In a Socratic way, she

deconstructs Michelle’s position with questions prompting logical consideration:

Mr. Herr: According to you, Michelle, what does the narrator do that makes him

crazy or not? I don’t recall what you said when you first spoke; did you feel like he

was more clever or crazy; was it a combination of both? I don’t remember.

Michelle: I think he was more clever.

Mr. Herr: And what was your main point to make that be correct?


Michelle: It’s like he killed a man for his eye, and he hid him under the floor; that

was clever. And then he confesses to get away from the eye because he was clever.

Well, it doesn’t say that, but that’s what I assume.

Mallory: So you’re saying that he’s clever when he confesses?

Michelle: Yeah, because he doesn’t like the eye, so why would he stay in the same

house?

Mallory: So he’s clever so he could get arrested for killing a man so he could get

away from his eye?

Michelle: Yeah.

Mallory: That’s interesting.

Also noteworthy in regard to the influx of questions posed during Dialogue 7, as well as during

all six previous talks, was a revelation that boys contributed little in the way of exploratory

inquiry. In fact, during Dialogue 7 the only boy to deliver a single question for exploration was

Aaron C., and he provided just two moves of inquiry. Even at that, Aaron’s inquiries elicited

lower level reasoning since both were delivered as clarification/restatements (CR). In many

instances, clarifications only elicited a repeat of previous thoughts and did not necessarily lead to

further exploration. As underlined by the following exchange, Aaron’s clarification request

produced a slight shift off-topic:

Aaron C.: Okay. So, sorry, I didn’t hear you all the way because I was coughing. You

said that if the old man was his father, he could have beat him when he was a kid? Is

that what you said?


Elizabeth: Yeah, or maybe it could be anybody but –

Aaron: I just wanted to know what you said. Um, Calvin.

Likewise, according to the results of the six previous dialogues, boys never contributed more

than four inquiries to any one discourse. Also, it should be noted that within Dialogue 7, of the

15 speakers, only five were boys. Furthermore, no more than 9 of 11 boys had joined in in any

one of the previous six dialogues.

Disputes, as coded and visible in Table 14, contributed to half of the total moves offered

during Dialogue 7 (65 of 130). While disregards for the previous speaker occurred most often,

attributing to 22 of the 65 Disputes, initiations of argumentation (AR) only happened nine times

(14%) throughout the talk. However, topic-shifts (TS) and an absence of reasoning (NR)

occurred with greater frequency during Dialogue 7. Reasons for an influx in absence of

reasoning moves (NR) can be attributed to a greater combined frequency of student and

facilitator questions delivered in attempts to trigger reasoning. Serving as a cue for inquiry, 13

moves representing an absence of reasoning (NR) led questioners many times to ask “why,”

enticing more chances for exploration – as seen in the previous exchange with Mallory and

Michelle.

Topic-shifts (TS) attributed to 28% of all dispute-moves coded within Dialogue 7. Many

times the evolution of a topic-shift (TS) occurred as an expression of an inward anecdote or

analogy that many times had only remote ties to the flow of the dialogue or the topic of

discussion. In relationship to Dialogue 7, topic-shifts (TS) materialized in lieu of answering

whether or not the narrator of “The Tell-Tale Heart” was crazy or clever. Because of their


associations to students’ personal reality, topic-shifts (TS) enticed others to comment, causing a

drift from topical inquiry and exploration:

Aaron C.: Okay, so if you’re not insane, nobody’s completely sane. Everybody has

moments where they’re stressed or whatever. They have a lot of things to do, and

they go crazy for that year or so. Like I got a lizard recently – a few weeks ago, and I

just have to spend a lot of time taking care of it, so like, yep. Mallory.

Mallory: Okay, when you say it makes you crazy, do you mean crazy like it bugs you

or like actually mentally insane?

Aaron: Not mentally insane, like stressed and then I’m like stressed kind of crazy.

Mallory: I think the kind of crazy we’re talking about here is like mentally insane.

Not like lizard stress.

Aaron: It’s like I have like tons of homework to do, and it’s like the very next day and

–

Mallory: That’s stress.

Kasey: Your boss just fired you.

Mr. Herr: Mallory, you have the floor, so when you’re finished, you can call on the

next. Okay, Kasey were you – okay, Piper.

Piper: I would like to say that no one is technically normal. Everyone is abnormal, so

that makes us all normal for being abnormal. So, technically, there is no normal. And

also when you say things to yourself that put you down, your brain makes you think it


more. So that’s why whenever people like talk good about yourself, they want you to

talk good about yourself because your brain will let you think like that a bit more.

Within the previous exchange, while Mallory did provide on-task inquiry early, the topic shifted

thereafter, and even she contributed to the drift initiated by Aaron and kept constant by Kasey

and Piper.

Cumulative talk in the form of agreements was also delivered more in Dialogue 7 than in

the five previous dialogues. The 12 agreements offered during Dialogue 7 were consistently

expressed by speakers who attached other moves, either exploratory or disputational, in front or

behind their agreements. Seemingly, this consistent occurrence represented interpersonal aspects

of caring. In several instances, participants offered an agreement to another speaker before he or

she, in turn, delivered a position, a deduction, or an inquiry of their own. Cumulative talk here

seemed to aid students as a springboard. Often participants would supply an addition to the ideas

of another because of the triggering aspects of the previous thoughts. In this sense, thinking

through ideas out loud provided a foundation for the development of deeper individual

exploration during Dialogue 7. During the following exchange, Becca and Shannon use the ideas

of Calvin and Elizabeth, respectively, as a prompt to add their own exploratory positions.

Mallory, in acknowledgement of previous speaker Shannon, delivers an agreement to Shannon’s

position and then offers a logical deduction in exploration:

Calvin: Okay, so I’m assuming that he was kind of mad. No one in their right mind is

going to murder someone because of their eye. Who does that? Uh, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: I would say that he is crazy and clever because if you think about it, he was

crazy because he was disturbed by his eye, but he’s clever because he covered up all


his steps and he just lost it in the end. He would have it though I think if he wouldn’t

have said anything. Becca.

Becca: I think he had details of both because he was mad because he killed somebody

because of their eye which is what Calvin said. And he was clever ‘cause he had a

plot – he had what he was going to do lined up until something went wrong. So he

acted on instinct which caused him to kill the old man. If the old man was asleep he

wouldn’t have died. Shannon.

Shannon: I think the narrator’s crazy because yes he covered up his steps but in the

very end when he lost it, he gave himself away. If he was clever, wouldn’t he have

been able to discern his own heart from the old man’s? Um, Mallory.

Mallory: Yeah, I agree with Shannon because like a clever person would know that if

dead people – you probably can’t hear a dead person’s heartbeat because their dead.

They don’t have a heartbeat. But earlier he was pretty clever when he kind of – he

kind of planned it out. He was all – he hid his feelings about it and he was careful,

really stealthy kind of.

An absence of vocal participants was indicated in Dialogue 7. As was mentioned, only 5

of 11 boys in the class joined in aloud. Mallory posed a theory as to why:

Some of the guys in our class are kind of quiet. It was a lot of people calling on their

friends and some people spoke a lot of times too. Some of the boys who didn’t talk

are the same ones who join in to other dialogues. Some probably just don’t like the

question or just don’t like joining a dialogue.


Ron suggested that his silence was due to a disregard from others:

Well I raised my hand like three times, but just no one called on me. Yes, that’s a

problem. People need to look around and do what you usually do.

However, Aaron W.’s reason for not engaging was related to different circumstances:

I kept getting kind of nervous right before I’d decide to talk, so I like kind of raised

my hand and just drop it back down. I have been nervous before in other dialogues as

well. I feel like I’m nervous every time. When I do talk, I think about what I said and

try to improve on it. Like if I said something silly --

Mallory suggested that the lack of participation was due to an issue in following one of the 12

ground-rules:

People got their ideas out, but we didn’t call on everyone. Ground rule #2 states that

everyone participates, and we didn’t follow that one very well. Everyone didn’t

participate.

Although Dialogue 7 could initially be defined by a lack of full participation, with 15 of

25 students joining in vocally, the total number of moves made (130) and the comparable

evenness of explorations/agreements-to-disputes indicated that dynamics of the talk were more

diverse than originally assumed. During a post-talk interview Mallory and Aaron W. perhaps

summed up the diverse dynamics present within Dialogue 7:

Mallory: There was definitely some exploration. We talked about the different sides

to his personality if you will. There was definitely some argument; people said he was


crazy and that he wasn’t clever and there some agreements. Probably more agreement

more than any other.

Aaron W.: We did fairly well. There weren’t people shouting out ‘I disagree!’

Something that usually happens. People were presenting the ideas, and when people

usually disagreed, they were reasonable.

Based on indications from the post-dialogue Likert survey, students rated Dialogue 7’s

question higher than any other prior talk. The mean score established, on the 5-point scale, was a

3.9. Seven students gave the question, “The narrator: crazy or clever?” a top rating of 5.0.

However, only one student, on the exit survey, considered the question as the best overall of the

14 observed for this study.

Class Dialogue 8 – October 30, 2014: Factual Narrative - “The Night the Bed Fell”

(29:19).

Dialogue 8 brought forth a positive level of whole-class agreement-talk combined with

major sequences of off-topic utterances. These dynamics materialized from a talk about a non-

controversial, anecdotal memoir by author, James Thurber, entitled “The Night the Bed Fell”

(2011). Thurber’s tale is a flashback-narrative detailing a night in the life of his own childhood.

Set in rural Indiana, “The Night the Bed Fell” tells of an incident in Thurber’s youth whereby a

chain reaction of hilarious events stems entirely from a phobic, unwarranted presumption of

Thurber’s mother. The plot starts with Thurber explaining his “interesting” family. His family

includes a cousin, who thinks he will die of suffocation during sleep, a grandfather who leaves

the house for days at a time, and an aunt who thinks that a perpetual burglar is plotting to release

chloroform under her bedroom door so as make her easy to rob. When Thurber falls out of his


cot and his mother mistakes the crash for his father falling to his death through the attic,

presumptions lead to chaos in the Thurber house. The narrator’s brother at that point thinks that

the mother has become hysterical and so yells out that she is alright. Shouts from the brother

startle awake the paranoid first cousin who thinks that the noise is a ruckus over his ceasing

breath. He promptly pours over himself a glass of camphor spirits to revive himself. At that

point, the deep-sleeping father wakes up thinking that the house is on fire. When he yells out that

he is coming, his wife thinks that he is preparing to go up to heaven.

Only one question was submitted ahead of time into Edmodo®: Six were posed by

students before the dialogue and two by me as facilitator. Ultimately, Question 2 (What is up

with this family and phobias?) received 9 votes and became our Thinking Out Loud question for

Dialogue 8. However, the submitted question receiving the second most votes (Do too many

people behave foolishly over imagined terrors?), with eight votes, was also discussed. Because

students reached a total class agreement in regard to the initial question within 10 minutes of the

talk, a second question was entered for discourse. The engagement duration for the combined

questions totaled 29:19.

Our ground-rules review was not lengthy prior to Dialogue 8. I only focused my attention

on an alternative outlook concerning ground-rule 6: Ideas may be challenged. In most cases,

students had understood the rule to mean that arguments are accepted and expected. However, I

continued to point out that if exploration as a community was our goal, than challenging ideas

could take on another form: questioning to elicit deeper reasoned opinions. I then purposely

played a Youtube® video clip detailing what I explained was the beginning point of Thinking

Out Loud – a summary of the life of Socrates. A central theme of the clip indicated Socrates’

position whereby only through a deliverance of questions upon questions could a person achieve


wisdom. I was hoping that the idea of question-posing would serve as a revelation to the

participants – especially to members of our male gender who rarely inquired to explore. It was

not to be so.

Dialogue 8 would not be defined as an exercise thick with participant questions. In fact,

only two student questions were posed throughout the whole talk. What would come to define

Dialogue 8 was steady offerings of personal anecdotes and shifts off-topic. Our main question

seemed to make shallow explorations possible. The solicitation of reasoning through the lead

stem of “what” had been shown in this study to cause participants many times to stop short of

engaging in critical thought. In that sense (and in reality), Dialogue 8 was destined to be either

mired in dispute or to be drowned by the echoes of cumulative agreement. Consistent moves

toward exploration were scant. The reality was that the dialogue neither incited argumentation

nor sparked sequences of agreement talk. Neither the topic-question constructed and chosen nor

the plot of the story itself could serve as catalysts to incite critical discussion during Dialogue 8.

Dialogue 8 turned Thinking Out Loud inwardly and prompted participants to deliver anecdotes

of their own realities – without the critical substance of reasoning or a regard for the ideas of

others.

The only ideas presented early in the talk proved to be position statements indicating that

the fears in the family from the story were due to exposure to previous like-experiences, TV

viewing, and reading. Answers to the question stems, “how” and “why” were not part of the

make-up of deliveries during the early stage of Dialogue 8. A pivotal point during the talk

occurred within the first two minutes of conversation when Becca shifted the direction of the

dialogue. She seemed intrigued by the idea of knowing various phobias that others might have

and proposed to the class that if they shared their own fears and how they materialized, it might


help to better reason through the main question: What is it with this family and phobias? Much

of the utterances that followed were in response to Becca’s topic shift:

Becca: Um, I bet most people in this room have some fear. And if you think of the

way that you got that fear, it could help us with this dialogue. So, if you could share

with us how you got that fear it would help us. Maria.

As a conscientious facilitator who allowed a topic shift to initiate exploration, I was not quick to

quash what seemingly became an anecdotal exercise in “truth-or-dare.” I was, however, mindful

to document and code transcripts in accordance to Becca’s inquiry. In essence, participants were

only complete in offering position explorations when they delivered how they obtained the fear

mentioned. Anecdotal utterances, as per Reed (1992), have been shown to drift critical

conversations steadily away from exploration, and during several offerings, talk became focused

on mere acknowledgement and not on reasoning. During the upcoming exchange, Shannon

seemed intent with telling a humorous story and Becca took the opportunity to project a quality

about her personality. Neither of the two moves seemed to concisely target the specifications of

Becca’s shift-inquiry and so were coded as additional shifts in topic (TS). Both utterances lacked

an element of reasoning in which Becca initially asked.

Shannon: I’ll share one of my fears: I’m afraid of cooked chicken. It’s really stupid

but um whenever I eat a chicken leg or something with a chicken bone in it, like if I

break one of their bones or if I chew on the bone, a whole flock of chickens will come

after me. I imagine it’s like humans if cannibals were around. I can’t think of

anything else. Mr. Herr.

Mr. Herr: I don’t think I was next. I’ll call on Becca; maybe I’ll go after her.


Becca: I’ll share one of my most largest fears that I have is dying without leaving a

mark on the world because if I die today, and nobody remembers me, I’ll feel like I

was on earth for no reason at all. But if I die and I made a mark on everybody, I’ll

feel like I had a purpose for living. Mr. Herr.

Mr. Herr: I’m enjoying hearing about your great fears. I do think that if you’re going

to tell a story of your great fears, that you try to tie it in to how it could relate to this

family from the story and what’s going on with their feelings. While it’s cool to hear

of your fears, let’s see if it can lead somewhere to our question being answered. Um,

I’ll call on Aaron.

Following the topic shift, Dialogue 8 progressed toward agreement. Exploration was concluded

once the three ideas of experience, TV viewing, and the reading of scary material were provided.

Several students, on their post-dialogue surveys, indicated that they did not attempt to seek

wisdom but that they only agreed with what was said. Kasey, during a post-talk interview,

suggested that the main topic question led to more cumulative talk than exploratory or

disputational:

I don’t think people were really exploring because it was an easy topic to explore. It

was a simple question that had a simple answer. We were all really bored except

when we started talking about our phobias. And everyone wants to talk about

themselves.

In coding the narrative produced during Dialogue 8, important to note was a spike in the

number of chances participants took in disregard of thoughts of previous speakers (29 of 65

moves). Disregard (RE) here registered at 45% of all dispute moves, the highest level since were


delivered in Dialogue 2. Such disregard resulted mainly from Becca’s prompt, eliciting talk

centered on selfish aims. In this sense, participants joining in to Dialogue 8 possessed an

ambition to focus the discourse inwardly – eager to state individual fears in anticipation of the

attention vocalizing such a fear might bring. When this topic-shift occurred, caring regard and

exploration of others’ ideas gave way to a rush toward making personal claims. In all,

disputational talk accounted for 65 of the 107 total moves issued during Dialogue 8.

Argumentation (AR) also registered lower than in many previous dialogues (10 of 65 moves) due

to the selfish nature of responses delivered once Becca shifted to focus away from the original

question. Argumentation (AR) actually rose once class agreement was sought and reached and

our secondary topic question came to prompt responses. The second question (Do too many

people behave foolishly over imagined terrors?) logically prompted differing responses from the

first because of its elicitation of either/or replies. Participants during the second part of the

dialogue were prompted to choose a side. This general solicitation tends to engage a greater level

of argumentation than do prompts that ask “what is going on with this family?” Table 15

designates the discourse codes consistent with a talk defined by selfish aims.

Table 15

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 8 – Factual Narrative: “The Night the Bed Fell”


Becca RR/POS/POS TS/RE/TS/RE/AR/CA/RE/TS/RE/TS/RE/TS/AR 0 0

Mallory POS/DQ/ID/ID RE/RE/TS 0 0


Aaron C. POS/RR/ID/ID TS/TS/NR/CA 1 1

Jamie POS/POS/POS/POS RE/RE 0 0

Marcus POS/ID AR/RE/NR/RB/RB/RE/RB 0 0

Trevor 0 1

Audrey RE 1 1

Maria 0 1

Piper POS/AQ AR/AR 0 0

Elizabeth POS/ID/RR RE 2 1

Shannon POS/POS RE/AR/RE/NR/RE/AR 0 0

Cindy POS/POS RE/NR 1 0

April POS TS 0 1

Kathy POS/ID RE/TS/NR/NR/RE/NR/RE 2 0

Kasey POS/ID/POS RE/RE/TS/RE/AR/RE/TS 0 0

William POS RE 0 0

Niles ID/POS RE/NR/RE/AR/TS 0 0

Javier RE/NR 0 0

Aaron W. 0 1

Michelle RE/AR 0 0

17 participants 35 65 7 7

Facilitator moves: Procedural interjections – 7; Substantial interjections – 6


However, for a talk that was (for a significant amount of time) centralized on getting students to

join in without being critical, the total number who did engage vocally was 17 of 24 (Calvin was

absent). Three students passed altogether on speaking and four students were not called upon or

chose not to raise a hand to be considered for engaging. Somewhat surprising was that four vocal

participants chose to pass at various points before or after they had joined in the discourse.

As was alluded to earlier, speaking on-topic and providing reasoning for claims was a

challenge once the gist of the main question was shifted. Twelve topic-shifts (TS) and 9 non-

reasoned responses (NR) were delivered – most often during the first half of Dialogue 8 when

the main question was abandoned. Participants in some instances found it easier to deliver

anecdotal stories that were loosely tied with the “fears” spoken by previous speakers. Yet once a

story was delivered, the participant was never able to either regain topic-focus or relate his or her

response back to Becca’s new question. In a notable sequence once the dialogue has transitioned

to its second half, participants were still joining in to respond back to Becca’s initial request for

fear sharing. The following sequence indicates the re-emerging of Becca’s topic – re-initiated by

Becca:

Becca: I have something that’s a little bit weird so please don’t laugh at it. Say

somebody had a pairs of ostriches and when I was five years old, I had a terrible

experience with ostriches. It bit me and it permanently bent my right index finger and

I was bleeding and everything like that all bloody and gory and everything. And now

I love ostriches. I mean sometimes not all fears are established with what happens and

when Niles was talking about his dad and a dog. He was bit in the face by a Mastic,

right here, and if it was two inches over it could have killed him. And he loves dogs.


He still does. Personal experience might not always cause fears but most of the time

they do. April.

April: I’m going to add to that. I’m thinking that when people have fears like that and

they are still liking – like if they got bit by a dog and they still like dogs, I’m thinking

because some dogs are different than others and some dogs are not nice because

where they get it from – from their owners are something. So they just have different

causes of what they so their – Marcus.

Marcus: I’m going to have to disagree with Piper because sometimes you don’t

experience a fear like I’ve never gotten shot before by a gun, but I’m still afraid of it.

I mean you can still – sometimes you don’t experience your fears. Um, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Pass. Aaron W.

Aaron W.: Pass. Aaron.

Aaron C.: Okay, I’m also disagreeing with Piper --

Piper: Here we go.

Aaron C.: -- because I’m afraid of getting murdered but by a clown. I can’t

experience that unless I’m murdered by a clown and which is I’m dead. So, you

know, Michelle.

Here, in the last exchange, only April provided an exploratory position in response to the topic

question at hand: Do too many people behave foolishly over imagined terrors? Marcus, Aaron

C., and Piper choose to stay engaged with Becca’s off-topic utterance – never questioning

whether or not their speech was leading away from the topic.


Explorations, as indicated by Table 15, materialized as position statements 21 of 35

moves) more than any other offering (60%). Nine deduction utterances (26% of Explorations)

were delivered by seven different participants – eight of which were spoken during the second

half of the talk. This occurrence seemed evident that more real-time thinking out loud was

present in discussion of the either/or prompt of Dialogue 8. Absent, as might have been dictated

by the prompts discussed, was the advent of exploratory questions of inquiry. Only three

questions were delivered throughout the entire talk – all three uttered during the time of

responses to the second-half prompt. Also interesting to note was that, once again, boys

provided only exploratory statements of position or deductions of logic. All three inquiry

questions were offered by girls.

Within the post-dialogue interviews, Kasey and Piper best summarized Dialogue 8:

Kasey: Well, we sort of went to our own phobias to see like how they got their

phobias. But we really weren’t talking about the family; we were talking about

ourselves. It was a difficult story to create questions for. There wasn’t a lot to talk

about.

Piper: I think there is better stories. For the most part it was alright because it helped

us to talk about our fears and that was good.

Indications from the post-dialogue Likert survey did not prove favorable in terms of a mean

rating on a 5-point scale. Dialogue 8 received a total of 69 points of a possible 100 and averaged

2.8 on the 5-point scale – registering slightly lower (points-wise) than Dialogue 6. The initial

main question did however receive two overall 5s of 25 surveys. Calvin, who was absent during

the talk and Cindy both rated the question with the highest possible mark. None of the 25


students chose the main question from Dialogue 8 as the best overall question of 14 total

discussion questions observed by this study.

Class Dialogue 9 – November 7, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (41:13).

Dialogue 9 materialized as a discourse of greater interest. Time spend talking registered

longer than any of this study’s Thinking Out Loud dialogues. At 41:13 minutes, Dialogue 9

elicited 165 participant moves – more than any one of our 14 observed talks. Twenty-one of 25

students participated, while 17 participants delivered three or more moves during Dialogue 9.

Registered facilitator moves were more frequent during Dialogue 9 as well. I joined in

procedurally 27 times and substantially 11 times.

The influx of moves offered within Dialogue 9 was partially a result of the interest

caused by our third non-textually generated question: Should we kill animals? This question for

discourse emerged, not from a text, but from a prompting on our classes’ social learning website,

Edmodo®. Three days prior to our talk, I solicited questions from our class in which to vote.

Voting totals were close: “Should we kill animals?” received 13 student votes while “Why do we

have a uniform policy?” received 12 votes. Seven other student-generated questions received

between 4 and 10 votes. Our winning prompt, however, was the only question not submitted by a

student. As the provider of Dialogue 9’s question, I kept silent about its origins. I would have

abstained from submitting it to Edmodo®, yet on the evening before, there were posted only two

other questions for consideration. I felt that our class needed more in the way of choice, so I

posted the question that eventually won the vote. I would have accepted a winning outcome

produced by another of the eight questions just as well.


Ground-rules were reviewed before the commencement of Dialogue 9 with the intention

of urging our more dominant speakers to be more mindful to involve others who were not joining

in regularly or who were trying to join in but who had been denied. I pointed out that during

Dialogue 7, Ron had tried to engage on three different occasions, only to be overlooked or

denied by our more secure and dominant speakers. I indicated that in order for the class to

practice the message of ground-rule 10 (Share all ideas and information you have.), the group as

a whole would have to be more considerate toward trying to involve a larger population of

speakers. I also pointed out that during the past two talks only 15 and 17 participants,

respectively, joined the conversations. I ended the review by urging our lead speakers to be more

aware of their time with “keeping the floor” and to relinquish control quicker than usual. I

indicated that more precise moves from the dominant group might help to keep less-involved

hand-raisers from giving up on being called-on.

As the first to initiate talk from participants, I looked for hand-raisers from the less-

dominant group and called on Ron to open Dialogue 9. Ron delivered a position statement but

immediately gave the floor to Calvin, who began a topic-shifting rebuttal to an argument which

was yet uttered. The talk progressed from there with passionate responses, producing sequences

of exploration only to be disputed after a minute or two. The main question elicited side-taking,

and student argumentation/rebuttal moves were interjected frequently, requiring me, as

facilitator, to direct the talk at regular intervals according to the civility kept by adhering to our

ground-rules. Our lead-speakers, once steadily engaged into the dialogue, aligned their position

to the question about the morality of killing animals according to gender and kinship.

An interesting dynamic emerged as lead-speakers took control of Dialogue 9. The boys

(Calvin, Marcus, Aaron C., Niles, and Javier) positioned themselves along the opinionated lines


that the death of animals resulted in benefits to humans: food, clothing, furniture, and

conservation. Lead-speakers Becca, Shannon, and Piper on the other hand, supported the idea

that killing animals for human benefit alone was not morally right. Obvious argumentation

emerged between the two factions, but aside from the expected volleying of disputes from these

groups, a curious dynamic arose between factions of dominant-speaking girls. It was becoming

clearer, especially during dialogues in which the main question elicited a taking of sides, that

automatic disputes were being contrived. In Dialogue 9 it became apparent that the alignment of

ideas, for girls, was divided according to friendships. If Becca, Shannon, and Piper took a

“dovish” approach to the killing of animals, Kathy, Elizabeth, and Jamie would take a more

hard-line, “boyish” approach to the topic. In fact, it was noted that Kathy, Elizabeth, and Jamie

were consistently showing more engagement disputes, and it was becoming evident that their

disputes had specific targets: Becca, Shannon, and Piper. Iterative support for this assumption

was validated by this study’s exit survey. Students were asked to indicate the numbers of years in

which they had each attended CKA and who their best friends were in the class. Confirming

assumptions, all six of these dominant-speaking girls listed the others from their faction as best

friends – Kathy even going so far as to mention that the order of her listing (Elizabeth and then

Jamie) was in no way indicative of the closeness of her friendships with the others. A narrative

exchange indicating the emergence of this faction-dispute is apparent from the following:

Jamie: I wanted to disagree with you, Shannon because like Aaron said, you’re not

going to kill humans for meat. And I wanted to disagree with you, Becca because

animals – I don’t know if this is true or not, but my opinion is I don’t think animals

have feelings.

Piper: Oh, hello.


Jamie: Because if it has like a child and it will kill it – you’re using it for the better.

Piper.

Piper: I just want to say that I think animals do have feelings. So, don’t go down that

avenue. About this topic, animals should not be killed as much as they are today. You

have to agree that we do kill a lot of animals for their meat and sometimes we kill

them for fun which I find very interesting I guess because killing is fun to people?

Um, but, I just want to say that there is animals in shelters like Mallory said – that’s

there’s animals in shelters that don’t deserve to die. So, I just wanted to say that.

Becca.

Becca: Uh, what Shannon said about if we use – wait, give me a second. If we use

animals for our help shouldn’t we help the animals? And I’m going to go back to

what Jamie said.

Mr. Herr: Are you wanting the class to answer that question or are you continuing on?

Becca: Both, but I want to continue on –

Mr. Herr: I hope the class will remember it.

Aaron C.: What was your question?

Mr. Herr: Well, maybe she’ll rephrase it when she’s done.

Becca: Okay, um, Jamie, I think you mentioned this, but I can’t be sure: You don’t

eat pork, right? Well, in some cultures you don’t eat pork; in some cultures you don’t

eat beef, everything like that. Well, if you don’t eat pork or some maybe your


stomach is immune to it or – why do you need to eat other animals when you can get

the same amount of protein from beans, legumes, and watermelon even?

Jamie: I mean what if you’re like allergic or something? What are going to do then?

Becca: Well there is – I have something to say about that. My grandfather is allergic

to quite a bit of fruits and vegetables and he barely eats any meat like minimal

amount as possible, and he still is able to survive that way and he’s 78 and he’s done

that for the past 20 years.

Mr. Herr: Call on someone please.

Becca: Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Um, what I was going say is you have to think back to all the way back to

when people first started and all that people could think of to eat was animals because

they needed fur – even nowadays we still need animal fur. I mean it’s sort of a waste

to put away all that meat and you know get our protein off of.

Mr. Herr: Are you saying that humans have not advanced themselves in 10,000

years?

Elizabeth: Well no, they have but you got to think like, I don’t know, you could put

fur coats for winter. Shannon.

Shannon: Okay, Jamie, I’m going back to what you said about animals not having

feelings. They have feelings because they feel love and affection; they are protective

of their children. If you try to take the children of a parent, one of them will kill you.


When I said that we should kill people, I didn’t mean that. I said it as an analogy; we

might as will be killing people; they are just as important. Marcus.

The exchanges between the factions in the previous selection show an alignment rooted in

friendships more so than in personal beliefs. Argumentative interactions between Jamie and

Piper and then Becca and Jamie became procedurally diffused, especially with the insertion of an

on-topic position statement by Elizabeth, yet through a disregard for her thoughts by Shannon,

disputation was again foisted into the talk. While the members of these dominant factions

accounted for 14 total moves of exploration during Dialogue 9, they delivered many more moves

in the way of disputation talk (41) – 12 of which were coded to be lack of acknowledgements

toward previous speakers. Table 16 details the coding breakdown present in Dialogue 9. Within

the Disputes column, two new codes materialized: PQ = personal question and SD = simple

disagreement without reasoning.

Table 16

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 9 – Non-Textually Generated Topic #3

Participants Explorations Disputes Agree Pass

Ron POS/DQ TS/AR/RE/AR/AR 0 0

Calvin POS/ID/RR/DQ/IQ/IQ/POS/POS RB/TS/RB/RB/RB/RB/RB/AR/PQ/RE/AR

AR/AR/AR 0 0

Marcus DQ/DQ/IQ/POS/POS CA/PQ/AR/RE/SD/RE/TS/AR 2 0

Piper CR/IQ/POS TS/CA/RE/TS/TS/RB/RE/TS 1 0


Mallory AQ/ID/RR/IQ/DQ/ID/ID RE 1 0

Kathy POS/POS/POS/POS/RR RE/RE/RB/NR/NR/NR/NR 2 0

Ana DQ 0 1

Many voices TS 0 0

Becca IQ/POS/POS AR/RE/AR/TS/TS/RE/TS/PQ/AR/RE/AR

AR 1 0

Shannon POS/IQ/IQ RE/AR/RE/AR/RE/AR 0 0

Elizabeth POS/POS RE/NR 0 0

Kasey RE/TS/NR/RE/TS/TS 0 0

Javier POS/IQ RE/RE/AR 3 0

Aaron C. POS/ID/CR AR/RB/RE/AR 2 0

Niles ID/POS/POS RE/NR 1 0

William RE/NR 0 0

Everett POS RE 0 0

Jamie DQ TS/RE/RB/RB/RB/RB 1 0

Maria POS/IQ RE/AR/TS 1 0

April NR 0 0

Aaron W. POS RE/NR 1 0

Michelle 0 1

Tripp 0 1


Audrey RE 1 0

21 speakers 53 95 17 3


While Disputes dominated the forum of Dialogue 9, cumulative agreements were also

delivered with greater frequency. The 17 moves coded Agree were the most since Dialogue 1 (18

moves). Possible contributions to the rise in number of Agree moves was solicited through the

syntax used by the main prompt. The question, “Should we kill animals?”, not only prompted

participants to take one of two obvious sides, but, since variations of response options were

reduced, students engaging tended to utter more moves in agreement with a previous speaker –

whether purposely or not. Furthermore, as explained before, factious alignments, whether with

girls or boys, created a more cumulative thread in which to speak likeminded thoughts. The

seemingly volatile nature of our question perhaps also prompted more participants to join the

discourse. Twenty-one of 25 possible participants joined vocally while two passed altogether,

leaving only two other students (Cindy and Trevor) who were neither asked nor volunteered to

engage. It was in fact during our last student/teacher-generated talk (Dialogue 5) that more than

20 students chanced to talk on topic. During Dialogue 5 (“Which school is better, TLA or

CKA?”) 22 participants joined. Noticeably, the syntax used in Dialogue 5 also prompted

participants to choose in a limited, either/or manner.

Close examination of the codes attributed to Dialogue 9 reveals an interesting rise in the

numbers of inquiries (AQ, DQ, IQ, CR, RR) made by boys in the class. Of 23 total questions

posed by participants, 10 were offered by five different boys. Calvin, whose last inquiry was


during Dialogue 1 (a clarification/restatement question), posed four questions in Dialogue 9.

Other than simply asking a request for reasoning (RR), Calvin also engaged with three more

critically eliciting queries: one divergent question (DQ) and two information questions (IQ).

Other than Dialogues 3 and 5, boys in class had yet to contribute more than three total questions

within a single discourse. Questions posed as a whole during Dialogue 9 were frequently deeper

than in dialogues prior. Seventeen of 23 inquiries made were either divergent (DQ), assessment

(AQ), or information queries (IQ). Of all talks previous coded, only Dialogue 6 achieved double-

digits in critical questions with 10 total. While position statements (POS) accounted for 23 of 53

total Explorations, at 43%, that percentage was not as overriding as it had been in past dialogues.

However, missing from Dialogue 9 were lengthy exchanges of exploration. The topic proved too

explosive to maintain a steady thread of exploratory utterances. As has been analyzed, the

presence of gender views and factious alliances were too divisive among lead-speakers to be

infiltrated by sparse members of the more exploratory minorities in class (namely Mallory). The

following selection is indicative of how exploratory intensions were soon collapsed by topic-

shifts, arguments, and rebuttals:

Marcus: Okay, so going back what Calvin said about animals eating other animals,

okay. So they’re going to die, so why can’t we have their resources? I mean, what’s

the point? They’re going to kill off each other, right? You just said –

Calvin: No, they’re not going to kill off each other just they’re going to keep each

other in balanced and population.

Marcus: But how would they do that?


Calvin: By – the grass is not going to grow too much because the deers are going to

be eating the grass. So they’re going to keep the grass in check. The lions are going to

keep the deer in check ‘cause they’re going to be eating the deers and they won’t go

overpopulated.

Marcus: Exactly, so why can’t we use some of their resources?

Calvin: You want to eat lion?

Marcus: No.

Mr. Herr: I’d like to interrupt you. It seems that some of you when obtaining the floor

to speak, will ask questions – which I admire you for that, but you tend to be asking

questions to some of the same people who have engaged in the dialogue over and

over and continue to say the same things. I urge you to check out number eight,

please. Marcus, take an attempt to call on somebody else. Perhaps somebody who

hasn’t joined us very much.

Marcus: Everett.

Everett: I think animals give us more a dependable food source.

Many: (gasping, laughing, and clapping for Everett – not for the content of what he

said, but for the reason that he spoke out)

Mr. Herr: Students, if you’re going to make a huge deal out of this, then it’s probably

going to be an embarrassment to people who join in, so I don’t understand why you

have to continue to go on with your clapping and other forms of congratulation.

Everett, was there more you wanted to add?


Everett: No. Uh, Becca.

Becca: Okay, yea, I finally got called on. Um, I had something to say about the topic.

I think some people can take a different perspective if they are going to be the

animals.

Jamie: Did you hear her? (Laughing audibly)

Becca: If you could take this from your perspective, only one person in this room can

that I know of. The death of a chicken – I had two chicken at home; I would be

heartbroken if one of them were to die because we murdered him. I would not want

that to happen at all to one of my chickens and we use their resources and they help

us with other things. They eat all the fleas and ticks in our backyard. And they help

my dog also to not have any kind of parasites left. They help us and we help them by

giving them a place to live and stay. And if we’re just going to go along and kill them

because we need their help now to feed us. I don’t think that’s right because their life

wasn’t done yet. If your life is close to being done or if you’re suffering a lot, for the

past three or four month and there’s no way to help them at all –

Mr. Herr: Okay, I think you should call on the next.

Becca: Uh, Maria.

Maria: Well, I think that at some point, we should kill animals, but not as much as we

kill them today. How many people in the world do eat a lot of meat daily? How many

animals are we killing? We should kill some animals but not as much as we are

killing now. We should eat less meat than what we are eating right now. Shannon.


Shannon: I agree with you, but I’m going to go back to what Kasey said about killing

humans because when people will donate their bodies after they die, that means that

it’s alright with them to donate freely. What if a person dying is in their mid-30s and

is in perfect health and someone else in another part of the world. What you’re saying

is that it would be fine to kill the person in perfect health to give their resources to the

person that was sick. And so that’s what we’re doing with them.

Aaron C.: Shannon, this is Aaron C. by the way. The way it works with organ donors

is say I’m sick and Ron’s an organ donor, so Ron dies tomorrow from tuberculosis or

a car crash or whatever, and I need a heart. They’ll take his heart and they’ll keep it

safe and send it to wherever I am and then they’ll give me a heart transplant. They

don’t just like the same deal. They don’t just kill Ron then give me the heart. They

have to wait till Ron dies to get their organ.

Shannon: I’m saying that that’s what we do with animals with their meat and their

skin; why don’t we do that with humans?

Aaron C.: ‘Cause humans are some – we are the reason that they die, right? Why

would we kill our own kind for things that we eat? That would be cruel. I’m not going

to kill brother because I need meat. I’m going to go to the store and buy some beef.

Or venison. But –

The boys during the early part of this exchange were engaged in a back-and-forth, honest form of

exploration related to the benefits of animal resources versus natural conservation in the wild

when an interjection by Everett set the conversation off-course. Everett, who engaged here

vocally for the first time in our talks, gave a position statement (POS) utterance, and with this,


others could not bear to hold back from gasping, laughing, and clapping. This shift seemed to

open the talk for Becca to rejoin with a chance at argumentation. The disputational exchange

between Becca and Jamie was quashed momentarily by a less-dominant speaker, Maria – only to

be picked up again by Shannon. It was these interjections of argumentation, sporadically

inserted, that would come to define Dialogue 9 as one of disputes.

As noted, the initiation of argumentation was consistent between factions of girls, but

overall the origination of arguments (AR) delivered logged in at 21 of 95 disputational moves

(22%) – perhaps a surprising low percentage for a question that lent toward prompting either/or

responses. Also unexpected was a lower frequency of disregards for previous speakers (RE).

These lack of acknowledgement (RE) Disputes, while not extremely scant -- accounting for 28 of

95 moves, were less frequent than was witnessed during other observed talks. Topic-shifts (TS)

and non-reasoned responses (NR) were delivered frequently during Dialogue 9. Interestingly,

five different girls uttered 12 of 16 topic-shifts; four girls accounted for 7 of 10 total moves of

non-reasoning. Related, it was moves of dispute that triggered me, as facilitator, to engage 38

times within Dialogue 9. Because of consistent sequences of dialogue among lead-speakers,

procedural interjections (27) were delivered more to elicit the views of others. However, the

polarizing topic chosen also allowed for a high frequency of facilitator exploration through

substantial interjections (11) as well. Moves of non-reasoning also tended to elicit critical

interjections from me in attempts to prompt reasoning.

At issue was the fact that lead-speakers dominated Dialogue 9 to the extent of becoming

overbearing to other students. Following the talk some less-secure speakers expressed concern

that their voices were being heard during the dialogue. Calvin, a lead-speaker, responded to this

criticism during a post-talk interview by insisting that:


I’ve noticed that some people don’t want to enter the dialogue so basically, if no

people are entering into the dialogue, some people have to keep going in.

Becca also answered in support of allowing speakers who wished to join in 7 to 10 times per

dialogue to do so:

If you’re adding new ideas each time that you talk, you’re getting more ideas out

there; it’s better than agreeing and disagreeing with other people.

Whether or not some participants were disgruntled about the frequency with which lead-

speakers engaged in Dialogue 9, results from the post-dialogue Likert survey indicated strong

support to the contrary. On the 5-point scale, Dialogue 9’s question rated with a mean of 3.9 –

the same attributed to Dialogue 7. Ten of 25 surveyed students gave this question a perfect 5 of

the Likert scale. Four students, on the exit survey, identified “Should we kill animals?” as the

best overall question of our 14 observed dialogues. Thus far, only Dialogue 5’s question, “Which

school is better, TLA or CKA?”, was identified with as many indications for best overall

question.

Class Dialogue 10 – November 14, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma – “The

Runaway Trolley” (39:06).

Dialogue 10 developed from intact questions following a read-aloud of an inserted

dilemma found in Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009). Within

Chapter 1, “Doing the Right Thing”, Sandel poses a moral issue regarding life and death and

engages a reader’s reasoning as a bystander who has the opportunity to take or refuse action. In

the scenario the reader is out for a stroll and comes to a bridge that overlooks a trolley track. The

reader then notices a runaway trolley hurdling towards a group of five men on the track playing


cards. The men are too far away to any alerting shouts the reader might make. In a panic the

reader wonders what, if anything, can be done to help the men and notices a diverting switch on

the bridge. The reader then realizes that if he or she pulls the switch, the trolley will change

tracks. However, asleep on the other track is a solitary man. In this first scenario of two, the

reader must decide whether or not to pull the switch, saving five men but killing one or to choose

no action, saving one but allowing the five to perish.

In the second discussion scenario posed mid-way through Dialogue 10, the reader must

again make a hasty decision whether or not to act in saving the same five, track-sitting, card-

playing men. In this situation there still exists a runaway trolley; however, there is no diverting

track on which to switch the trolley. There is however a very obese man leaning against the

railing of the bridge. The reader realizes that this bystander is large enough and positioned well

enough on the bridge that, if he were pushed, would fall directly on the tracks before the five

oblivious men. The fall at the impact of the runaway trolley would surely kill the obese

bystander, but he would derail the trolley, saving the five others on the track. The reader is left to

mentally wrestle with two moral quandaries, both eliciting participants to apply contradicting

principles. One principle prompts them to save as many lives as possible, while another says that

it is wrong to kill an innocent person – even for a good cause. Both scenarios sparked our

discussion for Dialogue 10. Students first had to wrestle with the question, “Do you pull the

switch?” and then, mid-way through the talk had to think out loud about, “Do you push the obese

man off the bridge?” Both questions were included on the students’ scenario handout pages.

Topical questions generated by students were not elicited for Dialogue 10.

During our ground-rules review, I pointed out that a goal of this talk should be to

accomplish norm 2: Everyone participates. In order to do this, we would all have to work


together to limit speaking turns and to possess a desire to know what others think, especially

those who may not be main speakers. I mentioned during the ground-rules review that, as

facilitator, I would be more conscious myself of trying to include all members of class by

making procedural interjections. In fact, I specified, our first scenario question prompts

participants to state a belief with reasoning, but the question really calls for all present to join in

with thinking out loud. Next, I posed a challenge to our less-dominant speakers. I stated that

lead-speakers needed to be challenged more with questions regarding their ideas. I relayed to the

class that our more dominant speakers were uttering a lot of ideas and making a lot of points in

our talks but that they were not being challenged about the validity of these points. I mentioned

that it might be a critical move by some of our non-dominant speakers to question ideas brought

forth by our lead-speakers. The result, I said, might better create a more exploratory dialogue

since questioning was a key ingredient in the making of exploratory talk.

Dialogue 10 proved a more engaging talk than most prior, observed discussions. Twenty-

two of 24 students present engaged vocally in one or both of the scenario questions for

discussion. Sixteen participants joined the dialogue three or more times. As indicated by the

discourse coding indicator in Table 17, students were involved in the talk with consistency

throughout the roll of speakers. While it was visually apparent that lead-speakers accounted for a

majority of Disputes, Explorations remained visually constant throughout the dialogue. Even the

last new speaker, Javier, contributed four moves.

Table 17

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 10 – Moral Dilemma: “The Runaway Trolley”



Ana POS/RR/POS RE 1 1

Becca POS/POS/POS NR/RB 0 0

Calvin POS/POS/POS/POS/DQ/CR AR/AR/TS/AR/AR/AR/AR/RE/AR/TS/RE

AR/AR 1 0

Ron POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/POS/IQ AR/NR/NR/NR/TS/TS/NR/NR/RE/RE/RB

POS/POS RB/TS/NR/AR/CA 0 0

Marcus DQ/POS/POS/RR NR/NR/NR/AR/RE/AR/AR/CA 2 1

Trevor NR 1 1

Jamie CR/POS/POS/ID/ID/DQ/DQ/RR AR/RE/NR/NR/RE/NR/RE/CA/AR/RE/RB

DQ/RR RB/RB/RB 0 0

Kathy POS/POS RB/NR 2 0

Mallory AQ/ID/AQ/RR/AQ/RR/AQ/IQ AR/AR

RR/ID/AQ/RR 1 1

Aaron C. ID/POS/POS/POS/IQ/POS TS/NR/TS/TS/AR/TS/AR/NR/NR 0 0

Niles POS/POS/POS RE 1 0

Cindy TS 1 0

Everett 0 2

Tripp POS/POS/DQ RE/NR/RE/NR 0 0

Aaron W. AQ/POS/ID/POS RE/RE 1 0


Piper POS/POS/ID/POS TS/RE/RE/NR 0 0

April RR/CR 0 1

Michelle POS/POS/CR/POS 1 0

Maria POS RE 0 0

William POS/POS/POS/POS RE/NR/NR/NR/RE/NR/NR 0 0

Audrey POS RE 1 0

Shannon RR 0 1

Javier POS/DQ NR/RE 0 1

22 speakers 84 90 13 9


Participants in Dialogue 10 contributed 187 total moves. The talk resulted in our most even

comparison between Explorations (84/45%) and Disputes (90/48%) thus far. Likewise, facilitator

moves occurred more often (61 times) than during any prior dialogue in this study. In

explanation, most procedural interjections were delivered in attempt to elicit the thoughts of

students who had yet to join the talk. With 22 of 24 students engaging, facilitator moves

interjected more often, serving as a form of moderation to keep meandering utterances more

concise. With conciseness, more hand-raisers could, in turn, be called upon to join in. As

facilitator, it was my intent that all 24 students present engage vocally in response to the first

scenario’s question: Do you pull the switch? If previous participants attempted to join multiple


times with position statements, I interjected to question their intent – suggesting that he or she

had already joined us but that various others had not.

Substantial moves of facilitator interjection also occurred with greater frequency during

Dialogue 10. Twenty-seven of 61 total facilitator moves were uttered in attempt to elicit greater

reasoning from several participants. Substantial moves were triggered quite regularly by the non-

reasoned utterances (NR) of participants. Non-reasoning during Dialogue 10 attributed to 27 of

90 total disputational moves (30%). On most occasions when a reason was not provided for a

response, I would interject to elicit depth of thought from participants. The trolley-dilemma

questions prompted participants to choose a side, but in effect, the questions did not necessarily

prompt participants to provide reasoning for their responses. In this sense, substantial questions

from me helped contribute to the total number of student moves and, ultimately, helped to create

a more exploratory talk. Furthermore, as substantial interjections were delivered in the form of

inquiries, participants were prompted to answer with an exploratory response: position

statements, deductions in logic, or inquiries of their own. As such, substantial interjections

occurred most often during the second phase of Dialogue 10 – as responses to the second

scenario posed a chance for participants to contradict their previous answers spoken during the

first phase of our talk. During the following excerpt, from phase two, I prompted Piper to engage

more divergently than she had previously:

Piper: I’m going to say that I would push him off even though it would kill him. Well,

no, I wouldn’t have time to ask the questions but the reason why I would push him off

– if it was me in that situation, I would risk my life to save five other people no matter

who they were. But in the other guy’s situation – the reason I would push him off is

because I would rather save five people than one. And I know that sounds like


straight up murder, and I guess that it would be but I would rather know that I tried to

save lives than to watch five innocent people die.

Mr. Herr: Piper, I would like to ask you a question about this. Now in the first

situation would you have pulled the switch to save five?

Piper: Yes.

Mr. Herr: Okay. According to you, how would people think of your actions when you

pulled the switch and you killed the one and saved the five. Would people consider

that murder or would people consider that you trying to do the right thing?

Piper: I don’t know how people would consider it, but in my eyes –

Mr. Herr: That’s fine. Let me ask you about the second situation: Would you

physically pushing someone off a bridge – would that be looked at differently than

just pulling a switch to save five – would it be looked at differently to push someone

off a bridge to save five who had no sort of involvement in the situation?

Piper: No matter what, it’s still killing one person and no matter what the situation,

it’s killing people, so – Cindy.

The latter exchange was indicative of how most facilitator moves in the second phase of

Dialogue 10 were presented. Because of a critical relationship between the two scenario

questions, opportunities to pry deeper into participants’ thinking emerged.

Explorations during Dialogue 10 materialized throughout the discourse with greater

frequency than all but one other talk – Dialogue 5 over “Frederick”. In fact, the 84 exploratory

moves in Dialogue 10 were the most uttered in any observed dialogue in this study before or


since. As was mentioned, a portion of Explorations was elicited through the delivery of

substantial inquiries from me as facilitator. However, the most exploratory sequence of Dialogue

10 transpired without multiple interjections from me. Jamie and Ron, two semi-dominant

speakers, engaged for a couple of minutes in a back-and-forth exchange that was critical,

creative, and respectful. Throughout the sequence 12 exploratory moves were uttered and coded

– 7 of which were critical questions regarding the pushing off of the obese man:

Jamie: They do say that the man is equally frantic so he wants to save their life as

much as the person. So I’m sure it would be okay if the man jumped.

Ron: Okay, but that doesn’t mean that you want to save the people. ‘Cause the man is

equally frantic as you are and you don’t want to do it, that means the man doesn’t

want to do it. So it depends on what you want to do.

Jamie: But you want to save the people –

Ron: But I don’t and I’m in that situation. So, that means that the man’s not going to

want to die.

Jamie: So, if me and you were on a bridge –

Ron: I would push you.

Jamie: Let me finish. And there was five people about to die and they didn’t notice it.

Wouldn’t you want to help them? It doesn’t matter what they were doing or who they

were; wouldn’t you want to help them?

Ron: No, ‘cause it’s their fault.


Jamie: If they were just walking, and they didn’t see it and they were about to die,

wouldn’t you want to help them?

Ron: Why would they be a bridge walking?

Jamie: It just matters of would you want to save them or not. Would you want to save

five lives?

Ron: No.

Mr. Herr: Why not, Ron?

Ron: Because there’s like – how many people in the world? Five people’s not going

to hurt.

Jamie: It’s just the two people on the bridge that see it. It’s just two people.

Mr. Herr: Ron, honestly the people who get hit are not going to be in any pain;

they’re not going to worry. It’s the people that know and love them that would be

affected don’t you think?

Ron: Well, yeah, but it would be their fault – the people who – it’s the people on the

bridge’s fault because they’re risking their own life by being on the bridge.

Calvin: What about the fat man’s family?

Jamie: Would you want to live with the fact that you could have saved five lives?


Mr. Herr: Could you take a chance on calling on someone with their hand up. We

have a method. Also, if you have your hand down, someone can still call on you.

Sorry to interrupt you; who was speaking? Jamie.

Jamie: Would you want to live with the fact that you could have saved five people

even though you could have saved them?

Ron: You don’t know that you could have saved them.

Jamie: Yes you could have. You could have pushed somebody.

Ron: That says might.

Jamie: And you still have a chance –

Mr. Herr: I’m going to call a timeout. It was good; I liked the interplay, and Jamie I

really appreciate that you asked a lot of questions there. It was extraordinary – good

stuff. But I would like you, Jamie, to call on another.

The sequence as a whole exemplified the epitome of Community of Inquiry. Participants were

inquiring, offering positions and making deductions in logic throughout the exchange. Not until

Calvin interrupted to engage did this exchange produce any utterances of speaker-disregard.

Even the argumentation near the end of the excerpt was topical and thoughtful in content.

Student-posed questions, of which there were 26, were offered more during Dialogue 10 than in

any other previous talk (31% of Explorations). Boys in the class, who had previously uttered

very few questions throughout our discourses, contributed 10 of 26 inquiries (27%). That number

was more than double the amount of questions posed by boys within any one previous dialogue.

Remarkably, the deliverance of exploratory questions from boys was dispersed throughout 7 of


10 speakers. For the girls, who contributed 16 of 26 inquiries to Dialogue 10, Mallory posed 10

questions on her own. Between Mallory’s emergence as an exploratory master and the selected

exchange between Jamie and Ron, the evidence produced through this exchange brings some

credibility to the idea that communities of inquiry can exist within larger discourses in which

disputes dominate.

In regard to disputational talk within Dialogue 10, a great majority of the moves were

uttered by lead-speakers. Of the 90 Disputes coded from Dialogue 10, 66 moves were delivered

by only six different lead-speakers (73%). Less-dominant speakers only accounted for 15 of 90

moves of dispute (17%). The assumption here was that those who joined into our talks the most,

were also contributing most toward disputing. Granted, during Dialogue 10, those same

dominant speakers also contributed 51 of 84 moves of exploration (61%).

The initiation of arguments during Dialogue 10 was not high considering the one-sided

nature of both scenario questions. Twenty of 90 disputational moves (22%) were issued in

creation of argumentation (AR), and remarkably 18 of the 20 originations of argument (AR)

were delivered by only five dominant-speakers in class. Seemingly, if sequences of disputes

were to emerge during Dialogue 10, they would have been initiated by Calvin, Ron, Marcus,

Jamie, or Aaron C. In fact, these five lead-speakers combined uttered 59 of the 90 moves of

dispute (66%). These five participants did account for 36 of 84 exploratory moves (43%), but

without their engagement in Dialogue 10 the talk as a whole would have registered a greater

percentage of exploratory moves than disputational. The absence of these five dominant-speakers

would have subtracted 95 of the 187 total moves from Dialogue 10 and allowed for exploration

to dominate disputes, 48 moves to 31 (52% to 37%). Indications of such aims toward dispute


were shown preeminently within the following excerpted selection by Aaron C., Marcus, Jamie,

and Calvin near the end of the second phase of Dialogue 10:

Aaron C.: So, you’re saying that you would – would you like to live with the fact that

you could have saved five lives. What would you like to live with the fact that you

killed a guy to attempt to save five lives? And what if the plan failed? You would

have killed six; you would have killed a guy and known that you could have saved

five lives but killed a guy and it failed?

Mr. Herr: Are you asking the class? Jamie and Ron have had some good time

dialogue-wise, so let’s try to get some other people involved.

Aaron C.: Marcus.

Marcus: I have a question for Jamie. So do you really think that humans could stop

this huge, metal trolley that’s going to crash into – do you really think that a human

can do that – jump in front of it?

Mr. Herr: Marcus, whether she thinks so or not, the scenario says that it could

happen.

Marcus: Yeah, it could happen. But there is a possibility that it’s not going to happen

if you – so you would have killed six people instead of five.

Jamie: There’s a chance of saving. Wouldn’t you want to take that chance or no? Or

let them die because you didn’t take a chance.

Marcus: I also agree with this Aaron (Aaron W.) because it’s foolish. It’s foolish to

play cards on a railroad track.


Jamie: It doesn’t matter why. It just matters that you save their life or not.

Aaron C.: But it’s murder.

Jamie: Everett.

Everett: Pass. Javier.

Javier: Pass. Calvin.

Calvin: So here’s what I’m thinking. Like Aaron said (Aaron W.), they’re foolish like

I can’t remember who said it was murder – wait was that Marcus?

Aaron C.: No, I just yelled that it was murder.

Calvin: Yeah, and like he said, it was murder. It’s not right for that and honestly, can

a human really stop – this is what would happen if you threw someone in front of a

moving trolley. (Crashing, crushing noises). It really wouldn’t do anything. And uh

just to be sure, I’m all about saving lives, if I could do that I would but it’s on a

chance – what the matter of fact that I’m going to save this guy and plus this has

nothing to do with it. You’re just going to kill and it didn’t work, just like that.

Quite intriguingly, choices by Everett and Javier to abstain from engaging here kept this dispute

going longer than it might have. Interjections by one these two less-dominant speakers might

have moved this sequence toward an exploratory course. As it happened, argumentation led up to

the end of Dialogue 10.

Despite this sequence of dispute, overall perceptions of Dialogue 10 were positive. In the

post-dialogue survey, 10 of 24 students rated the dilemma questions a 5 on a 5-point Likert scale.


Overall, the class identified the questions driving Dialogue 10 with a Likert-mean of 4.0, the

highest rated observed discussion to date. However, only one of 25 students taking the exit

survey identified the questions for Dialogue 10 as the best overall. A general consensus of the

talk and of the two questions posed was presented by participants during a post-dialogue

interview session:

Mallory: Like discussions – moral discussions there’s kind of like it’s not really a

right or wrong answer – it is opinions and that can lead to more explorations and

questions.

Tripp: When we got to the question if you would push the fat man off the bridge, it

made us think more than the first one. The first one was a pretty obvious answer. The

second one actually made you think.

Class Dialogue 11 – November 21, 2014: Classical Fiction - “A Sound of Thunder”

(33:31).

Dialogue 11’s discussion was elicited by a major plot event from Ray Bradbury’s classic

science-fiction short story, “A Sound of Thunder” (2005). The story, set in the future of 2055,

presents a time-travel excursion into the past of sixty-million years – a Jurassic period where

dinosaurs ruled the planet. Eckels pays a large sum to Time Safari Inc. for the chance to venture

into the distant past to team up and kill the greatest big game of all time, a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Once into the past and keeping sure to stay on the anti-gravity path constructed by the safari

company, the hunting team waits for the arrival of a T-Rex. Bradbury, as third-person narrator,

indicates that the safari company is cautious about the alteration of time in any and every

unnatural way. The path itself is in place to keep even the introduction of human footprints from


altering the natural occurrences of history. Simply stepping off the path and crushing a bug or

plant in the fledgling world could, according to the safari company, have dire lasting effects on

the future of the earth. Safari scouts, before the hunt, use the time machine to identify dinosaurs

about to die of natural causes. This is so the death of any creatures does not occur out of sync

with nature, and so that no upheaval in the evolving process of time and space can take place.

Dinosaurs splattered with paint from a paint gun are identified as the ones to shoot on safaris.

Once the fated T-Rex is spotted by the hunters, Eckels becomes overwhelmed by its size

and fierceness, panics and is directed to wait for the ordeal to end back in the time machine. In

his state of anxiety, Eckels races the wrong way back to the machine and veers off the anti-

gravity path. After the T-Rex is shot and killed by the other hunters and they return to the time

machine, Travis displays his anger toward Eckels for veering off the path. Travis threatens to

leave Eckels in the past but is persuaded by other, coolheaded members of the safari to allow him

to return to the present. Once back to the present of 2055, the offices of Time Safari Inc. are

noticed to have changed slightly. A different man is working the front desk and the

advertisement billboard in the lobby is written in a strange form of English. At that point Eckels

notices that, buried in the mud from one of his shoeprints, is a very beautiful but very dead

butterfly. This development helps the reader to infer that the death of a single butterfly from the

distant past can cause the alteration of the future over a great period of time. Then, as the story

ends, Travis, in a rage, aims his rifle at Eckels, and there is identified a sound of thunder.

The read-aloud of “A Sound of Thunder” took place during the class period before our

Thinking Out Loud dialogue. As often was the case, students were offered the chance to submit a

question for discussion to our social learning site, Edmodo®. Five student questions and one

facilitator question were submitted and these six served as the prompts to which the class voted.


Mallory’s query, “Can something very insignificant, like killing a butterfly in the past, have a

huge effect on the future?” received 11 total votes and became our main prompt in which to

discuss. This prompt’s context lent itself to solicitation of one-sided responses, yet the potential

for it to provoke reasoning also existed – as references to the story’s text evidence would likely

be encouraged within our talk.

Again my review of the ground-rules focused on the inclusion of more participants into

Dialogue 11. I lauded the students for dispersing vocal engagements very evenly throughout the

last discussion and urged them to continue the trend within the current talk. I did question the

whole class in regard to those who pass on chances to engage often. I wondered aloud if quiet

students were feeling overwhelmed by dominant voices or if, perhaps, they were not being

acknowledged as much as they would have liked. Nervousness and/or not knowing what to say, I

suggested, might be an acceptable personal reason for not joining in, but if their silence had

anything to do with being shut out by dominant speakers, then the class should actively listen for

chances to allow for more reluctant students to engage.

Contrary to what I would have preferred from our dominant speakers during Dialogue 11,

this talk centered around nine lead-speakers. While 19 of 25 students joined in vocally at least

once, 110 of 140 total moves were delivered by nine speakers (79% of moves). It was not until

approximately 12 minutes into the dialogue that the first non-dominant speaker engaged, and

even then, Tripp entered in on his own volition – interjecting with a divergent question. For a

lead-speaker to actually invite a less-dominant student into Dialogue 11, took approximately 18

minutes. In total, less-dominant speakers accounted for only 27 of 140 total moves delivered

within Dialogue 11 (19%). Although the discussion in general proved more exploratory than

disputational, the moves in total uttered by our dominant participants accounted more for


Disputes than for Explorations. In fact, if not for the 19 exploratory moves offered by less-

talkative students, the discourse as a whole would have swung more toward being identified as

disputational. As it turned out, Explorations totaled 70 moves (50%), seven more than the 63

attributed to Disputes (45%). Table 18 visually indicates a noticeable shift in engagement once

the tenth speaker, Tripp, joined.

Table 18

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 11 – Classical Fiction: “A Sound of Thunder”


Kasey POS/POS NR/RE/RE/TS/TS 0 0

Calvin POS/POS/ID/DQ/IQ/POS/POS/ID RE/TS/NR/NR/NR/TS/NR/RE/AR/CA

POS/CR/POS/POS 0 0

Marcus RR/IQ/IQ/IQ/CR/RR RE/AR/AR/AR 1 1

Kathy CR 0 0

Becca ID/DQ/AQ/ID/RR/CR/ID/ID/ID RE/TS/TS/RE/NR/RE/RE/AR/RE/AR/RE

POS/POS NR 0 0

Aaron C. DQ/CR/POS/DQ/ID/POS/DQ/RR TS/AR/NR/NR/TS/RE/RB/AR/TS/AR

POS/POS/POS 1 0

Ron POS RE/NR/AR/RE/AR/AR/AR 0 0

Shannon POS/ID RE/TS/RE/AR 1 0


Jamie CR/DQ/IQ/CR/ID RB/RE/AR 1 0

Tripp DQ/RR RB 0 1

Mallory ID/POS 1 0

Trevor RR/POS 0 1

Everett RR 0 1

William RR NR/TS/NR 0 1

Aaron W. DQ/DQ/RR RE 0 1

Maria CR/CR/POS/POS RE 2 1

Audrey POS RE 0 0

Michelle RR 0 1

Javier DQ 0 0

Cindy POS 0 0

Ana NR 0 0

19 speakers 70 63 7 8

Facilitator moves: Procedural moves – 15; Substantial moves – 7

On the whole Explorations occurred more often than did Disputes (50% to 45%). More student

inquiries were uttered (28) than during any other talk to date. During Dialogue 11 the number of

exploratory questions was greater than that of position statements (POS) for the first time within

any recorded discourse (28 moves to 24 moves). Of those 28 questions posed, 15 were delivered


in critical exploration (54%): divergent questions (DQ), assessment questions (AQ), and

information questions (IQ). Also, in breaking with recent traditions, boys in the class offered 17

of the 28 questions posed (61%). This increase in boy-uttered questions was first identified

during Dialogue 10 (at 10 moves) and within Dialogue 11, for the first time, questions from boys

occurred more often than did delivered questions from girls. Interesting to note was that just as

many less-dominant boys (3) offered questions as did dominant speaking boys (3). The following

exchange between Calvin and Marcus, two lead-speakers, hints at a progression toward

exploration through questioning:

Calvin: Yeah. I’m not quite sure what eats a butterfly, but eventually – see butterflies

might not have been as common back then as today, but in that case let’s say the thing

that eats that it runs out of butterflies. And that runs out of them, and eventually leads

up to humans and it changes our culture: our way of thinking, our ideas, our religion,

the English language. We don’t know, but it probably could lead up to significant

things.

Marcus: Because of one butterfly?

Calvin: So let’s say back then if I kill one human, like maybe ten humans, or maybe

five humans – do you think there would be as many people today who would survive?

Marcus: Um, I guess not. But I’m saying versus a human and a butterfly?

Calvin: Yeah, but what about the things that eat off the butterfly, what about the

things that eat off that?

Marcus: Off the butterfly?


Calvin: Yeah, these things are actually kind of useful to humans ourselves. Some

people eat crickets. I’m just saying. Okay, you know what? You can go.

During previous dialogues, this exchange between Calvin and Marcus would have been

presented as a dispute, charged by argumentation and rebuttal. However, in this sequence, both

were interacting through a different dynamic than in previous talks: While argumentation might

truly have been their intent, both Calvin and Marcus here offered questions to elicit more

exploratory understanding. In the span of seven vocal moves, five questions were posed – all five

of the critical type, divergent and information. The exchange transpired as an honest exploration

of ideas made manifest by the presence of inquiry.

Disputes, as indicated by Table 18, were visually uttered with greater frequency by the

first nine speakers of Dialogue 11. In fact, 55 of 63 moves of dispute (87%) were delivered in

total by dominant speakers. Relative to this disclosure was the fact that while moves of

argumentation (AR) were initiated only 15 times during Dialogue 11 (24% of Disputes), only

dominant-speakers originated any arguments (AR) during the talk. Likewise, consistent with the

number of Disputes was the number of procedural moves delivered by me as facilitator (15 of 22

moves). Here, the disproportionate number of procedural interjections compared to substantial

moves was greater due to attempts by me to engage more vocal participants. Furthermore, earlier

in Dialogue 11, when more lead-speakers were actively engaged, procedural interjections were

spoken more often in an attempt to guide the dialogue toward respect. Of the 20 moves related to

a disregard for previous speakers’ ideas, 17 were attributed to lead-speakers. Only three of the

remaining 10 non-dominant speakers (those entering after the 18-minute mark) failed to

acknowledge a previous speaker. Moreover, 6 of 7 substantial interjections were delivered by me

as facilitator after Mallory entered in -- after the 18-minute mark of Dialogue 11. In total, only


on two occasions was a procedural interjection given as a response to a less-dominant speaker –

13 times procedural moves spoken by me were made in response to the utterances of a lead-

speaker. In essence, procedural moves were related more toward keeping the dialogue civil and

respectful while lead-speakers were making exchanges during the talk. As was indicated during

Dialogue 11, sequences of lengthy dispute were wholly absent. However, the one sequence of

disputational interaction present within Dialogue 11 was delivered on-topic, for the most part.

Apparent within the following excerpt are five moves in disregard toward the previous speaker

(RE). While these moves of disrespect are becoming noticeably fewer as our dialogues continue,

those offered here indicate that selfish aims are still a part of any whole-class discourse:

Kasey: We keep talking about like butterflies when we kill them and that means that

and that means that to us. Well, we sort of got off topic about the language cause we

keep going back to we need food and –

Mr. Herr: I’m not sure that language has to be part of the topic. A huge effect on the

future.

Becca: Did you hear what I said about language?

Kasey: Yes.

Becca: Well, that could be a reason about it, and we talked about it.

Kasey: Okay, never mind. Ron.

Ron: Okay, so most of y’all are saying if you kill one butterfly it’s not going to affect

anything. Well, I noticed that most of y’all said that if you killed one person in the


last story, when they’re sleeping on a railroad track, it’s not going to affect anything.

But –

Mr. Herr: Interesting point.

Ron: So as I was saying, it will affect something. Ray got my back when I got back

when I say this.

Becca: Who?

Ron: Ray Bradbury got my back. Um, uh, yeah. But I mean, I just wanted to point

that out. Most of y’all are saying the same thing. Killing one butterfly’s not going to

hurt anything is like killing one human in the other story. Aaron.

Aaron C.: Alright, the cool one. So, um, now this is – so this is sort of agreeing with

Ron. If you kill one person, okay, so, if it’s an average Joe who works for the garbage

company. Then that’ll have an effect on his family and the garbage place will have to

get a new guy, but if you ended up killing someone like really, really important to

history. Like when Hitler was four and he was drowning and then a priest saved him.

If that priest never saved him, then maybe Great Britain would have a more – a bigger

population. So it really depends on who the person is, what the animal is – whatever

is. So, uh, Jamie.

Jamie: I think you guys are on the right track and then you stop at humans. The

question is on the future – the effect is the language. How would a butterfly affect the

language? ‘Cause since he killed the butterfly, I get that it will affect whatever eats it,

but that has nothing to do with the language. Tripp.


Tripp: It doesn’t have to be about language. It’s anything about the future – any huge

effect. Becca.

Becca: I have a feeling none of you took in what I actually said about how the

consumption of the butterfly could affect us – the person who invented the English

language could have gone mad inventing this. So, take that under consideration that

we didn’t talk about the language when that’s a possibility to add on to it to get closer

to an agreement. Audrey.

The last excerpt indicated the most noted sequence of disputational talk present during Dialogue

11. Participants, albeit engaged in delivering topic-shifts (TS), non-reasoned responses (NR),

arguments (AR), and a rebuttal (RB), never strayed too far off-point during the excerpt of

dispute. Becca’s one desire was for others to consider a previous point she had made. Only Ron

and Jamie seemed insistent on initiating argumentation at all. In fact, only Tripp spoke in rebuttal

of any of the few arguments presented. On the whole, this sequence defined the low-level

disputes that materialized during the entire talk.

Moves of agreement (7 total) and choices to pass on speaking (8 total) were only

marginally indicative of notable dynamics toward defining Dialogue 11. Interestingly, the eight

passes on speaking were predominantly isolated among less-talkative participants. Seven passes

were uttered by 10 non-dominant speakers in the later phases of Dialogue 11. Only one pass was

uttered by a lead-speaker (Marcus). Two students were not called upon or did not choose to enter

in at all (Elizabeth and Niles were absent). Only April and, surprisingly, Piper did not try or were

not called upon to speak.


As post-dialogue Likert scales indicate, Dialogue 11 was not well received by the class as

a whole. Of 23 surveys taken following Dialogue 11, only two students gave the question the

highest rating on a 5-point Likert. The mean score tallied for “Can something very insignificant,

like killing a butterfly in the past, have a huge effect on the future?” was 3.2. In comparison, the

this question rated most closely with Dialogue 5’s prompt regarding the better of two schools.

Exit survey acknowledgement for Dialogue 11’s question only initiated one vote for best overall

question. Mallory, whose question won the vote for Dialogue 11, identified the prompt as the

best of all 14 observed queries.

Class Dialogue 12 – December 4, 2014: Factual Narrative “The Declaration of War

against Japan” (34:04).

Dialogue 12 was prompted by a read-aloud of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s December 8,

1941, address to the U.S. Congress, “The Declaration of War against Japan” (2011). Also known

as the Infamy Speech, FDR made a furious request to a joint session of Congress to grant him the

power to impose war on the Japanese Empire – a nation in which FDR thought was still in the

process of negotiating peace with the U.S. when the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, a day

before took place. The speech indicates all the islands attacked in the Pacific realm on December

7, 1941, and calls special attention to the destruction levied against the U.S. naval base on Pearl

Harbor. Climactic to this nine-paragraph speech was FDR’s pledge and commitment to see to it

that this type of atrocity would never happen again.

In a brief teacher-led discussion of the speech following the read-aloud, some students

pondered whether or not the dropping of atomic bombs on Japanese cities at the end of World

War II in 1945 was a direct result of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the U.S. into


the war. For the next class period, I presented students with a single-page handout of an internet

research article that detailed some general statistics of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. This

handout was accompanied by a brief Youtube® video clip describing the morning of August 6,

1945, from the perspective of U.S. bomber pilots and Japanese citizens affected by the bombs. In

an effort to channel students’ intuitive thoughts regarding FDR’s speech from the day before

coupled with the discussion we had about U.S. retaliation and possible revenge actions taken in

the form of dropping atomic bombs on Japan, I decided to pose our Thinking Out Loud prompt

for Dialogue 12: Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan justified? I decided to direct our

question for this talk for a couple of reasons. I knew that if the students submitted questions for

voting, time engaged in discourse would be shortened substantially. Furthermore, I also wanted

to engage a few of our discussions with prompts directed by me to serve as an observation

comparison with those posed and voted on by the students. I was interested in observing any

change in dynamics that might occur as a result of my wording and submission of prompts

compared to those solely constructed and delivered by the students of this study.

The review of ground-rules was a terse reminder of what norms could create a more

deep-thinking and caring talk. I reiterated that our topic for this discussion might elicit more of a

desire to argue but that argumentation might be more respectfully channeled through the

exploratory offerings of questions instead of claims and points. I also indicated that it was of

great importance to hear the ideas of everyone present. Again I reminded all students that

ground-rule 2, “Everyone participates”, was only partially achieved through active listening:

Vocal sharing of ideas by all would prove the rule more accomplished.

A moral prompting of responses, triggered by FDR’s famous speech, set into reality

Dialogue 12 with the following inquiry: Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan justified? I


offered this question because I felt it would initiate side-taking while poignantly generating

reasoned responses. I felt that any close-ended, unreasoned offerings could be countered with

substantial questions from me or by exploratory inquiries from student-participants. Yet what the

posed-topic for Dialogue 12 resulted in was a host of monologue-length deliveries. Lead-

speakers dominated this conversation, and some of their winded responses helped to shut down

hopes for sequences of exploration as well as vocal participation as a whole to register from this

talk. For a dialogue to last 34 minutes and only involve 15 of 24 students into the discourse

indicated a presence of selfish and lengthy responses.

While lengthy responses in exploration normally culminate with inquiry so as to elicit

even more exploration, many of these utterances during Dialogue 12 were both drawn-out and

argumentative. As it turned out, lengthy moves of disputational talk stymied potential

participation from speakers who hoped to follow – who many times gave up trying to join in or

who, once called upon, did so with a brief topic-shift to indicate relief in being chosen. Calvin,

on four occasions, along with Becca, Piper, Niles, and Shannon (once each) delivered responses

that consumed more than or near two-minutes in length. After each of these lengthy arguments,

aside from Niles’, the speakers following responded in exploration. These occurrences begged

the question of whether or not more exploratory moves would have been expressed had it not

been for the lengthy rambles. Somewhat disheartening was the thought that students who were

hoping to engage while the long-responders were speaking zoned out on the content being

delivered. It seemed that those who held the floor in extended moves offered forth rough ideas

and non-truths that fell on deaf ears. Very seldom were inaccurate ideas challenged either in

rebuttal or with exploratory inquiry. Only Shannon, following one of Calvin’s discourses, chose

to call Calvin on claimed facts that he had issued. Unfortunately, I felt that on other occasions,


students’ passivity, due to exposure to long deliveries, neglected to either grasp the meaning of

spoken content or never heard the context of what was uttered. The following excerpt was lifted

from very early in Dialogue 12 and provides an accurate example of one of several

aforementioned expressions of length – this one uttered by Calvin:

Calvin: Okay, I am going to be approaching this from both sides. What they were

thinking is if they don’t drop this bomb, they’re going to have to invade. Back then

the Japanese were real prideful; they weren’t just going to surrender. They were like,

we’re going to fight this to the death, and they were willing to kill themselves just not

to surrender because that has happened on the Pacific campaign. They’ve killed

themselves; kamikazes into American ships, but it still wasn’t a justified way. But

anyways, the reason they were thinking is we don’t go back, if we don’t drop this

bomb, we’re going to have to invade. And there was going to be at least a million

people dying. That’s what they were thinking, but still they really they probably

didn’t have to invade because the Japanese just saw the ship. They knew they were

probably going to fail. And the Japanese, they um, they should have um, surrendered

– they have surrendered immediately after the point they were at. At that there was no

justification. Plus it kind of looses our relationship with the Soviet Union. ‘Hey, they

got bombs!’ Anyway, Shannon.

Shannon: Okay, half of what you said is not true. Just saying. If you read the handout,

the Japanese were about to surrender. The U.S. attacked the Japanese because they

wanted the Japanese to surrender to the United States. And that is a very arrogant and

wrong way to kill millions – thousands of people. Marcus.


However, in examination of another sequence during which Calvin provided lengthy arguments

in claiming U.S. injustice with the dropping of atomic bombs, inquiries did emerge from Tripp

and Kasey in exploration. A drawback to the sequence was that these questions were posed only

for Calvin to answer, thus allowing him to respond again with lengthy monologues. In hindsight,

I should have made a procedural move to suspended Calvin from responding and allowed the

response to come from another participant or more:

Ron: Oh, yeah. But we wanted to like – America probably wanted to make a stand

‘cause they attacked us and made us go into a war and we wanted to be the first to

make an atomic bomb and launch it on to people. So, we did that and so we just did it

on Japan to take a stand. Uh, Calvin.

Calvin: Okay, basically we didn’t just – are you thinking that the atomic bombs were

overkill? By that point in the war, we already overkilled them. We bombed their

islands; we literally bombed the mainland of Japan over and over and over again with

just regular bombs. Major cities, heavily populated ports, everything. We always just

ransacked the country; we extremely overkilled it dropping two atomic bombs. We

already got our payback for debt, and we just like absolutely murdered them using the

two atomic bombs. There was no need, if you think about it, we have already taken

their territories, we have already just like broken their people. There was no need to

attack, but then we just overkilled it by dropping the bomb. And not only that, again,

we ruined our relationship with the Soviet Union. Uh, Tripp.

Tripp: Didn’t they drop the bomb on us first?


Calvin: Yes, they did, but listen, they dropped their bombs on our what? A navy base.

We dropped bombs on cities! Not one city, multiple cities. Not just nuclear, we also

dropped them with regular bombs – over and over again. Over and over again. Over

and over again. Not once, not twice, multiple times. I can’t even count! We did it.

Even before we dropped the bombs, we already got our revenge in blood. Kasey.

Kasey: Well, you have to think about when Japan dropped the bombs on us, did Japan

have a good reason?

Calvin: Yeah, they did. In fact, it was kind of the president’s fault that they did that.

See what happen, ‘No, we’re going to stop trading with Japan.’ In fact, he wanted to

go to war with Japan, but he didn’t want to make him look bad in front of the

American people, so he said like, ‘You know what? We can make them attack us

first.’ Because we stopped trading with Japan and then they were like – they actually

did multiple things, but that was just like one of the main things. And they were like,

‘You know what? No, maybe if we attack the U.S., they will think we are powerful

and they might trade with us again. But still they didn’t. That’s kind of the reason

they did it.

As it turned out, Calvin was provided multiple chances to state claims about the topic. As the

excerpt indicated, inward claims delivered by several lead-speakers dominated the dynamics

of Dialogue 12. Close analysis seemed to show that lead-participants were very set in their

beliefs while less-dominant speakers chose to say very little about the topic of morality and

the dropping of bombs on Japan. Lead-speakers Jamie, Elizabeth, and Ron, during a post-


dialogue interview, weighed in with opinions about why some students do not join in as

much and allow for other members of class to dominate the conversation:

Jamie: I think it’s just that they’re afraid of what other people might think or say.

Elizabeth: I think it’s because they are more comfortable staying quiet.

Ron: Some of them may think a different way or point out something else nobody

else thought of, and that’s why they stay quiet.

In total, less-dominant speakers only contributed 24 of 131 moves to the entire dialogue. The talk

as a whole took place consistently among 10 of 15 participants, and while moves of dispute were

delivered as frequently as had been in previous dialogues, they were offered more so than moves

of exploration (74 Disputes to 51 Explorations). In actuality, Dialogue 12 proved to be an

exercise in contradiction: It elicited fewer vocal participants than most talks (15), yet it rated as

one of the most memorable discussions, as determined from the post-talk Likert survey as well as

the exit survey. Dialogue 12’s questions received a mean Likert of 3.9 and 6 of 24 students (25%

of the class) indicated that the discussion was their favorite of the 14 observed during the course

of this study. Table 19 provides a visual representation of discourse codes that support further the

analysis of Dialogue 12.

Table 19

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 12 – Factual Narrative: “Infamy Speech”



Kasey DQ/DQ/ID TS/RE/TS 0 0

Becca POS/ID/IQ/DQ RB/RB/RE/NR/AR 1 0

Calvin IQ/POS/POS RE/AR/RE/AR/TS/AR/AR/AR/AR/CA/AR

CA/RE/PQ/RB/AR 0 0

Shannon POS/ID RB/RE/AR/RB/RB/RB/RB 0 0

Marcus IQ/ID/POS/RR/POS RE/AR/CA/AR/CA/AR/RE 1 0

Elizabeth ID/CR/POS/POS NR/NR/CA/TS/NR 1 0

Niles POS AR/RE/AR 0 0

Javier POS RE/AR/RE/RB/RB 0 0

Jamie RR/ID/POS/RR RE/NR/RE/AR/RB 0 0

Kathy POS/RR/POS/POS/POS/POS TS/SD/NR/NR/NR/RE/RB 2 0

Mallory DQ/IQ/IQ/IQ/AQ/RR/POS AR 0 0

Ron RR/POS/ID/AQ/ID RE/AR/RE/AR 0 0

Tripp IQ 0 0

Piper POS/POS/CR RE/TS/RB/RB/RB 0 0

Trevor 0 1

Audrey POS RE 1 0

Maria RR 0 1

Everett 0 1

15 speakers 51 74 6 3



Although Explorations were not distinctly part of the minority of moves spoken during

Dialogue 12, 51 of 131 utterances (39%) showed that this talk was more disputational than not.

By comparison, the first four speakers entering the dialogue provided 12 total moves of

exploration as opposed to 31 moves of dispute. Moreover, the next 11 speakers to engage

delivered 38 total moves in exploration and 41 moves of dispute. Indicative of this revelation

was that, similar to the progression of Dialogue 11, those dominant-speakers who spoke early

and regularly, most often spoke with an intent to argue or dispute in some way. In contrast, those

who joined in the talk after the first barrage of voices did so with a greater intent to explore. A

closer look into the attributed codes of Disputes indicates that, on the whole, lack of previous

speaker acknowledgment (RE = 18 moves), argumentation (AR = 19 moves), rebuttals (RB = 14

moves), topic-shifts (TS = 5 moves), and non-reasoned responses (NR = 7) were not on the rise

during Dialogue 12. However, those types of Disputes were, in fact, a major part of the spoken

repertoire of the first 4 speakers: Kasey, Becca, Calvin, and Shannon. So much so did these first

four dominant-speakers contribute to the overall total of disputational moves that, if they were

excluded from the talk, the percentage of Explorations (38) to Disputes (41) would have been

theoretically even.

By providing a discussion question that I believed was poised to elicit more exploration

than disputes, I failed to predict the existence of strongly-held passions several of the lead-

speakers possessed. These passions were so engrained that the length and weight of their

speeches suppressed the wills of others to engage much toward exploration. The few participants

of Dialogue 12 who did take chances to inquire in the midst of long-winded arguments kept the


talk marginally exploratory yet could entirely hold off pronouncements of “knowledge” from

more dominant others.

Class Dialogue 13 – December 12, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (28:10).

Dialogue 13 was initiated through the submission of non-text related questions into

Edmodo®, the class social-learning site. In the four days leading up to the talk, students were

asked to post questions of interest which might be transferred to the dry-erase board the morning

of the discussion. Eighteen questions were logged into the website, and, 10 of those deemed the

most philosophical, were written on the board the morning of Dialogue 13 – except for question

10: What would you do on the last day of your life? Each of the other nine queries were close-

ended posts that required responders to take a side. One of the 10 from the board began with the

stem of “why”. Achieving nine total votes, the most by one, question 10 won the vote. The

“why” question received eight votes and its defeat led to an ensuing talk that would come to be

defined by un-reasoned responses.

I allowed for question 10 to be written on the board and to become eligible for voting

because I reasoned, if it did win the vote, it would serve as a challenge for participants. Thinking

out loud about a question that specifically elicited inward, personal responses had been shown to

side-track exploration in past talks. However, for participants to be able to progress in their

thinking toward reasoning would prove to me an exploratory and culminating milestone for this

group – especially near the end of dialogue observations. Even as I reviewed the 12 ground-rules

with the class, I made a point to mention that this prompt would be a difficult one in which to

achieve exploration. I indicated to the students that thinking deeply about question 10 would

require purposeful inquiry on their parts. Questions, I said, would be a key factor toward the


formation of Community of Inquiry. I mentioned that it would be easier for participants to fall

into a discussion based on expression, but that it was possible to turn this prompt into one that

promoted exploration just as much.

Dialogue 13 immediately took on the identity of being self-important. The question stem

of “what would you do” easily allowed for responders to tell a wish but, all the same, contributed

to a lack of reasoned moves. Participants for the most part were very interested in engaging to

promote a personal aspiration but were unconcerned with providing reasons for their choices or

with inquiring deeper about the wishes of others. While 22 of 24 students present participated in

Dialogue 13, 18 of those 22 participants delivered at least one non-reasoned response (NR). Only

Niles, Tripp, and Elizabeth refrained from uttering a non-reasoned response (NR); however,

Niles made only 2 total moves – both off-topic (TS). In total, 46 of 92 moves of dispute were

spoken in the form of non-reasoned responses (50%). During this dialogue, like none prior,

several students engaged with an air of jocularity and playfulness. As can be witnessed within

the following excerpt, comical utterances often led others to join in with a more playful regard as

well:

Mr. Herr: Dialogue number 13; the question that won the vote that was posted on

Edmodo: What would you do on the last day of your life? Let’s start off with you,

Kasey. Go ahead.

Kasey: I would make sure that I leave debt for my children.

Kathy: Oh, I would probably do all my bucket list. Yeah. Marcus.

Marcus: Pass. Javier.


Javier: Pass. William.

William: I would taze myself. (Great laughter)

Kasey: (non-identifying) Why? Why would you taze yourself?

William: Because since I found out what a Taser was long time ago, I’ve always

wanted to see what it felt like. (Great laughter)

Niles: Did you like that taste?

William: Huh?

Niles: Did you like that taste?

William: I don’t like getting tazed. I want to get tazed, but I never been tazed.

Becca: (non-identifying) What kind of Taser? (Great laughter). Is it the one that you

can hold up or like the electrocuting pads?

William: Like this, and it has a little thing right here. Okay, Jamie

Notice how William participated off the initial move of Kasey and thus engaged in what he

sensed was a non-thoughtful discourse. Through William’s desire for wanting to be “tazed”,

Niles misperceived that he had said “taste” and moved the dialogue further off-topic than even

William had attempted. Becca next joined in playfully with an attempt to keep the subject on

William’s absurd request. This sequence came to exemplify the gist of a dialogue that would

bring forth only one substantial interjection from me as facilitator – a sign in past talks indicative

that exploratory, student moves occurred with less frequency. More often than not, procedural

interjections (17 total) were uttered by me in attempt to keep the talk moving toward a thoughtful


deliverance of ideas. Yet once the discussion became a personal forum for stating aspirations for

how participants would spend their last living hours, the quest for exploration became greatly

diminished.

Becca, in sensing a lull in the discussion, made a prompt-changing topic shift early in

Dialogue 13:

This is kind of an added on question to this one. Say it’s the last day of your like. Are

you suffering? Because you could be dying of old age or dying of heart failure or

some kind of organ failure or you could be completely immobilized. What if you

were completely immobilized? What would you do then? Trevor.

While Becca’s change in topic direction was not immediately acknowledged by the first speakers

to follow her, Kasey, a good friend of hers, when called upon turned the conversation toward

Becca’s new prompt – which still included a “what if you were” stem. The resulting exchange

brought William back into the talk and elicited firm procedural comments from me in an attempt

to better direct the dialogue toward a semblance of seriousness:

Kasey: Okay, so I’m going to sort of answer Becca’s question because she had two.

Are you suffering? And what was the other one?

Becca: If you were immobile.

Kasey: Well, if I was immobile, I would probably ask my daughter, my daughter or

my son to bake a cake for me. (Laughter) And then if I were suffering, I would want

to die. If I were going to die, I wouldn’t want to die of old age. I would probably want


to die of cancer or something. Like something quick, and then I would go to a petting

zoo. William.

William: Um, if I was – to try to answer those questions – if I was immobilized, I

would probably want to get in one of those carts that Stephen Hawking has and then I

would want to run into a wall. And then if I was just suffering –

Mr. Herr: William, I have a question for you. Are you taking the dialogue seriously or

not?

William: Uh, seriously.

Mr. Herr: It seems to me like you’re not, but I’ll let you continue on anyway.

William: And if I was suffering, I would ask my sister to bring me like – I don’t know

– something to make me feel better like… an Elmo video or something. And then I

would slowly die. Or like just (inaudible). Uh, Calvin.

Although the more playful moves of Dialogue 13 subsided following my concerned question to

William, the talk never took on a distinctive progression toward reasoning. While subsequently,

thoughtful tones from vocal moves emerged, participants could not muster past, as a whole,

desires to list wishes absent of reasoned talk.

There occurred only once, throughout the 28 minute dialogue, a pocket of exploratory

moves resembling Community of Inquiry. Tripp made moves to categorize students into two

groups depending on whether or not they would remain active or docile on the last day of their

life. In pursuit of ground-rule 12, find agreement, Tripp took initiative to end Dialogue 13 by

way of seeking a unanimous vote for one side or the other. Although he was unsuccessful in his


bid to end discussion of our main topic, Tripp engaged in an exploratory manner. He had it in his

mind from the beginning that the topic question was faulty in progressing the class toward

inquiry and chose to engage, democratically, to end discussion over a question that was not

eliciting deep thinking out loud. When interviewed following the dialogue about the quality of

the topic question, Tripp indicated:

I didn’t have a direct answer at all. I tried to figure out a way to finish the question,

but only a couple of people paid attention to it.

The ensuing excerpt details Tripp’s intent to seek agreement to end Dialogue 13. The dynamics

which emerged resulted in the most exploratory sequence delivered during Dialogue 13:

Tripp: Everybody who would do something before they died raise your hand.

Kathy: Wait, what did you say?

Cindy: I couldn’t hear him.

Kasey: Everyone who would do something when you died, raise your hand.

Calvin: I’m dying and I want to do something fun.

Tripp: Everybody who would sit and wait there to die, raise your hand.

Mr. Herr: What are your totals?

Tripp: You raised your hand for the first one, right?

Mr. Herr: Yes, I did.

Tripp: Alright, so 16 people would actually do something; 5 people would sit there.


Mr. Herr: So 16 and 5?

Tripp: Yes. We need to change those five people’s minds or the 16 people’s minds.

Mr. Herr: Okay, good idea. Good idea, Tripp. Do call on the next though – if you’re

done.

Tripp: Becca.

Becca: I am one of the five people who would sit there and die. When you say do

something, do you mean something extravagant and like have a party and do stuff

like that?

Tripp: I mean by sit there and wait as in like –

Elizabeth: Literally.

Tripp: Yeah, literally sit there on a sofa doing whatever in your house like a normal

day.

Becca: Well, I would – say I was like in a hospital – this is how I picture it; I’m really

sick, going to die, and I’m immobilized – that’s why I said I was immobilized. This is

how I think I might die. I’d make sure my will is finished, and make sure the payment

is distributed before I die so there is no problems after I die and nobody’s fighting and

my children getting all in arguments and stuff like that.

Within the last selection, Kasey, Becca and Elizabeth focused their thoughts more outwardly. In

regard to Kasey and Becca, this outward, respectful exchange in relationship to Tripp’s request

emerged as the only sequence in which those two girls did not utter a non-reasoned response


(NR). Between Kasey and Becca, 12 of 46 total non-reasoned moves (NR) were delivered

(26%). Also, beyond Tripp’s initial lack of acknowledgement of Cindy (RE), his previous

speaker, no other moves of idea-disrespect occurred within the excerpt provided. This last

sequence even included the one substantial interjection posed by me: I was engaged with Tripp

and noticed the dialogue statistics he was logging in his class notebook.

While more student inquiries were offered during Dialogue 13 (34 of 58 Explorations)

than during any other talk to date, less than half (15 questions) were of the critical nature:

divergent (DQ), assessment (AQ), or information (IQ). Nineteen of 34 total student questions

were spoken as either requests for reasons (RR) or requests for clarification/restatement.

Interestingly, Elizabeth alone offered 8 of 15 critical questions for the talk, and Mallory (the one

student whose prior skills of exploration had exceeded others) was absent from class. In this

regard I wondered how the dynamics of Dialogue 13 might have been different if Mallory had

been present for the talk. I even presented her with the 10 initial question choices upon her return

and asked her to identify ones in which she would have voted. She intriguingly chose the “why”

stem question that received one fewer vote during the election tally. If Mallory had been present,

there would have been a run-off vote and the dynamics as a whole may have transpired

differently altogether. Table 20 visually details the discourse flow and codes established during

Dialogue 13.

Table 20

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 13 – Non-Textually Generated Topic #4



Kasey RR/RR/CR/POS/RR/CR/CR/rr NR/NR/RE/AR/RE/TS/NR/NR

rr 0 0

Kathy RR/rr RE/NR/NR/NR 0 0

Marcus rr/rr/IQ/DQ RE/NR/NR/TS/RE 0 0

Javier rr RE/NR 0 0

William POS/RR/CR/CR/ID/POS RE/NR/NR/NR/NR/NR 0 0

Niles TS/TS 0 2

Becca DQ/DQ/RR/CR/CR/CR/AQ/RR TS/RE/NR/RE/NR/NR/TS/NR/NR/NR/NR

POS/rr NR 0 0

Jamie POS RE/NR/RE/AR 0 0

Trevor RR/POS/RR/POS RE/NR/NR/NR 0 0

Calvin POS RE/NR/NR/NR/TS/NR/RE/NR/NR/TS/TS

RE/AR/TS/TS/AR 0 0

Everett rr 0 2

Tripp ID/CR/ID/IQ/ID/ID/CR RE/RE 0 0

Piper POS NR/NR/TS/NR/NR 0 0

April RE/NR 0 0

Maria AQ/ID RE/AR/NR 0 1

Aaron W. RE/NR 0 1

Shannon NR 0 0


Michelle NR 0 2

Cindy rr RE/NR 0 0

Ron NR/TS/RE/NR 0 0

Audrey 0 1

Elizabeth DQ/DQ/DQ/IQ/DQ/IQ/DQ/DQ AR/RB/RB/RE 0 0

Aaron C. RE/TS/NR 0 1

Ana 0 1

22 speakers 58 92 0 11

Facilitated moves: Procedural interjections – 17; Substantial interjections – 1

For a 28 minute talk, Dialogue 13 registered a total of 150 moves. A pivotal reason for

such a high frequency of moves in a shorter period of time was the fact that most moves offered

lacked a reasoned addition to the idea presented. Many students offered their aspirations for how

they would want to spend their last hours alive; however, only 6 statements of position (POS)

were attributed to the total of moves. By comparison to previous dialogues, statements of

position (POS) were mostly tallied in the 20s and 30s. This seemed to indicate that participants

were delivering short thoughts, absent of reasoned explanations – positions that would become

identified as moves of exploration. While Disputes (92 of 150 total moves) exceeded

Explorations (58 of 150) 61% to 39%, the syntax of the main topic question did not lead this

dialogue toward exploration. In essence, the 11 passes to speak (which proved greater than

during any other previous talk) were also an indication that this prompt was not constructed to


elicit exploration. A request for personal, inward sharing did not appeal to several of these 11

who passed. Even lead-speakers such as Niles and Aaron C. refrained from joining in as often as

usual. Aaron C. arrived late in the talk, but he normally had not passed on any opportunity to join

in vocally. The construction of the main question for Dialogue 13 seemed to also affect the depth

to which a discussion might delve. Prompting participants to speak in accordance to what they

would “do” under certain circumstances had not always initiated increased levels of critical and

caring talk. What had been observed from analyses of the combined talks was that chosen topic

questions that elicit participants to take a side also helpd them to construct reasons in support of

initiated opinions.

Dialogue 13 may well have exhibited an identifiable difference in dynamics if absent

students had been present on the day of the talk. Dominant-speaker Aaron C. was out for much

of the discussion, and Mallory, as mentioned earlier, was absent entirely. As shown visually by

Table 20, lead-speaker Elizabeth joined Dialogue 13 as one of the last participants to enter, yet

she involved herself more in exploration than in dispute. Elizabeth’s eight Explorations were

made up entirely of critical inquiries as she mainly spoke inquisitively in curiosity of how others

might accomplish the extravagant wishes indicated on their last day alive. In further analysis,

Elizabeth and Tripp were the only participants to deliver more Explorations than Disputes, but

only Elizabeth’s exploratory utterances were exclusively critical.

At the conclusion of Dialogue 13, several students indicated that the central question was

not engaging for them and asked for me submit topics in the future. This was exemplified most

by the absence of deliveries from lead-speakers Shannon and Ron. Between the two of them,

there materialized five total moves – all in dispute. During post-dialogue interview sessions,


Shannon, Becca, and Piper provided similar quotations regarding why the question was not a

good one to discuss:

Shannon: There really wasn’t much room to explore; it’s an opinion.

Becca: Any question that begins with the word “what” is an opinionated question.

Piper: It didn’t leave room to explore; it just gave opinions. And there was no way to

technically question anybody on that.

Yet when I posed a question about whether or not I, as facilitator, should choose upcoming

dialogue questions for the class, the responses were decidedly one-sided as well:

Becca: No, because it’s less interesting if we have somebody choose what we’re

going to talk about.

Tripp: No, because it would be taking away our rights to choose what we want to talk

about.

Piper: No, because I guess we should have the freedom to choose ourselves. We

could choose better questions, but we don’t always choose the better questions.

Also certain about the overall quality of the topic question for Dialogue 13 was the class in its

post-talk Likert scale rating. Dialogue 13 received a mean Likert-rating of 1.6, the lowest of any

dialogue question prior. The class as a whole seemed to be in acknowledgment that such a

question did not promote definitive explorations or disputes – traits a majority of class finds

interesting in a discussion. In fact, Dialogue 13’s question received zero 5.0 ratings but received

eighteen 1.0s – the lowest possible rating on the 5-point Likert survey. Similarly, on the exit


survey given after all talks were observed, not one student indicated the question for Dialogue 13

rated as his or her best overall to discuss.

Class Dialogue 14 – December 18, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma – “The

Afghan Goatherds (36:46).

The final observed class dialogue for this study derived from a factual quandary found in

the text of Michael Sandel’s book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009). In Chapter 1,

“Doing the Right Thing,” Sandel presents a timely moral dilemma related to predicaments

existent in the theatre of modern warfare. The text, entitled “The Afghan Goatherds,” tells of a

situation by which four U.S. Navy SEALs on a secretive reconnaissance mission come across

four local, unarmed goatherds as they approached a target in the mountainous region of

Afghanistan. The soldiers, not having any rope with which to tie-up the goatherds (in case they

might leave to alert the Taliban), figured that they had only two options: to kill the goatherds or

to set them free. After deliberating, the SEALs, led by Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell decided to

take a vote to determine action. With one soldier abstaining, the vote ended up 2 to 1 in favor of

allowing the goatherds to go free -- Luttrell himself casted the deciding vote he came later to

regret. Less than an hour and a half later, the SEALs were surrounded by eighty to one-hundred

armed Taliban fighters who killed all but Luttrell. He managed to radio for help and to escape

into the Pashtun Mountains – pursued and on his own for days following. An added issue

occurred with the rescue helicopter that arrived on the scene to deal with the Taliban. The

Afghan fighters were able to shoot down the helicopter, killing all 16 soldiers on board.

Protected by local, anti-Taliban sympathizers for several days, Officer Luttrell was finally

rescued as returned to safety. Following the ordeal, in hindsight, Officer Luttrell came to despise

the decision he made to let the Afghan goatherds free. He had made the decision, he claims,


because he possesses a Christian soul which told him it was wrong to kill unarmed seemingly

non-combatants. Looking back however, Officer Luttrell has come to consider his deciding vote

as the “stupidest decision I had ever made” – a decision that has come to haunt him since it

occurred in June 2005.

The process for determining a topic question for Dialogue 14 enlisted five student and

one facilitator submission. The five student submissions originated from the Want to Learn

section of the distributed K-W-L charts, used during every observed talk. My topic inquiry

derived from a question posed by Sandel (2009) at the conclusion of his excerpt, “The Afghan

Goatherds”: Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? My submission to the dry-erase board

received 15 of 25 votes and edged out question 4, which received 14 votes. During the process of

choosing the dialogue question, I did not inform students that my submission, question 1, derived

from me. I simply wrote it on the board before calling on the first student to call out his or her

question, saying nothing about its origination.

As for a review of the 12 ground-rules before discussion, I took time to purposefully talk

briefly about the context of each one. As I had done during several reviews before, I gave special

attention to ground-rule 9: Be prepared to change your mind. Due to consistent unchallenged

deliveries by lead-speakers during recent talks, I felt it important to make this address

purposefully to those more dominant participants. I indicated to the class that there were a

handful of students present who say a great deal during a dialogue, but that, many times, their

thoughts and ideas go unquestioned. I informed the class that I felt it only right to have a

discourse environment whereby everybody’s ideas were not only accepted at face-value but also

challenged. This challenging of lead-speaker ideas, I said, could help to create a more critical and

deep conversation – one that promoted greater individual learning and growth.


Dialogue 14 began as many talks had begun before: Lead-speakers took control of the

floor, first to deliver unreasoned responses (NR) and then next to argue without inserting any

inquiry or statement of position (POS). Ron, Calvin, Elizabeth, Shannon, and Aaron C. exhibited

a status-quo that had been witnessed since the beginning of Dialogue 1. However, once Aaron C.

called on Mallory, approximately five minutes into the discussion, the entire flow and dynamics

of Dialogue 14 changed. Mallory’s logical deduction (ID) and statement of position on topic

(POS) within her first turn initiated nearly six consecutive minutes of exploratory talk from a

host of dominant speakers. Remarkably, only a few short dispute moves from Calvin and Kathy

interrupted the flow of inquiry and exploration during this sequence. Interestingly, only one

move of previous-speaker disregard (from Kathy) was issued. The following selection is an

excerpt from this initial flow of inquiry that eventually led to others within Dialogue 14:

Mallory: I agree with Aaron that he couldn’t know that because it says that an hour

and a half after he let them go, they were attacked. So, it could have been the

goatherds that told the Taliban they were there but it couldn’t have not been. He

didn’t know that they were going to tell these people that they were there or not. So,

he was debating because they were these seemingly unarmed goatherds that – I think

by letting them go, they were just doing their thing; they were herding their goats –

whatever goatherds do – and he didn’t think it was right to just kill them because they

maybe could tell them. Uh, Becca.

Becca: Okay, um, I have to disagree with you in some ways but agree with you in

other ways and with most of the people that have already spoken. Um, I mainly agree

with Elizabeth and Ron how it’s either kill or be killed. But in both ways he did do

right. He did the right thing by letting the people live; he did the wrong thing by not


noticing that he would have found a death sentence with letting them go. As a soldier,

he did the wrong thing but as a Christian, he did the right thing – what Ron said. And

if – even if you think he did – even if you think that Christians shouldn’t sign up for

the military, and plan on being a soldier, then they don’t respect their country because

soldiers fight for their country. Even if it does involve killing, I still don’t think that

they should kill. I think they should negotiate a little bit more than fight but he didn’t

do the right thing and he didn’t do the wrong thing – kinda in the middle of the

decision.

Calvin: (not called upon) For a Christian or a country – this country is God’s

kingdom. Our country –

Mr. Herr: That’s not a question.

Calvin: Yeah, so I’m asking –

Mr. Herr: It should come first.

Calvin: Okay. Um, what makes you think that?

Becca: Well, right now we’re here and so we should live here for now and go

wherever we go. But since we are here in our life for some zero to some 80 to a

hundred years (some maybe shorter), we should still help people here.

Calvin: Uh, isn’t there a better way to help the country than killing people?

Becca: Exactly. That’s what I said. You should negotiate more than kill, but he still

did the wrong thing and the right thing – which is weird decision but it’s true. I know

you think it’s the wrong thing, but I don’t.


Calvin: If he was a soldier, shouldn’t he expect to be in one of those situations and try

preventing that and just being a regular citizen?

Becca: Yes and he should try to avoid, and say that if they – the goatherders were on

top of the hill, instead of the bottom. If had of seen that, he should have gone around

them instead of up the hill, running into them.

Mr. Herr: Calvin, you’re making interesting strides just now. I like the conversation

back and forth but we do have others who want to join in, so Becca, I’m going to let

you call.

Becca: Uh, Marcus.

Marcus: Um, I agree with Becca. I mean it’s in-between. He could have – he did the

wrong thing and the right thing, I mean it’s just in-between. I agree with him because

– like with his Christian soul. He did the right thing but you know he’s risking his life

with his team or the army or the – he’s risking everybody else’s life – I mean, it’s in-

between. Kathy.

Kathy: I agree you could either be killed or kill them. And then, I’m going to question

Mallory. You said that that he didn’t know and they were just innocent shepherds or

goatherds that were herding their goats, but in this story it says that shortly after they

were surrounded, so how do you know they were innocent?

Mallory: But Kathy, that’s just my point. You don’t know that they might have been

the goatherds that they saw, and they went off and told the Taliban later and they

were attacked. He didn’t know that they were going to tell them that letting them go


would definitely lead to their being attacked. He just listened to what his conscious

told him, and his conscious was telling him that it was the right thing to let these three

people go. They were unarmed and he didn’t know what would happen later.

Kathy: So wouldn’t you kill them if you didn’t know because you wouldn’t want to

take that chance?

Mallory: Isn’t the right thing to – well, what if – so, say they didn’t; they were just

goatherds and they had no associations with the Taliban whatsoever. Is it the right

thing to kill people just because they might lead to your own death? The key word,

“might.”

Kathy: I would say yes, accept that’s a very risky chance, so – um, Niles.

Niles: Yeah, I kinda agree with her and I kinda disagree with you, Mallory. Right

now because he has a Christian soul, I know it’s really hard to – but I guess if they’re

on a mission, that they have to keep that and it’s not just like a normal person holding

a gun; it’s soldiers so there’s like a – and since they are in Afghanistan – people in

Afghanistan don’t want the U.S. soldiers to come to them and even the helicopter was

shot down. Probably the government knew that the U.S. soldiers were there, so he’s

not risking his own life. I think there’s like a bunch of other soldiers with him and

most of them died because the main reason that that happened was that they let them

go. So I think that he should have killed him I guess. I know he had a Christian soul,

but it’s right since he’s on a mission. Uh –

Mr. Herr: So, missions take priority over doing the right thing? Niles, is that correct?


Niles: Well, right now like what I’m saying is like – of course he’s got a Christian

soul, so it’s going to be a hard decision for him, but right now he’s on a mission and

if he –

Mr. Herr: So –

Niles: -- if he takes a risk, he’s not going to be the only one to die and there’s going to

be like a bunch of other people with him and so he’s betting a whole entire life

because he’s the commander of that place and if he makes a wrong decision, probably

almost everyone is going die, so that’s all I wanted to say.

Mr. Herr: So being a commander means you don’t have to do the right thing, right?

Niles: I’m just thinking he’s betting. He’s not betting his own life; he’s betting a

bunch of other people, so he shouldn’t try to take risks all the time. Those three

people are innocent but there’s a lot of chances that the U.S. soldiers are here.

Mr. Herr: Okay.

Niles: Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Okay, and also you have to think about if I – if I were them, what were the

people that were unarmed?

Beyond a flow representative of Community of Inquiry, other dynamics arose within the

narrative of the last excerpt. Once Calvin received a procedural admonishment from me for

interrupting Becca without posing a question (interrupting with inquiry is an acceptable form of

interjection), he indicated a change in his thinking out loud, identified by future deliveries of

critical inquiry for the remainder of the sequence. Also, interesting to note were moves delivered


by Kathy. Often noted for joining in to initiate a position or inquiry, only to lose her train of

thought, devolving toward a non-reasoned response, Kathy was able to enter in during this

sequence with consecutive critical inquiries (AQ). It seemed that Mallory’s engagement, within

the excerpt as well as at the beginning, triggered those lead-speakers who followed her to speak

in a reasoned manner. Midway through Dialogue 14, she again prompted those akin to joining in

with dispute to enter in exploration:

Mallory: The thing is that the lives of the soldiers and the lives of the goatherds were

the same because all lives are equal, obviously. Everyone has things people care

about them, et cetera. But you said there was a 50/50 chance like the goatherds may

have told the Taliban they were there and they may not have. Obviously, letting them

go is taking a very big risk. Right? But they didn’t know, right? Then Officer Luttrell

made a decision; he was relying on his conscious that it would be the right thing to let

these people go because, hey, they might not tell on us because if you were in that

situation, you said it was the wrong thing letting them go, why?

Jamie: I mean because it was like a chance that the goatherds would have told that

they were there. I mean, they were there because –

Mallory: Is it wrong to take a chance or is it wrong to kill innocent people?

Jamie: Okay, I just changed my mind. I think he did the right thing.

Mr. Herr: Probably you, Mallory.

Mallory: Kathy.


Kathy: I’m confused of why he keeps saying he didn’t know because he has other

men with him so he’s taking a really risky chance. If he didn’t know, wouldn’t you

want to kill them because if they were on the Taliban side then they could – they

could tell the Taliban people that you’re here when you let them go, and you have

other men with you, so you’re risking their lives too and your own life, so if you

didn’t know, wouldn’t you just kill it just because that’s such a risky chance so if you

let them go, they would have told but if you would have killed them, then you could

have captured the Taliban people.

Mallory: Well, obviously I know that it’s a really big risk like if you let these people

go, you could definitely die and your men too, but I still think it’s better to take a big

risky chance than to just kill innocent people. So, Niles. (Interrupted.)

Kasey: I have a question for everybody. You know there was a 50/50 chance that he

could save those people and his people too or there was a chance that he could let the

people go and they would die. Wouldn’t you take also the chance of saving three

innocent lives and your life?

Elizabeth: I would not take a chance to save their lives. I know that sounds really

selfish, I know but there could be like an effect – I don’t know how to put that. Um,

but anyways, I just wouldn’t do it because I don’t like that chance at all. So – Everett.


Aaron C.: Okay, this is to Kasey’s question. So, they sort of did the right thing. But I

would have killed them because there’s still that 50 percent chance that all of them

would have died – the four got to do what you got to do –


Mr. Herr: Aaron, but didn’t the three U.S. Navy SEALs go out that day thinking that

today could be the day I die because I’m in the Navy SEALs and I’m in Afghanistan,

but did the goatherds go out that day going, today’s the day I’m going to die? What

do you think?

This selection was indicative of another exploratory sequence that was triggered by

Mallory but was achieved mainly by lead-speakers. A customary dynamic by which our

dominant speakers engaged more for dispute was being challenged by these few sequences of

greater exploration. Participants like Jamie and Kathy, known for initiating at least one argument

during the course of a talk, did not utter even one between them. As happened in the last excerpt,

Mallory’s critical questions for Jamie were eventually replied to with a lack of reasoning, and

likewise, Kathy joined in twice with a disregard for topic and speaker. On the whole, these two

lead-speakers were making consistent vocal moves toward exploration. Moreover, while

procedural interjections occurred with high frequency from me (24 moves), my 10 substantial

interjections were brought about because of the consistent sequences of student exploration. As

the presence of student-exploration had been a triggering motive, leading me to inquire

throughout our observed talks, the dynamics exhibited within Dialogue 14 again provided

foundations for a classroom community to exist. Like Dialogues 6, 10, and 11 before it, Dialogue

14 resulted in a whole-class talk worthy of being identified as exploratory. Table 21 provides a

visual model indicative of the order and coded utterances present in Dialogue 14.

Table 21

Discourse Coding Indicator – Dialogue 14 – Philosophical/Moral Dilemma #4



Ron POS/RR NR/NR/RE/AR/RE/AR/AR/CA 0 0

Calvin RR/DQ/IQ/IQ/RR/POS/POS AR/TS/NR/TS/AR/AR/AR/CA/AR/RE/AR

RB/RE/TS/AR/TS 0 0

Elizabeth POS/CR/POS/POS RE/AR/AR 0 0

Shannon POS RB/RE 0 0

Aaron C. POS/POS/POS/POS/POS TS/CA/NR 0 0

Mallory ID/POS/POS/POS/DQ/ID/AQ/IQ

POS 0 0

Becca POS/POS/POS/POS/AQ/ID/CR/ AR/RB/RB

POS/IQ/ID 2 0

Marcus POS 1 0

Kathy AQ/AQ/AQ RE/NR/RE 0 0

Niles ID/POS/POS/POS/POS 1 0

Audrey POS RE 0 0

Kasey POS/DQ/POS/DQ RE/RE 0 0

Jamie POS/POS/POS NR/NR 0 0

Everett 0 2

Tripp IQ/IQ/CR/ID 0 0

Maria DQ/CR/DQ RE/RB 0 0


15 speakers 62 45 4 2


Fifteen of 25 students present joined in to Dialogue 14 -- 10 of those 15 participants had

been identified as lead-speakers at some point in the analyses of this study. However, different

from the visual representations provided by tables from other discourses, the coding indicator for

Dialogue 14 shows a distinctly frequent pattern of Explorations delivered by lead-speakers.

While Dialogue 11 (“A Sound of Thunder”) indicated a great conglomeration of Explorations for

lead-speakers, only Dialogue 6 (“Frederick”) rivaled Dialogue 14 in producing as many lead-

speakers who spoke mainly with exploratory utterances. Dialogue 14 produced six lead-speakers

whose moves of exploration were greater in number than their moves of dispute; Dialogue 6

produced five of these lead-speakers. While Dialogue 14 included a smaller number of vocal

participants (15), their expressions as a whole were more exploratory than in any other observed

dialogue. Forty-four of 62 moves, 71% of Explorations, were delivered by lead-speakers during

Dialogue 14. The results of this dialogue also indicated that 10 total participants gave more

exploratory moves than they did disputations. Only Dialogue 6 produced more purely

exploratory participants, with 11 students.

Disputes uttered during Dialogue 14 (45 moves), as indicated, did not exceed those of

Explorations (62 moves). Aside from secure-speakers Ron and Calvin, no other participant (lead-

speaker or otherwise) delivered more than three moves in dispute. Noticeably absent from

Dialogue 14 was a higher frequency of disregards for previous speakers (RE). Only 11

disregards (RE) were coded, and those longer sequences of exploratory moves (as analyzed

earlier) seemed to contribute to the absence of disputational moves of disregard. Other utterances


of dispute were also spoken at lower frequencies throughout Dialogue 14. Arguments (AR = 13

moves), rebuttals (RB = 5 moves), counter-arguments (CA = 3 moves), non-reasoned responses

(NR = 7 moves), and topic-shifts (TS = 5 moves) contributed to a total of 33 of 45 disputational

moves (73% of Disputes). In total, those 45 moves of dispute were revealed to be the lowest

amount uttered in any of the previous 13 talks. Due to the amount of time spent speaking in

exploration, disputational moves were not commonly delivered during Dialogue 14.

Cumulative moves of agreement were also not delivered with significance. Only 4 moves

of agreement were offered during the course of Dialogue 14. This incidence was somewhat

surprising in that the nature of the topic question required a taking of sides. Thusly, a taking of

sides often times elicited disagreement and agreement in greater frequency. During Dialogue 14

however, a greater frequency of participants answering student inquiries and posing their own in

return came to describe the dynamic present. Likewise, as indicated from the post-talk, Likert

survey, the topic question for Dialogue 14 was well received. Twenty-five students gave a mean

score of 3.8 out of 5.0 to the question: Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? Eight students

gave the question a 5.0, contributing to the overall mean score, and two students rated the topic

question as the best of all 14 on the post-observation exit survey.

Part II: Textual and Non-Textual Influences

As a focus of this study, I analyzed the narrative responses of seventh-graders in order to

explore and understand the dynamics existent within whole-class discourses. As the class

facilitator of these talks, I was enthusiastic to document and analyze how various types of texts

(some required by my school’s curriculum and some not) influenced students’ vocal projections


of their thoughts. The interpretation of Research Question 1 (RQ1) encompassed the dialogue

narratives of 14 observed discussions, broken into four categories:

Research Question 1: How do traditional/classical stories, philosophical stories/moral

dilemmas, factual narratives, and non-textually generated prompts influence early

adolescents’ thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class dialogues?

As stated by RQ1, different types of read-aloud short stories, non-fiction narratives and

speeches, famous moral dilemmas, and the inclusion of non-textual inquiries from the class

prompted this class of 25 seventh-graders to think out loud.

Following read-aloud sessions the class period before each discussion, students were

prompted to construct deep, philosophical questions for potential consideration by the whole

group. Students either constructed questions in class before the talks on their K-W-L notes chart

or away from class -- online on our social learning website, Edmodo®. On occasion I also

supplied a question to the list of student inquiries. These questions were then posted and made

visible for voting on the classroom’s main dry-erase board. The process of voting for a dialogue

topic question involved students raising a hand for as many of the posted questions as they

wished. After the voting for Dialogue 1’s entries seemed to elicit a good deal of peer-pressure

votes, all other ensuing elections called for students to vote with their heads down. Once a main

topic question was determined, I reviewed 12 ground-rules important for achieving an

exploratory discussion with the class (Mercer and Dawes, 2008). After the 12 group-norms were

covered, facilitation of our talks began.

Dialogues 1, 5, 9 and 13: Non-textually generated topics.


Non-Textually Generated Topics, those that might arise from general student interest,

have been identified by both Freire and Shor (1970, 1992) as catalysts toward the promotion of

whole-group authentic, critical talk. Shor (1992) recognized student problem-posing as a bridge

between the types of engagement often present within teacher-led discussions and the more

relaxed and informal nature of peer-to-peer conversations. Shor noticed that students, when

given autonomous opportunities to supplant their own problems of interest into the realm of a

class dialogue, vocally began to discourse with critical depth in a relaxed and open tone. Shor

referred to this merging of interactive dichotomies as a venture into the third idiom – a form of

talk that bridged the traditional, didactic utterances of lecturers with the typically uncritical

openness exhibited through peer-to-peer familiarity (Shor, 1992).

The four non-textually based topics posed in this study covered a wide gamut of interests.

From song-lyrics to school rivalries, animal concerns to likely activities in the final hours of life,

these topics presented an array of differing opportunities for students to enter into the third

idiom. Dialogue 1’s topic led with a reason-eliciting stem of “why”, yet the questions posed for

Dialogues 5 and 9 were presented as close-ended, side-taking prompts that provoked either/or

responses. Dialogue 13’s question prompted participants to speak about personal aspirations

without necessarily engaging them in critical reasoning. Regularly, what was witnessed during

all four of these dialogues was a greater volume of disputational student talk than was vocalized

during those discussions derived out textual content. All four Non-Textually Generated Topics

resulted in a greater difference between Disputes than Explorations. No other category of

observation – Philosophical/Moral dilemmas, Classical Fiction, or Factual Narratives produced

an average wider margin between Explorations and Disputes (38) than did discussions derived

from student-interest topics. Table 22 shows the relationship between questions posed and the


categorized moves of participants during Dialogues 1, 5, 9, and 13. Here, N = the number of

vocally engaged participants and Moves = the total number of utterances recorded. For Totals,

19.8 (N) refers to an average number of participants observed during Non-Textually Generated

talks.

Table 22

Non-Textually Generated Dialogue Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves

Question N Explorations Disputes Agreements Moves

1 Why don’t we pay attention to lyrics? 14 14 56 18 88

5 Which school is better, TLA or CKA? 22 41 75 6 122

9 Should we kill animals? 21 53 95 17 165

13 What would you do…last day? 22 58 92 0 150

Totals 19.8 166 318 41 525

As is indicated by Table 22, the volume of participant vocal moves (Moves) increased

with each dialogue engagement. While the number of Explorations rose with each non-textually

related talk, Disputes gradually rose as well – except for a slight dip in disputational moves from

Dialogue 9 to Dialogue 13. What remains consistent throughout the analysis of all four

discussions is the margin of moves between Explorations and Disputes. Explorations here never

rivaled Disputes in volume of moves in any of the four dialogues. Disputes contributed to 61%


of all moves while Explorations made up 32% of all moves. Interestingly, Dialogues 1 and 9

elicited the highest amount of agreement moves of any of the 14 observed talks at 18 and 17

moves respectively. A reason for a greater influx of cumulative moves within Dialogues 1 and 9

can be attributed to the newness of dialogue involvement existent throughout our first talk and

the polarizing syntax used by Dialogue 9: Should we kill animals? During both Dialogues 1 and

9, agreement talk represented attempts by participants to show respect and an alignment of ideas

with other speakers. On several occasions moves of agreement were issued as solidifications of

friendships between students in the classroom.

Further analysis of Explorations delivered within Dialogue 1, 5, 9, and 13 showed a

gradual decrease in the volume of position statements offered. In Dialogues 1 and 5, statements

of position (POS), an inward expression of exploring, accounted for more than half of all

Explorations issued at 64% and 59% respectively. However, Dialogues 9 and 13, in place of

statements of position, resulted in increases of exploratory inquiries from the participants. In fact,

the total number of questions in exploration posed during Dialogue 9 (26 queries) registered as

the greatest number of inquiries posed by students to that point. Moreover, while Dialogue 13

was chiefly identified as a talk of low reasoned responses, the volume of questions posed by

participants within that discourse (34 questions) was the highest of any of the 14 observed

discussions. It should be noted, however, that 19 of the 34 questions posed by students during

Dialogue 13 were of a non-critical nature; a majority of inquiries were comprised of requests for

restatements (CR) and requests for reasons (RR). Questions of a more critical kind (divergent

questions = DQ, assessment questions= AQ, and information questions= IQ) were delivered 15

of 34 times. Also interesting to discuss was that during Dialogue 13, the number of passed

opportunities in order to elicit engagement from previous non-speakers (rr) registered at nine –


the most during any of the 14 observed dialogues. Table 23 illustrates a categorical delineation of

this study’s non-textually generated Explorations.

Table 23

Categorized Explorations: Non-Textually Generated Questions

Question POS ID rr RR CR DQ AQ IQ

1 Why don’t we pay attention to lyrics? 9 1 0 0 2 1 1 0

5 Which school is better, TLA or CKA? 24 7 0 3 1 6 0 0

9 Should we kill animals? 23 6 0 3 1 7 1 9

13 What would you do on your last day? 9 6 9 9 10 9 2 4

Totals 65 9 15 14 23 4 13 20

As indicated in Table 23, statements of position (POS) occurred at a greater frequency

during the first three non-textually generated talks than they appeared within Dialogue 13. As the

syntax used to construct Dialogue 13’s question indicates, participants were prompted to respond

personally and inwardly but were not necessarily asked to provide reasoning for their response.

This resulted in a lower volume of positions (POS) uttered overall during Dialogue 13. In

relationship to the syntax used for Dialogue 13’s question, vocal offerings that might have

registered previously as statements of position were delivered as non-reasoned responses.

Because Dialogue 13’s prompt did not elicit a reasoned reply, participants, with greater vocal


frequency, did not offer complete positions on the topic and likewise had more moves coded as

disputational instead of exploratory.

Also noticeable within Table 23 is an increase in exploratory moves of inquiry from

Dialogue 1 and 5 to Dialogues 9 and 13. This may have been due to the fact that student-

understanding of our ground-rules was more enhanced later in observed talks and that my

promotion of question-asking during those norm-reviews was being implemented. The rise in

critical questions expressed during Dialogues 9 and 13 may have been attributed to different

causes. Dialogue 9, “Should we kill animals?” prompted participants to ask others to provide

background knowledge in addition to their reasoned replies. This delivery of background

positions then prompted student-inquirers to follow-up with more divergent queries. However,

the increase in the volume of critical questions delivered during Dialogue 13 could be attributed

to the moves of inquiry delivered by one participant, Elizabeth. Of the 15 critical questions

spoken during Dialogue 13, Elizabeth offered 8 of those. She emerged as one of only two

participants to have delivered more Explorations than Disputes during the entire talk. Moreover,

Elizabeth was the only participant during Dialogue 13 whose Explorations were delivered

entirely as critical questions: No other observed participant, in a dialogue before or after, would

replicate that distinction.

The volume of Disputes rose steadily as dialogues of Non-Textually Generated Topics

were discussed. As was represented through Table 22, Disputes increased, for the most part,

chronologically as the time table of non-text related questions were discussed. Moves of dispute

increased (aside from the Disputes logged in total for Dialogue 13) steadily with each

progressing discussion. There was an affiliation between the total number of participant moves

spoken and the number of Disputes coded. Table 24 indicates the categorized moves of dispute


offered during Dialogues 1, 5, 9 and 13, whereby RE = disregard of the previous speaker, PQ =

personal question, AR = argument initiation, RB = rebuttal, CA = counter-argument, NR = non-

reasoned responses, TS = shift in topic, and SD = simply disagreement.

Table 24

Categorized Disputes: Non-Textually Generated Questions

Question RE PQ AR RB CA NR TS SD

1 Why don’t we pay attention to lyrics? 26 0 17 4 1 3 3 0

5 Which school is better, TLA or CKA? 26 0 21 6 4 8 10 0

9 Should we kill animals? 28 3 21 13 1 10 16 0

13 What would you do on your last day? 24 0 6 2 0 46 13 0

Totals 104 3 65 25 6 67 42 0

On average, lack of regard for the previous speaker (RE) occurred more frequently within all

Non-Textually Generated Topic dialogues. These four topics generally elicited strongly held

beliefs from an opinionated group of lead-speakers. When called upon to join in or when they

interrupted the talk, our lead-speakers uttered ideas, arguments, or topic-shifts without providing

words of respect about the content delivered by the immediately preceding speaker. As with the

interpretation of Explorations in Table 23, the discussion of Dialogue 13’s question proved an

outlier in regard to Disputes as well. Arguments (AR) dropped noticeably to a total of 6 and non-


reasoned responses (NR) rose sharply to 46. Because the question for Dialogue 13 did not plainly

prompt students for a reasoned response, many participants in that talk did not deliver reasoning.

Also, since reasoned position statements (POS) decreased, argumentation (AR) was absent from

the dialogue as well.

Noticeable, however, during discussions of non-textually generated topics was a steady

and leveling rise of topic-shift utterances. In fact, the 42 topic-shifts (TS) coded here accounted

for the greatest volume of shifts in any of the four dialogue groupings. During these non-

textually generated topic talks, shifts were uttered, for the most part as selfish, attention-grabbing

quips. On occasion Calvin, Becca, and Aaron C. would shift the flow of conversation in the

midst of a lengthy argumentative diatribe. Mostly, however, topic-shifts took the form of one-

line wisecracks that would many times redirect a given dialogue toward more dispute. As is

identified by Table 24, dialogue questions 5, 9, and 13 prompted participants take sides in their

responses. I posit that a number of topic-shifts uttered during these talks was a sort of cumulative

offering, delivered to lighten a building mood of argumentation rising within these discussions.

Moves of cumulative agreement occurred with greater frequency during dialogues generated

from non-textual topics, and the 17 moves of agreement offered during Dialogue 9 indicated a

prime example whereby quick, one-line shifts dotted the narrative of a discussion heated with a

controversy over whether or not animals should be killed.

The dynamics of facilitator moves proved intriguing as an indicator of Explorations and

Disputes within dialogues of Non-Textually Generated Topics. Procedural and substantial moves

delivered by me seemed to point to a slight connection between teacher moves and the general

flow of discussions. If I spoke mainly to direct the talk on task or to elicit more speakers

(procedural moves), a given dialogue angled toward becoming defined as disputational.


However, if I joined in with a greater volume of inquiries regarding our topic of discussion

(substantial moves), the given dialogue as a whole moved toward exploration. In some talks the

flow of student discussion dictated my moves; in others, perhaps, my utterances helped to direct

the vocal moves of students. Table 25 shows a representation of facilitator moves in accordance

with total moves of Explorations and Disputes in Dialogues 1, 5, 9, and 13.

Table 25

Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes: Non-Textual Talks

Question Procedural Substantial Explorations Disputes

1 Why don’t we pay attention to lyrics? 8 2 14 56

5 Which school is better, TLA or CKA? 16 9 41 75

9 Should we kill animals? 27 11 53 95

13 What would you do on your last day? 17 1 58 92

Totals 68 23 166 318

Seemingly, the total number of student moves uttered during Non-Textually Generated

Topics increased as the volume of delivered facilitator moves increased. During Dialogues 5 and

9, procedural interjections were delivered with greater frequency due to the dichotomous

responses required by those prompts. Generally, a greater number of procedural moves by me

indicated a dialogue that needed steering back to topic or that lacked a wide range of


participants. Within Dialogue 5, the talk whereby Marcus and Michelle delivered multiple

informative positions about their stays at TLA, I often spoke procedurally (16 times), prompting

others to join in. However, the high volume of procedural interjections given during Dialogue 9

(27 moves) resulted in facilitator moves to keep the discussion on task. “Should we kill

animals?” elicited 16 topic-shifts (TS) and many of those utterances were redirected back on

topic. As the main question for Dialogue 13 did not promote outward reasoning, substantial

interjections were likewise absent while procedural moves were, once again, delivered (17

moves) generally to redirect participants who wondered off-track (13 topic-shifts). The two

dialogues (5 and 9) in which substantial interjections were greatest did not elicit a narrowing of

the Explorations/Disputes gap as substantial moves in talks focused on moral dilemmas would.

The 11 substantial interjections delivered during Dialogue 9 did not trigger a jump in exploratory

moves by participants, yet a similar number of substantial moves delivered outside non-textually

generated talks would in fact signify a greater number of Explorations. This phenomenon seems

to illustrate that topics generated from student interest would require greater substantial, reason-

eliciting attention from me as facilitator if those talks were to progress toward becoming defined

as exploratory.

At the conclusion of the 14 observed dialogues, an exit survey was provided to all 25

student participants. Along with providing a rating for each dialogue question, a portion of the

exit survey directed students to rate the categories prompting our discussions: Non-Textually

Generated Topics, Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas, Traditional/Classical Fiction, and Factual

Narratives. On a 5-point Likert scale, Non-Textually Generated Topics merited a raw score of 98

and mean average of 3.92. In terms of student interest, Non-Textually Generated Topics rated

second to Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas. Nine of 25 students taking the survey gave these


student/teacher generated topics the top rating of 5.0. Overall student interest in providing

questions for discussion on our classroom learning site, Edmodo®, was generally better received

when it was again time to submit their own topics. More often than not, questions submitted for

voting for a given non-textual topic were provided in the teens. Several times I had to narrow

down from the original list so that the ones written on the dry-erase board were those that would

provide us the best chance to think out loud.

Dialogues 2, 6, 10 and 14: Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas.

Philosophical/moral dilemmas used in this study were as historic and thought-provoking

as they were short and easily read aloud in one class period. In the case of all four of the

dialogues that transpired from these textual dilemmas, given dilemma-texts were provided in

handout form to the students and read aloud during the same class period that the dialogue took

place. All dilemmas presented in this study, in the scope of philosophical study, focused on the

topic of morality. Dialogue 2 (“The Heinz Dilemma”) caused students to ponder the morality of

stealing; Dialogue 6 (“Frederick”) initiated students to consider aspects of fairness; Dialogue 10

(“The Runaway Trolley”) challenged students to deal with the concept of utilitarian

righteousness with death on the line; Dialogue 14 (“The Afghan Goatherds”) also confronted

students with a life and death quandary – this time in the context of a military decision.

Dialogues 2 and 6 were initiated by student questions receiving votes. Dialogue 10, however,

was engaged by standard questions traditionally attached to each respective text. Dialogue 14

served as the only discourse within the group in which the topic question of choice was

submitted by me among a number of student inquiries.


During Dialogue 2 vocal participation was generally disputational through 24 minutes of

discourse. Even though lead-speakers dominated later in the talk rather than earlier, and 22 of 25

students present engaged, Dialogue 2 was noticeably devoid of student inquiry. Of the 27

Explorations spoken, 20 were delivered as statements of position (POS). Only five questions

were uttered, three of which were non-critical. Dialogue 6, the first talk to become defined as

exploratory, did not engage as many vocal participants as Dialogue 2, yet the number of speakers

who explored more than they disputed reached 11 – the highest number of Explorations-oriented

students noticed within any of the 14 observed talks. Twenty student-questions were posed

during Dialogue 6 along with 15 substantial facilitator interjections. Dialogue 10 resulted in the

most exploratory moves delivered in any of the 14 observed discussions (84 Explorations). For

the 22 participants, Disputes uttered during Dialogue 10 trumped Explorations by only three

moves. A high volume of non-reasoned responses, totaling 27 moves, were spoken as

participants wrestled with a dilemma of whether or not to pull a switch to divert a runaway

trolley from hitting five or one unaware workers on the trolley tracks. Student inquiry reached 26

questions, and the number of explorers totaled 7 of 22 speakers during Dialogue 10.

Dialogue 14 also came to be defined as exploratory. While only 15 of 25 students

engaged vocally, this talk produced a range of secure and less-secure participants who delivered

Explorations during multiple moves. Lead-speakers even tended to explore more than they

disputed during Dialogue 14. Ten of the 15 participants offered more exploratory moves than

they did moves of dispute, and 7 of those 10 exploratory students were of the dominant speaking

group. Also remarkable during Dialogue 14 was a decrease in student disrespect. Only 11 moves

of previous speaker disregard (RE) were issued – the least amount in any of the 14 observed

talks. Table 26 indicates the relationship between questions posed and responses coded in regard


to our four moral dilemmas. Again, Totals of N represent the average number of participants

engaging within the grouping of Philosophical/Moral Dilemma prompts.

Table 26

Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Dialogue Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves

Question N Explorations Disputes Agreements Total

2 What would you do in Heinz’s situation? 22 27 64 5 96

6 What is the purpose of “Frederick?” 19 67 47 5 119

10 Do you pull the switch?/Push the man? 22 84 90 13 187

14 Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? 15 62 45 4 111

Totals 19.5 240 246 27 513

In comparison to the four dialogues of Non-Textually Generated Topics, discussions of

moral dilemmas indicated a slightly different dynamic overall. Other than an outlier as

represented by Dialogue 2, discourses about moral quandaries were either distinctly exploratory

(Dialogues 6 and 14) or very nearly exploratory (Dialogue 10). The average number of vocal

participants was similar to that of non-textual topics (19.5 to 19.8) and the total number of moves

was also very close (513 to 525). Differing aspects could be found within the numbers of

Explorations and Disputes. Deliberating the purpose of “Frederick” and whether or not Officer

Marcus Luttrell did the right thing by letting go three unarmed Afghan goatherds resulted in


distinctive moves toward exploration and ultimately Community of Inquiry. Very nearly the

utilitarian dilemma of the runaway trolley became defined as an exploratory conversation. This

dialogue (Dialogue 10) produced the most Explorations (84) of any of the 14 talks and no doubt

would have been defined as exploratory if not for the inclusion of 27 non-reasoned responses.

Because the syntactical wording of the question included an inward command (Do “you”

pull…), I believe initial responses became centered on personal statements – not necessarily

exploratory positions that required reasoning. In retrospect, a dialogue question that might have

elicited students to explain their opinion would have prompted some non-reasoning responders to

provide better supported explanations during Dialogue 10.

I believe a similar effect transpired during Dialogue 2, a much more definitively

disputational discussion. The question to answer was, “What would you do in Heinz’s

situation?” Once again the syntax of the prompt initiated participants to provide a personal

opinion but did not necessarily require speakers to elaborate on the reasoning of why they would

do what they suggested. If I was a more observant facilitator, I would have posed a greater

number of substantial moves of inquiry to help flesh out reasoning when it was not initially

provided. However, as this occurred during the second dialogue, I was still mindful of entering

into the talks too much and was interested to see if more students would inquire instead of me.

In all, discussions of moral dilemma texts and situations led participants to explore more

than any other group of questions or categories of literature. Construction of our main questions

did play a part in producing a greater number of Explorations; however, I also believe that the

expediency of which the class was able to read, think about, and openly reflect about the

dilemmas (within the same class period) attributed to the total number of Explorations offered.

Dialogues relating to classical fiction and factual narratives occurred during the class period


directly following the read-alouds and were denied the benefits of fresh thoughts that were a part

of our talks over moral dilemmas. The categorization of Explorations is represented by Table 27.

Table 27

Categorized Explorations: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Questions

Questions POS ID rr RR CR DQ AQ IQ

2 What would you do in Heinz’s situation? 20 1 1 0 3 2 0 0

6 What was the purpose of “Frederick?” 36 10 0 8 4 6 1 3

10 Do you pull the switch?/Push the man? 47 7 4 6 4 7 6 3

14 Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? 32 6 0 3 4 4 5 6

Totals 135 24 5 17 15 19 12 15

Most noticeably, statements of position (POS) were offered with more frequency during

dialogues eliciting moral decisions than during discussions of student or teacher interest. Yet in

all eight categories of Explorations, responses spoken during discussions about moral dilemmas

produced more exploratory moves. The total number of questions delivered (RR, CR, DQ, AQ,

IQ), 78 during discussions of morality, exceeded the total number of questions issued during

non-textual topics by nine moves (69 total). Overall the key variable contributing to a decisive

difference between Explorations made within non-text related topics and those posing moral

dilemmas occurred through the deliveries of statements of position (POS). By a margin greater


than 2-to-1 (135 to 65 moves), participants offered exploratory, reasoned opinions in direct

response to the main topic question of our four dilemma talks. In this sense, participants stayed

on-topic for a longer period of time than they did when thinking out loud during topics of

interest. Table 28 provides a categorical representation showing where participants drifted

toward more disputational ends during Dialogues 2, 6, 10, and 14.

Table 28

Categorized Disputes: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Questions


2 What would you do in Heinz’s situation? 31 0 19 4 1 7 5 0

6 What was the purpose of “Frederick?” 18 0 8 5 2 6 8 0

10 Do you pull the switch?/Push the man? 21 0 20 8 3 27 11 0

14 Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? 11 0 13 5 3 7 5 0

Totals 81 0 60 22 9 47 29 0

On the whole, Disputes logged during moral dilemma dialogues were low by comparison.

Differences in argumentation, rebuttals, and counter-arguments were not significantly lower than

were delivered during Non-Textually Generated Topics, but differences in moves of disrespect

(RE) and non-reasoned responses (NR) did prove noteworthy. Participants generally were more

acknowledging of previous speakers during discourses of moral topics. Only the discussion over


Heinz’s dilemma resulted in a disproportionate number of disregards for previous speakers (31

moves). The other three moral discussions elicited more respectful initial engagements into

conversations. Moreover, as can be understood by studying the breakdown of facilitator moves

in accordance with Explorations and Disputes in Table 29, interjections spoken during moral

dilemma dialogues occurred more frequently and with greater substantial deliberateness than

during non-textually generated talks.

Table 29

Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes: Moral Dilemma Talks


2 What would you do in Heinz’s situation? 11 9 27 64

6 What is the purpose of “Frederick?” 12 15 67 47

10 Do you pull the switch?/Push the man? 34 27 84 90

14 Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? 24 10 62 45

Totals 81 61 240 246

Facilitator moves were delivered with greater frequency during the four moral dilemma

dialogues for several reasons. Aside from the coinciding prompt for Dialogue 2 which did not

poignantly trigger reasoned positions or inquiry from participants, the next three dilemma

questions discoursed impelled students to think deeper and more critically about each


controversy brought forth. Participants were urged to supply a purpose within Dialogue 6, to

determine a split-second life or death decision within Dialogue 10, and to again quickly decide

on the life or death of local citizens present during a theatre of war. I conclude that these grade 7

participants were not accustomed to deliberating such weighty questions alone, much less within

a class of their peers. In this sense, their responses on the whole were thoughtful without seeming

attitudinal. The topic questions deriving from moral dilemmas elicited more honest responses of

belief. Absent were replies of self-identification so present during the talks about topics of

student interest: what their favorite types of songs are, how much they know about our school

and its rival, which restaurants they frequent, and what their dying wishes would be. During

discourse of philosophical/moral controversies, participants’ responses were delivered in a more

unrehearsed manner, and this phenomenon helped to bring forth critical reasoning into the talks.

With a greater influx of deep reasoning offered (especially during Dialogues 6, 10, and

14) my moves as facilitator were also indicative of an adaption to participants’ depth of thought.

More regularly opportunities to interject divergent, assessment, and information queries of my

own emerged once participants delivered statements of position that seemed devoid of critical

elements. Because participants were becoming honest and creative in their open thoughts, I too

was also prompted in a more Socratic way. As can be identified within Table 29, there was a

greater volume of substantial questions delivered by me – especially during Dialogues 6, 10, and

14. When the numbers of my substantial interjections were high, Explorations from students

were also witnessed in greater number – no matter the topic or the category of literature.

Dialogue 6 (“Frederick”), defined generally as the most exploratory dialogue of the 14 observed

(with Explorations attributing to 56% of all moves), proved the only philosophical/moral


discussion whereby more substantial moves were delivered than procedural (Substantial = 15;

Procedural = 12).

Also noticeable from an analysis of Table 29 is an indication that facilitator procedural

interjections spoken during Dialogues 10 and 14 registered with greater frequency. This was, in

part, due to the syntactical nature of the dilemma questions used. Both topic questions (for

Dialogues 10 and 14) required participants to take sides, and such side-taking encouraged me as

facilitator to keep tabs on students who had not engaged early but who would speak if called

upon. With topic questions that elicited personal choice replies such as “Do you pull the switch?”

I monitored the number of utterances delivered by lead-speakers, interjecting to question the

respectful intentions of any who joined in multiple times before other less-dominant speakers

engaged. For this reason, the number of procedural moves was greater during Dialogue 10 (34

moves) and Dialogue 14 (24 moves) than during other two talks that deliberated moral

dilemmas.

Despite participants not choosing any one Philosophical/Moral Dilemma questions as

our best overall to discuss, exit survey evaluations for Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas as a group

rated highest of four categories. Students graded the group of moral dilemma dialogue questions

with a raw tally of 106 and an average score of 4.24 on the 5-point Likert scale. Of 25

participants taking the exit survey, 13 rated our moral dilemmas grouping a 5.0 on the 5-point

scale. Although participants did not specifically favor any one moral dilemma question, overall

sentiments toward the entire grouping of philosophical/moral questions remarkably had an

impact on student choices during the exit survey. Interestingly, Dialogues 2 and 6 rated below

average during post-dialogue surveys given following each talk. In fact, Dialogue 6, the most

exploratory talk observed, received one of the lowest individual average ratings of all 14


discussions (2.8 of 5.0). Quite possibly, since disputational talk was uttered least during

Dialogue 6, its memorable qualities were overlooked. Also possible is the idea that because

Dialogue 6 was not disputational, it was not memorable for that reason.

Dialogues 3, 7, and 11: Traditional/Classical Fiction.

The three short stories read aloud to elicit dialectical conversations over fiction pieces

were selected from CKA’s curricular canon of grade 7 literature. The stories were chosen

because each ended in climactic surprise – a development which I thought might lead

participants to submit questions of exploration for which to vote. For “The Necklace” (Dialogue

3) students voted to deviate slightly from the crux of the story’s overall theme: Why did

Mathilde marry a clerk if she was unhappy with her position in life? The question accepted for

“The Tell-Tale Heart” (Dialogue 7) was a submission added to the list of student postings by me:

The narrator: crazy of clever? Dialogue 11’s topic question related to “A Sound of Thunder” did

require for participants to examine the theme of the story: Can something very insignificant, like

killing a butterfly in the past, have a huge effect on the future? Each of the three stories was read

aloud the class period preceding its related dialogue. Since CKA runs on a block schedule, the

readings and the discussions did not occur on consecutive days – there was a day in between the

read-aloud class period and the dialogue class period. This lay-off may have affected the overall

discussion of these fiction pieces: Significant plot details may have been forgotten by some

participants causing apprehension of engaging in talks. In fact, noticeable in relationship to

overall vocal participation in dialogues, talks about fiction elicited a drop in the number of

speakers who joined in discussions. On average, 17 speakers engaged during dialogues about our

three fiction pieces.


Once engaged, Dialogues 3, 7, and 11 featured lead-speakers throughout. In no other

category of discussion were less-dominant speakers more absent from conversations than during

talks related to fiction read-alouds. In terms of total moves spoken, such non-engagement did not

seem related to an overabundance of disputational talk. Seemingly, lack of understanding

contexts of given works of fiction might have been more influential in contributing to a decrease

in participation – more so than a lack of understanding philosophical/moral texts had on speaker

engagement during those dialogues. The fiction works chosen for this study were determined by

the Core Knowledge curriculum to be understood on-level at a grade above the assigned

classification in which they were used. CKA’s intent to accelerate students by endorsing early

immersion into certain classical pieces may have contributed to a drop in critical, vocal

participation during this study. The average number of participants decreased by nearly three

speakers from the previous two dialogue categories. Moreover, context knowledge of the fiction

pieces used had a better chance of being forgotten over two-day lay-offs. Lay-offs resulting in

contextual gaps may have also contributed to dominance by our lead-speakers and silent

abstaining from our less-engaging students. Table 30 shows possible connections between

participants and the types of moves uttered in Dialogues 3, 7, and 11.

Table 30

Traditional/Classical Fiction Dialogue Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves


3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? 16 23 46 4 73

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? 15 53 65 12 130


11 Can killing in the past affect the future? 19 70 63 7 140

Totals 16.7 146 174 23 343

Aside from Dialogues 3, 7, and 11 resulting in a noticeable decrease in participants

overall, traditional/classical fiction discussions did contribute positively toward the emergence of

exploratory talk. Dialogue 11 came to be defined as the only discourse outside of those initiated

by moral dilemmas to register as exploratory. Even so, 9 lead-speakers contributed 110 of 140

total moves within Dialogue 11. Fifty-one of 70 Explorations, 55 of 63 Disputes, and 4 of 7

Agreements were delivered by dominant participants.

Explorations logged during Dialogue 11 accounted for 50% of the total moves while

Disputes attributed to 45% of all moves. Also, Dialogue 7 did not show a wide margin between

Explorations and Disputes (53-to-65). Again, Dialogues 7 and 11 provided support for the notion

that question syntax proves significant in eliciting exploratory utterances. If sides must be taken,

explanations become prompted, and personal, anecdotal replies are not provoked, the

foundations for exploratory discourse exist. Explorations spoken during Dialogues 3, 7, and 11

progressed gradually away from statements of position (POS) toward a more critically-inclined

posing of student questions: RR, CR, DQ, AQ, and IQ. Interestingly, the total number of

questions posed by participants during Dialogue 11 (28 questions) eclipsed the number of

inquiries delivered during either of the two exploratory talks identified within the moral

dilemmas grouping – Dialogues 6 and 14. Table 31 shows a breakdown of categorized

Explorations delivered during Dialogues 3, 7, and 11.


Table 31

Categorized Explorations: Traditional/Classical Fiction Questions


3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? 13 2 3 0 1 4 1 0

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? 18 12 2 6 5 4 1 3

11 Can killing in the past affect the future? 24 11 6 4 8 10 1 5

Totals 55 25 11 10 14 18 3 8

Divergent questions asked during Dialogue 11 (10 questions) exceeded those posed by

participants in any other dialogue within this study. The 28 student inquiries made during

Dialogue 11 ranked second only to the 34 questions posed during Dialogue 13 (What would you

do on the last day of your life?). However, the exploratory questions posed during Dialogue 11

were more critical. Sixteen of the 28 total inquiries were delivered as divergent, assessment, or

information seeking questions. Less than half of the questions posed during Dialogue 13 were of

those critical types. Moves of inference/deductive logic also trended toward an increase within

this grouping. Aside from delivering an inquiry to our discussions, the forms of deductive logic

spoken during Dialogues 7 and 11 exemplified creative ways in thinking out loud. In providing

deductive moves, students shared their thought processes aloud as they presented a position or a

concern. Deductive moves were defined by acts of vocally piecing together parts of context in

such a way that the steps toward logical understanding could be heard audibly as participants


weighed them aloud. Dialogues 7 and 11 brought forth this type of exploratory sharing more so

than any other talks recorded here.

Disputes during Dialogues 3, 7, and 11 were centrally issued by lead-speakers. Once each

of these dialogues progressed past the ninth or tenth different speaker in class, the number of

turns delivered by other, less-assertive speakers did not comprise even half of the total moves

issued. Seemingly, desires by lead-speakers to include the voices of others into our talks was not

of high importance. However, based on the nature and frequency of responses given by non-

dominant speakers during Dialogues 3, 7, and 11, they did not have much to say anyway. Table

32 provides a representation of categorical divisions of Disputes uttered during our fiction-stories

dialogues.

Table 32

Categorized Disputes: Traditional/Classical Fiction Questions


3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? 17 0 18 4 0 5 1 0

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? 22 0 9 3 0 13 18 0

11 Can killing in the past affect the future? 20 0 14 3 1 13 11 0

Totals 59 0 41 10 1 31 30 0


As is visually represented, disregards for previous speakers and argumentation were

issued at about an average rate. Arguments initiated did not turn into rebuttals and counter-

arguments, yet non-reasoned responses and topic-shifts were coded with above average numbers

within Dialogues 7 and 11. In both Dialogues 7 and 11, personal anecdotes were issued with

regularity in explanation of how the narrator of “The Tell-Tale Heart” would prove insane or

clever and how their personal actions could disrupt the balance of nature. Participants such as

Aaron C., Kasey, and Piper tried to provide explanatory analogies that drifted from the topic-

focus on the story’s narrator and/or from the contextual implications of the Butterfly Effect in “A

Sound of Thunder.” Dialogue 3, with its small number of overall moves (73), provided some

significance through the utterances of 18 arguments (AR). Although the number of arguments

issued during Dialogue 3 attributed to 39% of all Disputes, those arguments did not lead to great

sequences of disputational talk. Even the number of procedural interjections uttered by me as

facilitator was fairly insignificant. However, while coming to explore why Mathilde was

unhappily married, substantial, critical prompts were issued at a lower rate in comparison to the

amount of substantial interjections offered during the previous two groupings of discussion

types. Table 33 represents the relationship between facilitator moves and student moves of

exploration and disputes.

Table 33

Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes: Fiction Talks


3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? 12 4 23 46


7 The narrator: crazy or clever? 8 12 53 65

11 Can killing in the past affect the future? 15 7 70 63

Totals 35 23 146 174

As shown by Table 32, the rise in substantial interjections by me during Dialogue 7 may

have contributed to an increase to the total number of Explorations delivered within that talk.

With a differentiation of 12 moves separating the Explorations and Disputes of Dialogue 7,

facilitator inquiries aided the talk to shift in an exploratory direction. On the contrary, the four

substantial moves issued by me during Dialogue 3 were likely limited because the flow of that

dialogue leaned toward argumentation and chances to interject questions prompting reasoned

responses from me were few. However, the ratio of procedural to substantial moves from

Dialogue 11 was similar to that of Dialogue 3, and the effects of Explorations to Disputes were

significantly different. Again, during Dialogue 11, “Can something very insignificant, like

killing a butterfly in the past, have a huge effect on the future?” I tried to limit the number of

turns that our lead-speakers made in an attempt to engage more less-dominant voices into the

discourse. In doing so, my procedural interjections rated slightly higher than that of my

substantial moves.

Again, as indicated by the post-dialogue survey, the dialogue with the greatest number of

Disputes received the highest raw rating on the 5-point Likert scale. Dialogue 7 (with 65

Disputes) achieved a 97 and a mean average of 3.9. Only one student identified Dialogue 7 (The

narrator: crazy or clever?) as the best question to discuss, and only Dialogue 11 (Can something

very insignificant, like killing a butterfly in the past, have a huge effect on the future?) received


another vote from the fiction-story grouping. Of the 25 students taking the exit survey following

all 14 talks, only three identified the three dialogues comprising Traditional/Classical Fiction as

the best type of discussions in which to engage. With an exit survey raw score of 93 (converting

to a mean average of 3.72), students ranked dialogues for Traditional/Classical Fiction third in

our group of four categories for discussion. Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas and Non-Textually

Generated Topics ranked ahead of our fiction grouping, respectively.

Dialogues 4, 8, and 12: Factual Narratives.

The three factual narratives read aloud for participants in this study were chosen because

of their potential to engage differing types of discussions. Also, weighing into my decision to

choose was the fact that each text was included in the Core Knowledge selection list. “Shooting

an Elephant” by George Orwell (Dialogue 4) deals with a controversy of whether or not

committing atrocities in order to save face is morally right. “The Night the Bed Fell” by James

Thurber (Dialogue 8) was chosen because of its differing tone to that of all other texts used. “The

Night the Bed Fell” is a comedic tale of a humorous chain of events that occurred during

Thurber’s childhood. It was my intent to observe the dynamics elicited by a factual piece that

posed a theme not related to controversy, surprise, or moral decisions. Dialogue 12 (“Day of

Infamy”) speech by FDR, however, was chosen for its potential to spark critical explorations and

challenged disputes. As the speech led to an impromptu discourse regarding the implications of

U.S. retaliation toward Japan at the end of World War II the class period before our observed

talk, I decided to continue the momentum of that engagement for the next period. On the day of

Dialogue 12, I provided students a brief, supplemental handout that detailed the events of

dropping atomic bombs on cities in Japan in 1945. For Dialogue 12, two pieces of text were

examined and contributed to the evidence participants referenced during that discussion.


Ultimately, our three dialogues deriving from the reading of factual texts became defined

as disputational. Lead-speakers were featured regularly during Dialogues 4 and 12, but, as the

prompt for Dialogue 8 elicited participants to respond without providing reasoning, procedurally

I interjected in attempts to engage a greater range of speakers. Seemingly, as was observed in

other dialogues within this study, dominant speakers were secure in joining in regardless of their

contextual mastery of the texts read. Procedural prompting by me was never directed to engage

more lead-speakers. If anything, my procedural interjections served to suspend lead-speakers,

helping them to realize that the voices of other, less-dominant students were equally important to

hear within our talks.

As for student participation, these three factual narrative discourses engaged only an

average of 17 speakers – similar to the average number of participants engaging in talks of

Traditional/Classical Fiction. Again, theoretically, the day lay-off that occurred between the

readings of the narratives and the actuality of having the dialogues potentially resulted in less-

talkative students forgetting details and therefore lacking confidence in regard to joining in

vocally. Also, especially in regard to participant-confusion, it was noticed that the absence of

less-assertive speakers during Dialogue 4 could be attributed to a lack of understanding of the

selected question for discussion. Not one question of those that won the class vote ever received

a unanimous consensus. Many times, the question receiving the most votes garnered less than a

majority of students’ votes who were present – it simply received more votes than any other

questions submitted. In the case of the vote taken for “Shooting an Elephant” (Dialogue 4) the

winning question received 14 votes initially but had to win a run-off election to become the

discussion topic. While more than 55% of the class accepted the question (Was not being

humiliated worth the death of a living creature?), 11 other students did not. My guess is that


many of the 11 who did not choose the winning question were confused by its syntax. The word

“not” negated the context of the forthcoming phrase and seemed to distract some students from

completely understanding the question. In essence, those who understood the context spoke out,

and those who were not quite sure of what the question was asking remained silent during

Dialogue 4. In this sense, a question’s syntax again contributed to the emerging dynamics

resulting from an observed dialogue. For Dialogue 4, confusing syntax may have contributed to a

decrease in student participation and dynamics overall. Table 34 shows potential connections

between dialogue participants and the numbers of Explorations and Disputes logged in talks

about factual narratives.

Table 34

Factual Narrative Prompts with Categorized Vocal Moves


4 Was not being humiliated worth killing? 19 23 60 10 93

8 What was up with this family’s phobias? 17 35 65 7 107

12 Was dropping atomic bombs justified? 15 51 74 6 131

Totals 17 109 199 23 331

Factual Narrative dialogues on the whole elicited fewer Explorations (109) and total

moves (331) than any other category observed. Disputes registered more often in talks about

factual narratives (199) than did Disputes logged for Traditional/Classical Fiction (174). No one


dialogue of the three here ventured close to becoming defined as exploratory. Agreements were

issued steadily by comparison but were not delivered in extreme nor were entirely absent from

Dialogue 4, 8, and 12. The main topic questions for Factual Narrative dialogues, aside from

“Was dropping atomic bombs on Japan justified?”, were either confusing to respond to for

several students or were not constructed to elicit reasoning – “What was up with this family and

phobias?” Explorations, as was noted by all dialogues in the first round of discussions

(Dialogues 1, 2, 3, and 4), registered less frequently than Explorations did in later talks. Yet, with

the combination of these three factual narratives discussions, Explorations occurred, on the

whole, less critically as well. Table 35 indicates the breakdown of Explorations delivered during

Dialogue 4, 8, and 12.

Table 35

Categorized Explorations: Factual Narrative Questions


4 Was not being humiliated worth killing? 14 1 1 4 1 2 1 0

8 What was up with this family’s phobias? 21 9 1 2 0 1 1 0

12 Was dropping atomic bombs justified? 20 7 1 6 2 4 2 7

Totals 55 17 3 12 3 7 4 7

Although creative exploratory responses, in the form of statements of position (POS)

were uttered the same amount of times as those offered during the fictional talks (55 moves), a


distinctive difference between the two categories exists in terms of critical questions delivered.

Within Dialogues 4 and 8 (“Shooting an Elephant” and “The Night the Bed Fell”) offerings of

critical inquiry were almost non-existent. Divergent questions (DQ), assessment questions (AQ),

and information questions (IQ) were asked a total of five times during both talks combined –

three times during Dialogue 4 and twice during Dialogue 8. From the group of three narratives

discussed, only Dialogue 12 (“Day of Infamy Speech”) rivaled the critical nature of any

discourses from the fiction category. The “Day of Infamy Speech” discussion resulted in 13

critical moves by participants. In total, Factual Narrative Dialogues elicited only 18 critical,

student inquiries, 11 fewer than did talks over Traditional/Classical Fiction. If not for sequences

of exploratory talk delivered within Dialogue 12, the entire grouping of factual narratives would

have become defined dynamically as disputational. As it happened, the lead-speakers who

controlled the discussion during Dialogue 12 contributed enough of moves of exploration to aid

the entire talk in becoming more inquiring, as 21 student questions were posed within that

discourse. Table 36 indicates the breakdown of Disputes as issued through participatory

engagement in Dialogues 4, 8, and 12.

Table 36

Categorized Disputes: Factual Narrative Questions


4 Was not being humiliated worth killing? 5 0 30 11 2 5 6 0

8 What was up with this family’s phobias? 29 0 10 3 2 9 12 0


12 Was dropping atomic bombs justified? 18 1 19 14 5 8 6 1

Totals 52 1 59 28 9 22 24 1

Perhaps most intriguing about the breakdown of Disputes indicated by Table 36 was the

volume of argument utterances (AR) delivered throughout. The 59 arguments (AR) issued during

the grouping of Factual Narratives were only six fewer than the total number of arguments

exhibited throughout four Non-Textually Generated dialogues. Perhaps even more interesting to

note was the number of rebuttals that occurred during Dialogues 4 and 12. Within Dialogues 4

and 12, more argument sequences (those that exhibited back-and-forth disputes) occurred than

happened during any other two talks within one category. Moreover, Dialogue 12 produced more

three-part argument sequences than any other discussion. More often here, an initiation of

argumentation (19 moves) elicited return rebuttals (14 moves) and even counter-arguments (5

moves) – three-part sequences that wholly epitomize disputational discourse.

A closer look into the dynamics of Dialogue 12 indicates that Disputes were triggered

and initiated regularly by disputational claims made by Calvin. Calvin contributed 8 of 19

arguments (AR), all of which evolved into at least a two-part disputes. On two of five occasions,

Calvin started arguments that progressed through all three stages: argument, rebuttal, and

counter-arguments. His claims about the intentions of Japanese soldiers and citizens during

World War II was readily disputed by Shannon, Becca, Javier, and Piper at regular intervals

throughout Dialogue 12. It was these claims-utterances by Calvin that initiated multiple

sequences of dispute throughout the talk.


Also noteworthy to examine, in analysis of Table 36, were the 29 moves of previous-

speaker disregard provided during Dialogue 8. As the syntax of Dialogue 8’s question did not

elicit critical reasoning, Dialogue 8 proved to be a discussion laden with disrespectful moves.

Dialogue 8 triggered many non-reasoned opinions that several of our lead-speakers delivered

without regard for thoughts spoken prior. The diction of the question, “What was up with this

family and phobias?” did not challenge responders to reason aloud critically but did open a

discussion format that allowed for non-reasoned ideas (NR) and topic-shifting anecdotal

deliveries (TS). My experiment with using a humorous narrative indicated, first and foremost,

that questions for deep discussion would initially be hard to construct. Secondly, a lack of

controversy in which students could reference also limited the discussion points and opened the

talk to an influx of personal anecdotes. These personal stories offered during Dialogue 8 were

seemingly last ditch efforts by participants to keep the dialogue flowing creatively. However, as

is often the case with the delivery of personal anecdotes, as advanced by Reed (1992), inward

thinking did not translate outwardly toward exploration within Dialogue 8’s discourse.

Facilitated moves interjected during Dialogues 4, 8, and 12 were not impactful toward

spurring exploration. However, because the discussion question presented for Dialogue 8

allowed for me to limit multiple turns by lead-speakers in an attempt to engage more

participants, I was able to offer almost as many substantial, reasoning questions (6 moves) as I

was able to offer procedural, task-directing prompts (7 moves). The close variance in number of

my interjections within Dialogue 8 did not seemingly move the talk much toward exploration,

yet was able to create a forum whereby less-dominant speakers could vocally engage earlier

within the discussion.


Quite possibly, the nine substantial moves interjected into Dialogue 12 helped to trigger

more students’ moves of exploration. Other dialogues which had reached double-digits in

substantial questions from me had profoundly greater numbers of Explorations as well. Not that

talks that elicited greater numbers of substantial facilitator moves came to be defined as

exploratory, yet the chances of a discussion adding to its exploratory sequences, because of the

occurrence of more substantial moves, increased. Table 37 indicates the comparisons of

facilitator moves to Explorations and Disputes given during dialogues of Factual Narratives.

Table 37

Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes: Factual Narratives


4 Was not being humiliated worth killing? 16 4 23 60

8 What was up with this family’s phobias? 7 6 35 65

12 Was dropping atomic bombs justified? 14 9 51 74

Totals 37 19 109 199

In the exit survey taken by 25 participants, only four students rated Factual Narrative

dialogues with a 5.0 on a 5-point Likert scale. Factual Narratives received the lowest raw score

of any of the four categories of discussions observed in this study with an 89. The mean average

rating on the 5-point scale was calculated at 3.56. Although Factual Narratives as a group did not

received high ratings during the exit survey, the question for Dialogue 12 (Was dropping atomic


bombs on Japan justified?) was identified as the highest rated question of the 14 used. Six of 25

students chose the atomic bomb question as the best question for discussion. Interestingly, the

atomic bomb question resulted in the most argument-rebuttal/argument-rebuttal-counter-

argument sequences of any of the 14 observed topic questions.

Summary of findings from research question 1.

To understand the influences of non-textual and textual categories on the defining

elements of thinking out loud, four key dynamics must be examined: textual/non-textual

dilemmas, discussion-question syntax, exploratory participation, and sequences of dispute. The

emergence of these four dynamics seemed to indicate how stories and topics of student interest

shaped the direction whole-class dialogues. By no means were the aforementioned dynamics

solely accountable in influencing the qualities of a given discourse, yet without analyzing the

four, essential information about the defining undercurrents of class dialogues would have been

overlooked.

Each topic or story considered for discussion presented a dilemma or quandary. When

constructing non-textually based topics for discussion, those predicaments were chosen to be

understood and interesting to the participants who would eventually engage in Thinking Out

Loud discourses. Stories and narratives considered for group discussion presented a thematic or

plot-based controversy. Open-ended answers were not only fostered; they were the norm in

deciding on literature appropriate for promoting thinking out loud. The humorous narrative, “The

Night the Bed Fell” posed no controversial dilemma in which to discuss and failed to engage the

class in authentic talk of exploration or dispute.


Topic-question syntax, it was discovered, laid the foundation for how a class dialogue

would come to be defined. If a constructed question was chosen and did not prompt open-ended

reasoning, that discussion turned inward toward cumulative agreement or became open for shifts

in topic that took the initial talk out of bounds. If chosen discussion questions were worded in

ways that required participants to ponder personal aspirations or plans, those were also shown to

stifle exploration. Many times students who were not prompted to provide reasoning would not,

especially if the topic question did not specifically elicit their reasoned responses. Dialogues 2,

10, and 13 each posed questions for discussion that inquired about what participants would do

personally in a given situation. While critical and creative reasoning was not entirely absent from

these three talks, progression toward exploratory speech became more of a challenge. However,

topic questions containing confusing syntax may be shown to trap the conversation in a flux of

non-reasoned responses or topic-shifting banter. Dialogue 8 (Was not being humiliated worth the

death of a living creature?) presented a confusing topic question that featured a low volume of

exploration.

Seemingly, questions in which the syntax required students to take a side within a

dilemma proved foundationally solid in promoting exploratory talk. While exploration was not

guaranteed, close-ended prompts that were posed divergently about an issue tended to aid in the

emergence of critical and creative thinking out loud. “Should we kill animals?” (Dialogue 9) and

“Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing?” (Dialogue 14) were examples of close-ended questions

that elicited both side-taking and critical/creative responses. However, even close-ended, side-

taking questions turned talks toward dispute when those inquiries required participants to speak

personally about a situation. “Which school is better, TLA or CKA?” (Dialogue 5), while

rousing and very conversational as a discussion, sparked many participants to provide inward


utterances: argumentation, non-reasoned responses, and topic-shifts. The temptation for

participants to share personal experiences turned Dialogue 5 toward disputation more so than

other close-ended prompts did to the dialogues they accompanied.

Topic questions that led with the stem of “why” helped to elicit reasoned responses that

progressed a talk toward exploration. This study included two questions that began with the

“why” stem: Dialogue 1 and 3. “Why don’t we pay attention to song lyrics?” (Dialogue 1), while

a prompt that could elicit reasoning, brought that class closer to dispute. The syntax used

insinuates that participants did not pay attention to lyrics and thusly triggered some speakers to

dispute more than explore during this talk. “Why did Mathilde marry a clerk if she was unhappy

with her position in life?” (Dialogue 3) was posed as an engaging prompt, yet it was not a central

question to the story, “The Necklace.” Several students who were having difficulty

understanding the context during the read-aloud were equally confused during the dialogue as

well.

The influence of exploratory participants on Thinking Out Loud talks is paramount. I

found that if students were reasoning in a back-and-forth sequence, stating positions, asking

questions, and making deductions, then the talk became critical, creative, and caring. The more

students within a given dialogue chose to explore, especially with critical questions, the more

that talk became defined as an exploratory dialogue or as a Community of Inquiry. During the

three dialogues within this study defined as exploratory, at least eight participants delivered more

exploratory moves than disputational moves. Interestingly, the other 11 dialogues defined as

disputational never registered more than seven majority-exploratory participants.


Just as back-and-forth sequences of student exploration helped to lead conversations

toward critical and creative understandings, so too did sequences of argumentation assist in

defining a given discourse as disputational. Dialogues that included a low number of argument

sequences (argument-rebuttal-counter-argument sequences) helped to open the discourse up to

exploration. Dialogues that produced six or more argument sequences were not defined as

exploratory, and those talks that included nine or more argument sequences proved to be highly

disputational. Table 38 indicates the relationship among the four influential dynamics to the

Explorations and Disputes spoken within each category of whole-class discussions. “Prompts”

represents the topic questions posed; “Dilemma” indicates whether or not the topic or story

posed a controversy to discuss; “Syntax” shows how understandable, engaging, and reason-

eliciting topic questions were; “Explorers” represents how many participants explored a topic

more so than disputed it; “AR Sequences” stands for argument sequences; “Ex” represents

Explorations delivered per discourse; and “Dis” indicates Disputes tallied per dialogue.

Table 38

Influential Dynamics Essential for Defining Whole-Class Dialogues

Non-Textually Generated

Prompts Dilemma Syntax Explorers AR Sequences Ex Dis

1 Why don’t … attention to lyrics? yes no 0 6 14 56

5 Which school is better? yes no 5 6 41 75

9 Should we kill animals? yes yes 2 9 53 95


13 What would you do … last day? no no 2 0 58 92

Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas


2 What would you do… Heinz’s? yes no 3 3 27 64

6 Purpose of “Frederick?” yes yes 11 5 67 47

10 Do you pull switch?/Push man? yes no 7 4 84 90

14 Did Luttrell do the right thing? yes yes 10 4 62 45

Traditional/Classical Fiction


3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? yes no 4 3 23 46

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? yes yes 3 2 53 65

11 Can killing in past affect future? yes yes 8 3 70 63

Factual Narratives


4 Was not being… worth death? yes no 7 10 23 60

8 What’s up with family/phobias? no no 3 3 35 65

12 Was… atomic bombs justified? yes yes 2 11 51 74

Another important dynamic regarding exploratory participation and a lack thereof

materialized out of gender-related moves. It was analyzed that Explorations totaled 661 of the


number of moves made in all during 14 whole-class discourses. Girl-participants (14 of 25

students) accounted for 407 of 661 moves of exploration (62%) while boy-participants (11 of 25

students) contributed 254 Explorations (38%) to our observed discussions. Interesting to note

was that girls within the current study doubled the number of delivered critical inquiries offered

by boys (87 to 43). Although critical questions posed within our talks accounted for 20% of all

Explorations expressed, girls provided 67% of those questions throughout. Table 39 details the

number of total Explorations delivered per dialogue along with a breakdown of Explorations and

critical inquiries attributed to both girls and boys within each talk.

Table 39

Exploratory Moves and Critical Inquiries Delivered According to Gender

Dialogue # Total Explorations Boy Explorations/Crit Inquiries Girl Explorations/Crit Inquiries

1 14 2/0 12/2

2 27 10/0 17/2

3 23 12/2 11/2

4 23 9/0 14/3

5 41 15/2 26/4

6 67 20/0 47/10

7 53 13/0 40/8

8 35 9/0 26/2


9 53 25/8 28/9

10 84 35/7 49/8

11 70 40/12 30/4

12 51 16/4 35/9

13 58 24/3 34/12

14 62 24/5 38/12

Totals 661 254/43 407/87

Intriguing to the analysis of this breakdown is the dichotomous shift in the number of boys’

critical question deliveries issued once our talks reached Dialogue 9. During the first eight

discussions, boys’ expressions of exploratory inquiry were, for the most part, non-existent. From

the commencement of Dialogue 9 onward, boys provided critical questions to the talks

consistently. What can be speculated is that since five of these final six dialogues (excluding

Dialogue 13) posed a side-choosing topic-question for reply, more boys got an opportunity to

speak. Moreover, with the advent of close-ended prompts, I, as facilitator, joined more

procedurally in order to enlist greater numbers of participants into the discussions. As a result,

chances for less-assertive boys to enter into the last six dialogues were greater than they were

during the first eight discussions. Likewise, as had been mentioned earlier, providing an

environment for less-assertive speakers to engage throughout this study tended to move spoken

expressions toward exploration.

Part III: Disputes, Agreements, and Community of Inquiry


Before collecting narrative data for this study, I came to understand a synonymous

parallel between exploratory talk and Community of Inquiry. Both forms of vocal engagement

epitomize expressions of critical, creative, and caring talk in group settings, yet empirical studies

in recent years have centered on narrative analyses of exploratory talk more so than on transcript

dynamics found through participation in Communities of Inquiry. I read extensively about how

sequences of exploratory talk emerged during dialogues defined by disputes and cumulative

discourse and wondered also if Community of Inquiry could take place within a similar dynamic.

Because of the seemingly distinct associations between these two dialectical methods, I sought to

understand if the existence of Community of Inquiry was possible within talks which included

vocal expressions of dispute and agreement.

Research question 2: Can Community of Inquiry exist within the included presence of


Community of Inquiry, as defined by Lipman (2003), exists as a public space whereby

participants can express their own understandings amidst a classroom group. With the help of the

group, individual Community participants form a connection between passions and certainty,

coming to realize that knowledge is found within a social context but requires joint inquiry to

bring that knowledge forth (Bakhtin, 1981; Pardales & Girod, 2012; Seixas, 2012; Shields, 2012;

Vygotsky, 1978). Community of Inquiry also requires for participants to share in a pledge to

mutually recognize the need for social involvement (Tibaldeo, 2010). This type of talk differs

from conversation, debate, and basic communication because it becomes philosophical

(Burbules, 1993; Lipman, 2003). While philosophical talk can be both argumentative and

critical, it can also be creative and caring. Yet such talk -- talk within a Community of Inquiry --

is not consistent with every class dialogue that occurs. For a philosophical Community of Inquiry


to exist, there must be present a common set of norms, actions, and responsibilities (Lipman,

2003; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 2008).

While trying to instill a common set of norms and actions to help guide our observed

dialogues, I came to an understanding early on in our discussions that many participants would

join in with selfish aims. Most of our lead-speakers regularly engaged to express personal claims,

arguments, anticipations, and anecdotal offerings. Many dialogue dynamics were in turn dictated

by moves made by lead-speakers. Regardless of ground-rules reviews before every discussion,

our dominant group of speakers as a whole did not fully accept my intent for them to always

recognize the need for social involvement.

As was detailed in Parts I and II of Chapter IV, only three of 14 observed dialogues came

to be defined as exploratory more than disputational. Yet I observed expressions of Community

of Inquiry during more than just these three exploratory talks. Parts of six dialogues produced

sequences of exploration that appropriately exhibited signs of Community of Inquiry: Portions of

these six dialogues presented a series of critical, creative, and caring expressions. By no means

common to these discussions, moves indicative of Community of Inquiry emerged only one time

within three talks deemed wholly disputational. Within two discussions deemed wholly

exploratory (Dialogues 6 and 14), Community of Inquiry sequences developed two times.

Furthermore, during dialogues in which 10 or more uttered agreements were expressed, only two

included a sequence identifiable as Community of Inquiry. In response to Research Question 2,

the existence of Community of Inquiry can occur in the presence of disputational and cumulative

talk; however, during this study, a stronger connection was observed in relation to Community of

Inquiry and a frequency of total exploratory moves delivered by class participants.


Sequences of Community of Inquiry, as produced within this study, materialized out of

consecutive exploratory moves from more than two students involved in back-and-forth

deliveries. For a conversation to exhibit signs of Community of Inquiry, critical, creative, and

caring moves had to emerge during a series of participants’ turns. The asking of critical questions

(divergent, assessment, and information) and the offering of creative positions (usually by way

of deductive logic) helped to signify a sequence of Community of Inquiry. Also, for an

exploratory sequence to be considered Community of Inquiry, acts of participant care and respect

had to be present: A lack of previous-speaker disregard had to be kept to a minimum for me to

identify a sequence as a Community of Inquiry. The following selection from Dialogue 14 (Did

Officer Luttrell do the right thing?) epitomizes the type of sequence in this study identified as a

Community of Inquiry:





go is taking a very big risk right. But they didn’t know, right? Then officer Luttrell









Mr. Herr: Probably you, Mallory.

Mallory: Kathy.

Kathy: I’m confused of why he keeps saying he didn’t know because he has other

men with him so he’s taking a really risky chance. If he didn’t know, wouldn’t you

want to kill them because if they were on the Taliban side then they could – they

could tell the Taliban people that you’re here when you let them go, and you have

other men with you, so you’re risking their lives too and your own life, so if you

didn’t know, wouldn’t you just kill it just because that’s such a risky chance so if you

let them go, they would have told but if you would have killed them, then you could

have captured the Taliban people.

Mallory: Well, obviously I know that it’s a really big risk like if you let these people

go, you could definitely die and your men too, but I still think it’s better to take a big

risky chance than to just kill innocent people. So, Niles.

Kasey: I have a question for everybody. You know there was a 50/50 chance that he

could save those people and his people too or there was a chance that he could let the

people go and they would die. Wouldn’t you take also the chance of saving three

innocent lives and your life?

Elizabeth: I would not take a chance to save their lives. I know that sounds really

selfish, I know but there could be like a effect – I don’t know how to put that. Um,

but anyways, I just wouldn’t do it because I don’t like that chance at all. So – Everett.



Aaron C.: Okay, this is to Kasey’s question. So, they sort of did the right thing. But I

would have killed them because there’s still that 50 percent chance that all of them

would have died – the four what you got to do –

Mr. Herr: Aaron, but didn’t the three U.S. Navy SEALs go out that day thinking that

today could be the day I die because I’m in the Navy SEALs and I’m in Afghanistan,

but did the goatherds go out that day going, today’s the day I’m going to die? What

do you think?

Aaron: The Navy SEALs did because when they signed up –

Mr. Herr: Because isn’t that their job, to know that when I sign up, I could die each

and every day I’m out here. Is that a different philosophy in this situation then?

Aaron: Well, those goatherds didn’t know if they were going to be killed.

Mr. Herr: Exactly!

Aaron: But there was a big chance because there were lots of people who were loyal

to the Taliban. But you got to do what you got to do to keep your people safe. And

because that’s part of your job; you sign up to help the country and you also have to

sign up to help your co-workers.

Within this last sequence, six participants and I engaged in a back-and-forth delivery that

included critical questions, creative positions, and – for the most part – respect for the thoughts

uttered by previous speakers. While five of 6 student-participants within this Dialogue 14


sequence were deemed lead-speakers (excluding Mallory), each here became involved with at

least one other to produce a succession recognizable as Community of Inquiry. Mallory led off

the sequence by deducing from the text and the thoughts of other participants to produce a

critical assessment question; Jamie next took a turn to answer Mallory’s question. Mallory

continued her inquiring quest until Jamie responded without reason. Other speakers like Kathy

and Kasey, albeit joining with some disregard, continued to inquire on topic – eliciting position

statements from their questions. Even my own interjections were of the substantial kind:

prompting participants to reason deeper into the dilemma. While this example of exploration was

rare, only occurring nine times within the course of 14 observed dialogues, it did come to

embody the necessities essential to the identification of a Community of Inquiry.

It was somewhat expected that dialogues characterized by a greater volume of

exploratory expressions would produce sequences meeting standards identifiable with

Community of Inquiry. However, it was the materialization of Community of Inquiry sequences

within dialogues characterized by dispute that proved interesting to note. Dialogue 9 (Should we

kill animals?), Dialogue 12 (Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan justified?), and

Dialogue 13 (What would you do on the last day of your life?) each produced one Community of

Inquiry sequence. While each of these three talks featured only two participants who explored

more than disputed, an emergence of critical, creative, and caring discourse materialized within

each for a period of vocal turns. Although Dialogues 9, 12, and 13 produced Disputes in the

majority, each triggered its own pocket of exploration that could be identified as a Community of

Inquiry. These pockets arose as testaments from the participants that knowledge gained in social

contexts required joint inquiry to bring forth understanding.


Dialogue 9’s Community of Inquiry sequence was intriguing in that it was produced by

two students who generally expressed themselves through disputes. Marcus and Calvin each

provided 8 and 14 Disputes respectively during Dialogue 9, yet they shared a period of turns

whereby critical and creative moves dominated. In the upcoming sequence, Marcus began by

inquiring to Calvin if animal resources could be used by humans if those animals in question

were going to die anyway. Calvin, in consistently expressing a position siding with an argument

that animals should not be killed, responded with a statement of position and of deductive logic.

Marcus, as the sequence was coming to an end, continued to inquire in an attempt to gain more

information from Calvin:

Marcus: Okay, so going back what Calvin said about animals eating other animals,

okay. So they’re going to die, so why can’t we have their resources? I mean, what’s

the point? They’re going to kill off each other, right? You just said –

Calvin: No, they’re not going to kill off each other just they’re going to keep each

other in balanced and population.

Marcus: But how would they do that?

Calvin: By – the grass is not going to grow too much because the deers are going to

be eating the grass. So they’re going to keep the grass in check. The lions are going to

keep the deer in check ‘cause they’re going to be eating the deers and they won’t go

overpopulated.

Marcus: Exactly, so why can’t we use some of their resources?

Calvin: You want to eat lion?


Marcus: No.

While the previous sequence is not long-lasting, nor does it involve more than two participants, it

does exemplify the idea that expressions of Community of Inquiry can develop in the midst of

conversations defined distinctly as disputational. To illustrate, Dialogue 9 produced more

disputational moves (95) than any other observed discussion during this study, and while Marcus

and Calvin delivered a quintessential series of moves identifiable with Community of Inquiry,

their turns before and after were made in argumentation or in topic-shifts.

The Community of Inquiry episode produced during Dialogue 12 (Was the dropping of

atomic bombs on Japan justified?) also involved two participants in conversation. Mallory and

Kathy spoke together in exploration about the moral extents of retaliation. As she was identified

as our most exploratory contributor throughout (64 total Explorations), Mallory originated the

following Community of Inquiry sequence:

Mallory: I think what Kathy is trying to ask is that if somebody attacked you first,

wouldn’t you want to attack them back? And Japan did bomb the U.S. before we even

entered the war. If we entered the war the day after they bombed us, but at Pearl

Harbor -- how many did we lose?

Mr. Herr: A couple of thousand – two thousand something.

Mallory: A couple of thousand, and the atomic bomb killed, it says here, some 70,000

Japanese citizens instantly, and the radiation probably killed thousands more in the

days after, so let me think of a good analogy here, say you (Kathy) and your brother

(who attends CKA) were fighting over something, and Yancey smacked you. You’d

want to smack him back, yeah?


Kathy: Heck yeah!

Mallory: Okay, but if he smacked you, would you want to kill him because he

attacked you first?

Kathy: Okay, that’s a good point. No, I’m just going to say that.

Mallory: But it’s not justified to if somebody does something to you, it’s not justified

to do that back to them but 10 times worse.

Kathy: My point is, if we didn’t do anything, they could just say, ‘Let’s do it again’,

because we didn’t do anything.

Here, Mallory uses inquiry to help deduce understanding – understanding that she partially

possesses prior and understanding that she hopes to know further -- from Kathy. While honest in

her pursuit to know Kathy’s answer regarding the extent of her retaliation against her brother,

Mallory, with her inquiry-wrapped analogy, delivers a sort of Socratic deconstruction of Kathy’s

argument about appropriate levels of retaliation from country to country. Interesting to note is

how this sequence does not become mired in argumentation, rebuttal, topic-shifting, or non-

reasoned answers. The back-and-forth conversation between the two girls serves as an authentic

quest for exploration and does not face its demise until a more argumentative claim from

Mallory brings it to completion.

Dialogue 13 (What would you do on the last day of your life?), another discussion

marked by disputation but that produced a succession of moves identifiable as Community of

Inquiry, presented a note-worthy manifestation. While the topic question did not explicitly

require participants to deliver reasoned responses, one student took a chance to bring this talk,


suffering from lack of exploration, through the full process of a dialogue – as instituted by our

ground-rules. Tripp, a student who was vocally silent through much of our early dialogues,

began to position himself in a problem-solver role as discussions progressed through November

and into December. During Dialogue 13, Tripp came to understand that our Non-Textually

Generated topic was not provoking the reasoned responses that would cause speakers to explore

at length. After listening intently for more than half the talk, Tripp engaged in an attempt to aid

the class in seeking agreement and ending the discussion. While his idea surfaced as an

admirable plan enacted for the disposal of a derisive talk, Tripp was not aware that the discourse

was not garnering any moves of agreement at all. The absence of cumulative talk combined with

a myriad of possible responses to be spoken about a person’s intentions on their last day alive

made it difficult for the class to come to an agreement. However, Tripp, in his quest to enact a

solution for ails of Dialogue 13, helped to initiate a sequence representative of Community of

Inquiry. While Tripp’s moves were more procedural than substantial, his interjection and

coinciding moves helped to trigger exploratory turns from at least two others: Becca and Maria.

The following sequence brings to light critical and creative resulting moves elicited by Tripp

during Dialogue 13:

Tripp: Everybody who would sit and wait there to die, raise your hand.

Mr. Herr: What are your totals?

Tripp: You raised your hand for the first one, right?

Mr. Herr: Yes, I did.

Tripp: Alright, so 16 people would actually do something; five people would sit there.


Mr. Herr: So 16 and 5?

Tripp: Yes. We need to change those five people’s minds or the 16 people’s minds.

Mr. Herr: Okay, good idea. Good idea, Tripp. Do call on the next though – if you’re

done.

Tripp: Becca.

Becca: I am one of the five people who would sit there and die. When you say do

something, do you mean something extravagant and like have a party and do stuff

like that?

Tripp: I mean by sit there and wait as in like –

Elizabeth: Literally.

Tripp: Yeah, literally sit there on a sofa doing whatever in your house like a normal

day.

Becca: Well, I would – say I was like in a hospital – this is how I picture it; I’m really

sick, going to die, and I’m immobilized – that’s why I said I was immobilized. This is

how I think I might die. I’d make sure my will is finished, and make sure the payment

is distributed before I die so there is no problems after I die and nobody’s fighting and

my children getting all in arguments and stuff like that.

Maria: Uh –

Becca: Yes?


Maria: Sorry, this is Maria, and I actually have a question for you. Wouldn’t that be

doing something, so you wouldn’t be one of those five? You’d actually be joining the

16.

Becca: Yes, that’s why I was trying to clarify. And, um, I would tell all my family

that I love them and wish them well and make sure I am remembered and never forget

me because I’d be really sad if they ever forgot me. But, yeah, if sitting there like a

normal day, if that’s what you mean, then I’m the 17th. Um, Marcus.

Marcus: I just have a question for you: What – you’re saying if you were

immobilized. What if you weren’t?

Becca: If I wasn’t immobilized, it depends on how I’m dying.

Of the six different dialogues that produced an identifiable sequence of Community of

Inquiry, two turns were present when cumulative, agreement talk was note-worthy (Dialogues 9

and 10). Dialogue 9, which produced the second-most moves of agreement at 17, and Dialogue

10 (13 agreement moves) did not seemingly emerge as a significant indicator toward the

promotion or the inhibition of the manifestation of Community of Inquiry. A dialogue that

exhibited a greater volume of cumulative talk (Dialogue 1 = 18 agreement moves) contributed no

representation of Community of Inquiry, while five discussions that produced fewer than 13

agreement moves contributed 6 of 8 sequences of Community of Inquiry. Nonetheless, the

emergence of Community of Inquiry can exist within the same discourse that produces a high

volume of agreement moves. The advent of Community of Inquiry sequences seemed to arise as

an offshoot related to the volume of exploratory moves as opposed to the volume of agreement

talk or disputational moves.



Exploratory-minded participants contributed most to any emergences of Community

of Inquiry within this study. However, the achievement of exploratory dialogues was not

wholly indicative of the successive presence of Community of Inquiry as observed here.

Although it was found that talks defined as exploratory produced at least one sequence of

Community of Inquiry, three other, more disputational discourses, were also found to exhibit

one identifiable sequence as well. Moreover, of the three exploratory dialogues identified

during this study, one (Dialogue 11) failed to produce a Community of Inquiry sequence at

all. While it seemed accurate to suggest that our most exploratory talks would bring about

chances and turns displaying Community of Inquiry, pockets of back-and-forth, social

learning in critical, creative, and caring ways emerged and existed in the presence of

disputation. Even during dialogues in which agreement talk was expressed at a greater

volume (Dialogues 9 and 10), a progression representative of Community of Inquiry

materialized.

Through analysis, I have discovered that participant turns, moves, and sequences

progress through directional shifts. Talks would follow paths of exploration for a time, would

digress toward dispute and agreement and would then turn back toward exploration – all in a

matter of a few minutes. Much of what was observed as Community of Inquiry during this

study was resultant upon mutual engagement between at least two exploratory participants.

Those engagements, when they transpired, existed as interplays of knowledge, like Lipman’s

(2003) playground of thought – capable of being appreciated within these social contexts by

the students who engaged and the facilitator who observed.


Part IV: Ground-Rules Review and Exploratory Talk

The 12 ground-rules implemented to provide students guidance for talking together

derived from a set of norms used by Mercer and Dawes (2008). The ground-rules promoted

during this study were instituted to aid grade seven participants in vocally expressing themselves

critically, creatively, and in a caring way. Ideally, if students were to follow these posted norms

completely, exploratory discourses would emerge and remain constant throughout the study. The

12 rules also served as reference points for me as facilitator in keeping our discussions focused

and progressing toward intended exploratory discoveries. These procedural interjections

delivered by me were entirely uttered as either reminders of our posted rules or spoken in order

to engage more speakers when full participation was not yet achieved.

The list of ground-rules as constructed, was designed to guide individual participants as

well as whole groups (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Dialectical instruction of the ground-rules served

initially as guidance tools for how to dialogue while my own procedural interjections functioned

as reminders once talks had progressed into routine. A benefit of the rules existed in the idea that

students could react personally in accordance, and their personal adherence would, in turn,

positively affect the procedural flow of the whole class’s dynamics. The following 12 ground-

rules were posted in the front of the classroom on smaller dry-erase boards. Before each

observed dialogue throughout this study, a complete or partial review of the ground-rules was

initiated by me:

1. Discuss things together.

2. Everyone participates.

3. Think before you speak.


4. Respect the ideas of others.

5. Unclear ideas should be treated with respect.

6. Ideas may be challenged.

7. Challenges should be justified.

8. Alternative ideas should be offered.

9. Be prepared to change your mind.

10. All opinions should be considered before decisions are made.

11. Share all ideas and information you have.

12. Seek agreement.

Since these had been important to Mercer and Dawes (2008) in eliciting exploratory talk, I

became intrigued about how well they might also aid participants within the current study to

achieve and maintain exploratory turns.


actuality?

Initially, based on the results that three of 14 observed talks became defined as

exploratory, Research Question 3 seems obvious to answer wholly with “no.” After all, only

three of 14 dialogues were representative of exploratory moves in the majority, and never did a

discussion boast more than 11 total speakers who explored more than disputed (Dialogue 6 = 11

of 19 wholly exploratory participants). Moreover, seven of 14 total talks prompted four or fewer

participants who expressed exploratory moves more than they did disputational moves. Yet, as

dialogue-routine emerged and ground-rules-focus became a part of each talk’s lead-in sequence,


more and more participants began to find a connection between following our norms and being

involved in pleasing discussions.

Participants early on appreciated what many perceived as an allowance to argue, made

manifest by a narrow understanding of ground-rules 6 and 7. I had indicated during the initial

review of rules that argumentation was a natural part of class dialogues and that disagreements

were common when discussing dilemma-laden topics. Some of our lead-speakers understood this

pronouncement to mean that arguments must occur -- as indicated through the results of our

early talks (Dialogues 1-5). Dialogues 1-5 produced a small volume of exploratory moves and a

large percentage of disputational expressions in comparison to those talks that followed.

During our early talks (Dialogues 1-5), participants solidified their own niche personas.

Dominant speakers became wholly identified, and those participants began to move the

dynamics of our discussions at their wills. All the while, before the commencement of each talk,

I would consistently direct focus on those norms to which were not being adhered. Ground-rule 2

became a focal norm in which to review. “Everyone participates” to some in the class did not

mean much more than active listening; however, to others, ground-rule 2 meant that each student

present must vocally engage. Likewise, an observance of ground-rule 4 also became an issue in

which to deal as early dialogues ensued. Students perceived ground-rule 4 (Respect the ideas of

others) to mean “no interruptions”. Yet, I would offer, during our pre-dialogue reviews, that

respect also had to do with acknowledgement of the person who invited them into a discussion.

As usual though, I stopped short of instructing students directly toward what I would do if I were

one of them. Mostly, during ground-rules reviews, I would pose open-ended questions for brief

discussion regarding weekly rules of concern. I wanted to observe what students thought about

the meaning of rules in which I had applied to the talks without their consent. Much of what I


wanted to observe was how participants’ own understandings contributed to dynamics produced

during the 14 dialogues.

During the narrative transcriptions of Dialogues 1-4, I noticed initial evolving stages of

talk that were related to the application (or lack thereof) of ground-rule norms: Regard for the

ideas of others was limited, and holding an original position of belief was important to some

lead-speakers. Despite consistently addressing the idea that speakers should offer

acknowledgement of those ideas previously presented (ground-rule 4), participants as a whole

came to focus on the next thing he or she wanted to say to the group. The act of not interrupting a

current speaker was perceived as an adherence to ground-rule 4, as understood by most

participants. The relationship between acknowledgement of a previous speaker and talking with

care were not equated until Dialogues 5 (Which school is better, TLA or CKA?) and 6 (What’s

the purpose of “Frederick?”). During Dialogue 6, critical, exploratory inquiries were delivered

for the first time to exceed five questions, and 11 participants actually explored more than they

disputed. However, during discussions prior to Dialogue 5, disrespectful moves were observed at

a greater volume. Disregards for a previous speaker came to identify close to 50% of all moves

of dispute within Dialogues 1-3. Moreover, during Dialogues 1-4, our nine dominant speakers

did not explore more than they disputed for the total moves each expressed. Comments from

participant-interviewees following Dialogues 1-4 aided iteratively in support of these concerns

about a lack of disregard for the ideas of some speakers:

Dialogue 1 – Jamie: Some people would talk over each other and they wouldn’t let

other people finish what they’re saying.


Dialogue 2 – Elizabeth: I did a bad job. I was waving my arms around. I was

interrupting and making it seem like I didn’t care about what other people were

saying.

Dialogue 3 – Tripp: Like when somebody would ask a question, the next person

would go on to the next thing completely – off-topic.

Dialogue 4 – Aaron C.: Some people just interrupted quite a lot and ignored what

they said and went to what other people said -- like talked to five people before them.

Starting with the ground-rules review before Dialogue 5, I began to go over with the class

some of my observation notes from the previous talk. Much of what I noticed about some of our

dominant speakers ignoring less-assertive participants was relayed for the first time during our

ground-rules review. The ensuing three discussions (Dialogues 5-7) resulted in a noticeable

absence of Disputes in comparison to the first four dialogues. The percentage of Disputes

decreased consecutively in Dialogues 5-7 by comparison, going from 61% (Dialogue 5) to 39%

(Dialogue 6) and increasing slightly higher to 50% (Dialogue 7). While I am not certain that my

recap reviews of previous dialogues delivered before the ensuing Thinking Out Loud talk

impacted this decrease in total Disputes, I do think that some students, upon hearing the positives

and negatives of their participation, took conscious steps toward observing the posted ground-

rules with greater intent.

Dialogue 6 served as a breakthrough discussion. It became the first talk to be wholly

identified as exploratory and became the first time student inquiries registered above 7 –

Dialogue 6 produced 20 student questions. Lead-speakers still dominated the conversation, yet

16 of 19 different participants expressed themselves three or more times. The ground-rules


review given before Dialogue 6 (What was the purpose of “Frederick?”) centered on my research

intents for this study. I informed the students that I was observing how they spoke to each other

during our conversations about different types of stories and topics. I further explained that I was

trying to understand how seventh-graders talked reflectively together, and informed them I

would later classify their expressions into categories: explorations, disputes, and agreements.

Following my explanation, a few students asked if they should be trying to explore more than

dispute. In answer, I referred to the ground-rules and suggested that following them would lead

us more toward exploration than into disputes. I also made it clear to the class that being

themselves was as important to my research as anything they could do or be. Telling about

details of my research before Dialogue 6 seemed to go hand-in-hand with a change in dynamics

our talks would take. Three identifiable changes in procedural dynamics originated from

different participants during or after Dialogue 6: The emergence of the class explorer, passing

turns to allow others in, and the arrival of our agreement seeker all came into being.

Dialogue 6 resulted in the emergence of Mallory as our chief explorer. From Dialogue 6

onward, Mallory registered more moves of exploration than she did moves of dispute. While she

was not considered a lead-speaker in the way offering personal claims, Mallory began to present

herself as our polite gadfly – mannerly picking her spots within conversations to solve disputes

and to question the logic of others who had yet to express reasoned utterances. Mallory never

tried to start the conversation or insert her voice early into a talk, but she would allow for a

dialogue to grow into itself. Once a talk evened-out, Mallory would gently raise her hand, wait to

be chosen, and offer forth, most times, deductions of logic and critical questions. On very few

occasions she would be baited into arguing or rebutting, but those moments and moves were

seldom. Before Dialogue 6, Mallory offered very few moves to a given talk – no more than two


turns per dialogue. During and after Dialogue 6 however, Mallory engaged to register no fewer

than seven moves per talk – aside from Dialogue 11 (in which she posed the topic question) and

Dialogue 13 (she was absent from class). Mallory’s expressions (9 moves) during Dialogue 14

(Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing?) were solely exploratory. No other participant offering as

many moves within a talk spoke entirely to explore. The following excerpt from Dialogue 14

exemplifies Mallory’s emergence as a deconstructive explorer:





go is taking a very big risk right. But they didn’t know, right? Then officer Luttrell








Another interesting phenomenon occurred as a result of an observance to ground-rule 2.

Beginning within Dialogue 8, various lead-speakers became interested in involving other less-

assertive speakers into our talks and enacted a way to involve them without delivering topic-

shifting utterances. Within Dialogues 8, 10, 11, and 13 differing lead-speakers would raise their


hand to engage, only to call on a student who not joined during that given talk already. When

coding these requests for reasons from our less-assertive speakers, I changed “RR” to “rr” to

indicate that these emerging requests were not expressed as inquiries but as prompts to those

who had yet to join into given conversations. Lead-speakers who engaged in this form of

exploration were given the benefit of the doubt as to the intent of their transferring a turn.

Moreover, passes made to engage a lead-speaker or a participant who had already joined in were

not coded with “rr”. In order for this move to be counted within the exploratory category, it had

to originate out of an intent to engage a less-assertive speaker. Lead-speakers who took part in

these moves in order to involve more participants were Elizabeth (Dialogue 8), Marcus

(Dialogues 10, 11, and 13), Kasey (Dialogue 13), Kathy (Dialogue 13), and Becca (Dialogue 13).

The following excerpts provide an indication of how requests for reasons functioned when a

student passed a chance to speak on topic:

Dialogue 13: What would you do on the last day of your life?

Ron: If I was immobilized, then I would get one of those Stephen Hawking’s chairs

and then I would have a computer screen and then I would be like and then there

would be a river behind me or like a lake or an ocean. I’ll be back in the lake and on

my computer screen I would have a motion of my hand living and I would back into

the water. So, Kasey.

Kasey: I just raised my hand so I could call on somebody else. Audrey.

Audrey: Pass. Piper.

In the last selection, once Kasey was called on by Ron, she passed her chance as a lead-speaker

and chose to involve Audrey, a less-assertive member of the class. Kasey’s act to involve a


student who was yet to vocally engage indicated a conscientious effort on her part to have

everybody participate – a direct observance of ground-rule 2. In the next sequence, also from

Dialogue 13, Marcus, as a lead-speaker, got called upon to bring in Maria – a less-assertive

participants who was yet to join the discussion but often times wanted to.

Piper: There’s nothing wrong with celebrating, guys. But, I will say that some of this

is a little bit overkill. But if – what would I do on the last day of my life? This is

everything I would do, so, Marcus.

Marcus: Um, I just raised my hand to call on somebody. Maria.

Maria: Okay, this is actually to everybody: You can actually go around the world by

plane.

Part of the reason why Dialogue 13 exhibited nine such passes to elicit the thoughts of less-

dominant speakers was that the topic of telling what you would do on your last day alive did not

prompt critical reasoning. Lead-speakers who, in turn, had already expressed their anticipations

in the talk were more apt to relinquish a speaking turn to involve someone who had not joined.

The accomplishment of ground-rule 12, to seek agreement, as I informed students many

times during our pre-talk reviews, was not essential to our dialogue process. Seeking agreement

was a measure, according to Mercer and Dawes (2008), whereby a culmination of social ideas

provided in whole could be checked in an attempt to provide closure to a given talk. I would

regularly inform the students that in the case of many of our topics, agreement would be difficult

to achieve class-wide. Many of our prompts necessitated side-taking that would not be resolved

in consensus during the 35-40 minutes set aside for a class dialogue. Nonetheless, opportunities

arose during the course of this study to seek agreement within a few of our talks. During


Dialogue 8 agreement was sought and achieved in time to continue the dialogue by discussing

the question that received the second most student votes. Late in the research process, a student

began to search for times to procedurally seek agreement out of frustration with the depth of

critical talk emerging from Dialogues 13 and 14.

Tripp, a less-assertive speaker and mute for seven of 14 observed dialogues, began to

understand seeking of agreement in the form of a consensus as a way to move past less critical

topic-questions toward one that might elicit greater depth of reasoning. Tripp realized during

Dialogue 10 (Do you pull the switch?/Do you push the man?) that he enjoyed dilemma

discussions and became interested (to a lesser extent than Mallory) in questioning the claims

made by lead-speakers such as Calvin, Becca, and Aaron C. He at one time wished for me to

construct all our questions for discussion, but then came to embrace a more democratic stance

later in the research process. Tripp’s embrace of student-choice in the deciding of dialogue

questions was partially due to the fact that he could emerge as a problem-solver by helping the

class seek agreement when he deemed that a dialogue had run its course. Tripp’s intent was

entirely exploratory; his goal was to move the class toward a critical topic question when the one

being deliberated was not eliciting reasoned responses. His interjections during Dialogue 13

were admirable yet did not result in a class-consensus to end that phase of the discussion.

However, his procedural moves toward seeking agreement enlightened other students of the self-

centered, unreasoned talk that was ensuing during Dialogue 13. Tripp’s similar interjections

during Dialogue 14 were more ill-founded. Dialogue 14 (Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing?)

transpired as one of our three exploratory talks, and Tripp’s moves toward seeking agreement

found that more students were at odds and a more present dichotomy was in place. Tripp did not

realize that, with a topic question that required side-taking, the chances for consensus-agreement


would be difficult to achieve – especially within the time available in class to hold a discourse.

Nonetheless, Tripp’s procedural interjections were forms of exploration that directly related to an

observance of ground-rule 12. The following excerpt indicates Tripp’s exploratory moves toward

seeking agreement during Dialogue 14:

Mr. Herr: Calvin, I think you’ve made your point. If you would, call on the next

person. Let me remind Calvin and the class that ground rule number two is having a

tough time being followed. Go ahead, Calvin.

Calvin: Tripp.

Tripp: Alright, just to go over it again: Raise your hand if you think he made the right

choice.

Mr. Herr: We are waiting for Tripp to count.

Tripp: Okay, who thinks it was wrong? (Pauses to count) Who thinks it was both?

Who doesn’t know?

Kasey: I don’t think it’s either. It could have gone either way.

Mr. Herr: Maybe make a special category.

Becca: Just put “S” for special.

Mr. Herr: So, Tripp, when you get through tallying, tell us the results you’ve found.

Tripp: Everett, I didn’t get one from you.

Ron: Yeah, he had his hand up for the first one.


Tripp: Alright.

Mr. Herr: Do you need more time? If so, we can continue the dialogue and then come

back to your numbers. Alright, so, do call on somebody.

Mr. Herr: Hold on just a moment. Coming back to you, Tripp. Are you ready?

Tripp: Yes.

Mr. Herr: Let’s come back to Tripp just real quickly, and then you can call on the

next.

Tripp: One person said both. Eight people said it was wrong; fourteen people said it

was right. One said I don’t know and two people are special.

Mr. Herr: So, it looks like the numbers have slightly changed since Becca’s asking.

As facilitator, my role centered on asking questions – either procedurally or substantially.

I offered substantial questions to lead participants deeper into reasoning; I interjected procedural

moves to keep dialogues progressing toward exploratory aims: aims promoted by the practicality

of our 12 ground-rules. Mostly, my procedural interjections were uttered to enlist lead-speakers

to call on those students who had yet to engage in a given dialogue. Generally, if I was not

procedurally offering to transfer dialogues from leaders to less-assertive members of class, I was

steering off-topic expressions back to task. On some occasions my procedural queries were a

reaction to moves of disrespect offered by participants, but in every instance in which I delivered

procedural turns, my intent was to promote exploratory talk as directed by our 12 ground-rules.


Interestingly, procedural interjections positively affected the volume of exploratory

moves spoken by participants. Of the procedural interjections delivered by me within all 14

observed dialogues, 102 of those triggered exploratory responses. The participant who directly

followed a procedural move by me engaged in an exploratory move on 102 occasions in 14 talks.

Here, it seemed that my procedural interjections served as a reset of our ground-rules on many

instances whereby participants drifted away from a focus on critical, creative, or caring

expressions. In this sense, when I moved to interject procedurally, an adherence to our ground-

rules seemed to promote exploratory turns more so than it did not.


Adherence and promotion of a set list of ground-rules designed to elicit exploratory talk

exists as a practicality. Without consistent references to established norms during our talks,

progressions toward exploratory aims would have fallen well short. However, aside from the

positive effects on the exploratory moves expressed by Mallory during the second-half of our

talks, reason-requesting lead-speakers during the last two dialogues, and Tripp’s turn at

facilitating our last two discussions toward consensus, student-observance of our 12 exploratory

ground-rules did not promote its actuality with any consistency. My own direct reviews of the

ground-rules before each dialogue, details of prior performances delivered to students before the

next talk ensued, and procedural interjections meant to keep talks functioning in accordance to

the rules proved more consistent in promoting the actuality of exploratory talk.

Chapter IV Summary

The purpose of the current study was to explore, analyze, and understand the dynamics

that developed within dilemma-triggered, whole-class dialogues. For a period of four months, 25


seventh-grade English/Language Arts students joined in 14 class discussions prompted by story-

plot dilemmas and quandaries of personal interest. Influences on the dynamics of discourse

observed during this study were attributed to the depths of the texts and questions chosen to

discuss, the diction and syntax used to create topic-questions for discourse, the exploratory

nature of participants during the 14 talks, and the involvement of me as facilitator throughout the

dialogic process. Further understanding of the influences disputational discourse and procedural

ground-rules had on the emergence of Community of Inquiry and exploratory talk, respectively,

were also observed through these practices of thinking out loud.


CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to document, analyze, and understand the emergent

relationships existent between dilemma-stories and topical paradoxes and how a class of grade 7

students reacted and reasoned vocally out loud. During the study, the knowledge and

understanding of theories and findings related to social language-learning, Community of

Inquiry, and three modes of discourse (exploratory, disputational, and cumulative talk) were

employed to assist the analysis of recorded narrative transcripts, participant interviews, and

participant surveys. The analysis of this study’s collection of narrative data focused on exploring

blended similarities between social learning theories and dialogic procedural norms in order to

better understand the emerging dynamics resulting from dilemma-sparked, whole-class

dialogues. Potentially, findings gleaned from this study will extend the body of knowledge

connected with adolescent social reasoning and the catalysts promoting reflective engagement in

the classroom. Hopefully, this scholarship will elicit a manifestation in others to engage in

further studies regarding adolescent student discourse.

Summary of the Study

Brief overview of the problem.

While many studies of whole-class dialogues were designed to evaluate and analyze

results that emerged from post-talk measurement assessments (Anderson et al., 2001; Mercer,

Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Moshman & Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al.,

2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007), the current study explored the reflective dynamics vocally

expressed by adolescents during whole-class discussions. Much of empirical research done with


class dialogues focused measurement and assessment efforts on discovering developing

cognitive gains that students attained at the conclusion of discourse participation (Moshman &

Geil, 1998; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Topping & Trickey, 2007).

However, this study analyzed the existence of potential connections between provided textual

prompts applied to elicit reflective talk and the resulting expressions students produced.

More specifically, an intention of the current study was to evaluate and construct

meaning from three modes of discourse observed and common to class dialogues: exploratory,

disputational, and cumulative talk. In order to prompt vocal engagement and to stimulate these

three modes of discourse, I prefaced each of the observed 14 class discussions with adolescent-

leveled dilemma stories and chances for students to construct their own dilemma topics of

interest. The texts I chose to use during this study derived from a combination. I used

recommended fiction and factual narratives from the Core Knowledge canon (recommended by

this study’s host school) and renowned philosophical/moral dilemma-texts from the likes of

Kohlberg (1958), Lionni (1985), and Sandel (2009). Student-participants were also given a voice

in the construction of topics to discuss. Every fourth dialogue brought a chance for class

members to provide topic-questions of their own interest. Regardless of whether talks derived

from texts or from personal concerns, student-participants provided potential topic-questions to

the forefront by way of popular vote.

Further analyses of the 14 dialogue transcripts produced from this study centered on

resulting relationships found between the three modes of discourse and a manifestation of

Community of Inquiry. Central to this study was an observance of comparative dynamics present

between dialectical schools of thought. I was interested in exploring undercurrents that helped to

merge or separate aspects of Barnes’ (1976) exploratory talk and those of Lipman’s (1980)


Community of Inquiry. I hoped to better understand how the three modes of discourse triggered

or stifled the emergence of critical, creative, and caring talk: Community of Inquiry. Through

prior experiences with whole-class dialogue facilitation, I was aware of the prevalence of

disputing and agreeing forms of expression and hoped to observe how defining aspects of

Community of Inquiry would emerge or be impeded during our discussions.

Purpose statement and research questions.

The purpose of this study was to explore and understand the vocal expressions of a single

class of seventh-graders who were prompted to engage in whole-group, critical talk over a

central topic question. The topic questions used were derived from student-participants’ interests

and from the arising themes of facilitator-chosen stories and moral dilemmas. An intent of this

study was to promote exploratory talk leading to Community of Inquiry through participant-

adherence to 12 ground-rules. However, as not all student-talk materializes into exploration, a

keen interest in resulting dynamics instigated by disputing and agreeing discourse was also

preserved. By involving participants in whole-group dialogues, triggered by dilemma-texts and

experiences and anchored by a set a procedure-norms, I hoped to examine merging discourse

methods instituted by two dialectic schools of thought: Philosophy for Children and exploratory

talk. I came to refer to this uniting of dialogic philosophies as Thinking Out Loud.

The central question driving my research for this study revolved around the emerging

dynamics related to the initiation of read-aloud dilemma-texts and resulting vocal expressions

from my 25 seventh-grade participants. I also had an interest in exploring arising dynamics

associated with integrating elements from Philosophy for Children and exploratory class

dialogues. The following inquiries are the three research questions analyzed within this study:


Research question 1: How do traditional/classical stories, philosophical

stories/moral dilemmas, factual narratives, and non-textually generated prompts

influence early adolescents’ thinking out loud within facilitated whole-class

dialogues?

Research question 2: Can Community of Inquiry exist with the included

presence of disputational and cumulative talk?


actuality?

Review of the study design.

This qualitative and ethnographic study engaged, documented, and analyzed the vocal

expressions of one class of 25 seventh-grade English/Language Arts students at Core Knowledge

Academy. In-class read-aloud lessons were followed by an additional reasoning activity referred

to as Thinking Out Loud. Thinking Out Loud originated out of dialectical methods incorporating

aspects of both Philosophy for Children and exploratory talk. After each in-class reading,

students posed thematic questions either to the classroom dry-erase board or to our social

learning website for further consideration. Questions submitted were then voted upon for the

purpose of being chosen as our central topic-question for each given class dialogue. In the sense

of choosing one question for discussion, an adherence to Socratic methodology was employed

(Fisher, 2013). The one query which won the vote in each situation served as the focal question

for that entire discussion. Once a topic-question was chosen, student-participants were reminded

of 12 procedural norms known as ground-rules. These 12 procedural norms, as initiated and


recommended by Mercer and Dawes (2008), were posted to serve as a reminder for participants

of how to engage in ways conducive of exploratory talk.

For the purposes of post-dialogue analysis, each of the 14 observed discussions was

audio-recorded by using iPad® application software. These recordings were then transcribed into

narrative scripts, detailing every word uttered during each talk. The audio files were then deleted,

but the hard-copy transcriptions were kept, as more useful research regarding the dynamics

resulting can be implemented in the future. Following each dialogue, a select group of

participants was interviewed regarding major dynamics which occurred during preceding talks.

Upon completion of the interview process, I provided all participants with a post-dialogue

survey, asking them to rate the previous dialogue on a 5-point Likert scale. The results of all

post-dialogue surveys were calculated into a raw score sum and then averaged to indicate a 5-

point mean score for each of the 14 talks. Furthermore, in iterative support of data collected,

student-participants were provided an exit survey at the conclusion of the last observed dialogue.

This exit survey requested for students to identify a best overall question of the 14 and to rate

each category of discussion (Non-Textually Generated, Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas,

Traditional/Classical Fiction, and Factual Narratives) using a 5-point Likert scale. As with the

Likert results from the post-dialogue surveys, raw scores calculated from the exit surveys were

converted into mean scores on a 5-point scale.

During the implementation of dialogue processes themselves, I served as an active

participant. As an active participant in the current study, I was able to engage in ways that

allowed for me to remove myself from the same totality that the participants experienced within

the discussions (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011). If I had chosen to conduct this study as

a full participant, according to Glesne (2011), the melding of facilitator and participant roles


would have made impartial observations difficult to achieve. However, as an active participant, I

was able to collect field notes while also guiding conversations with procedural and substantial

interjections (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2011; Glesne, 2011; Glina, 2013). Moreover, as an observer of

dynamics resulting from the thinking out loud of the participants, I also functioned as the

facilitator for all 14 discussions. My central intent was to model and portray a strict adherence to

the 12 ground-rules established for the benefit of achieving exploratory talk. When I spoke, I

provided procedural moves toward keeping a given discourse on task as well as the delivery of

substantial moves, uttered to elicit critical reasoning from the participants. On most turns, as

supported by Glina (2013) and Reed (1992), I expressed myself through inquiry and scholarly

ignorance – even feigning awareness at times when I was actually aware. As an active

participant, I was ever cognizant of not dominating a conversation myself. The initiative for this

study was to document and analyze peer-talk within whole-class discourse, and allowing my

participants to engage freely was part of my intent as a facilitator. I was ever cognizant of

following facilitator advice as provided by Young (1992, p. 103): Aspire to “being in authority”

instead of “being the authority.” I came away from most dialogues feeling that I had modeled

facilitation in a non-dominant an unimposing way, serving more as a discussion coach and

catalyst, as suggested by Gregory (2007).

Once all narrative speech was transcribed, I coded each vocal turn issued within all 14

dialogues. Upon attempting to analyze utterances in accordance to the Discourse Analysis

Coding Scheme contrived and presented during Chapter III, it became apparent to me that some

code delineations overlapped one another or did not fit certain contexts uttered in actuality.

Originally, I concluded that some 22 student codes and two facilitator codes would be applied to

the three modes of talk observed: exploratory, disputational, and cumulative. However, during


the process of synthesizing and coding each of the 14 dialogues twice, overlapping qualities

began to emerge with some coded delineations. In some cases, predicted utterances were never

expressed at all. In response, I made decisions to streamline and narrow the 22 initial codes into

16 student codes while keeping intact the two facilitator codes. The actual Discourse Analysis

Coding Scheme used in this study is provided in Table 40.

Table 40

Discourse Analysis Coding Scheme

Modes of Thinking Out Loud Verbal Stratagems/Identifying Questions

Exploratory talk = Explorations

- Critical and constructive reasoning Request for reasons = RR

combined with caring interactions Inference/deduction = ID

Clarification/restatement = CR

Passing to request = rr

Divergent question = DQ

Assessment question = AQ

Information question = IQ

Position statement = QP

*Procedural interjection = Pro

*Substantive interjection = Sub

_____________________________________________________________________

Disputational talk = Disputes Simple disagreement w/o reasons = SD

- Applies disagreement and Counterargument = CA

individual decision-making Rebuttal = RB

Argumentation = AR

Topic shifting = TS

Personal question = PQ

Speaker disregard = RE

Non-reasoned response = NR

_____________________________________________________________________


Cumulative talk = Agree Alignment of previous ideas = Agree

- Cooperative, uncritical talk

______________________________________________________________________________

Note. * indicates facilitator-talk category

Summary of findings.

The presence of a dilemma.

Essential to foundations of whole-class critical discussions was the presence of a

dilemma in which to reason. As Bakhtin (1981) asserted, vocal expressions lack meaning in and

of themselves. If class talk exists only as student conversation, as Dewey (1910) found,

expressions tend to take the form of short, disconnected sentences. I found that if a given topic

up for discussion did not present a quandary, then the expressive dynamics of that topic slanted

inwardly, causing a group-talk to take on a selfish, uncritical description. Moral dilemmas,

fiction pieces, and factual narratives (aside from “The Night the Bed Fell”) each offered a

noticeable controversies for participants within this study to understand. Seven of 10 texts read

for this study posed a moral dilemma: a decision to make about right or wrong. Two pieces of

fiction (“The Tell-Tale Heart” and “A Sound of Thunder”) prompted readers to make a decision

about the feasibility of character actions or plot occurrences. Nine of these textual choices

provided opportunities for the construction of critical discussion questions. Topics generated

without the aid of textual situations accounted for four of the 14 discussion questions presented

in this study. Three of four non-textually related topic questions posed a critical dilemma in

which to discuss. Only “What would you do on the last day of your life?” did not prompt a

reasoned discussion.


I discovered that reasoned discussions emerged consistently from dialogues centered on

philosophical and moral dilemmas. Lipman (1982) established that the use of philosophical and

narrative pieces of fiction directed students into critical discussions, and this study’s findings

supported that claim. Three of four philosophical/moral dilemma texts chosen for this study

elicited a greater ratio of exploratory moves than did texts chosen or topics constructed from any

of the other three discourse categories. While, according to Coles (1994), dilemma texts are not

effective stories in any literary sense, those read and discussed during the current study did

function aptly in the elicitation of exploratory talk. An advantage that talk deriving from

philosophical/moral dilemmas had over discourses initiated by traditional fiction and factual

narratives was that the terse length of moral dilemmas made it possible to enact a read-aloud and

a discussion within the same class period. The number of participant moves was greater during

moral dilemma talks and an increase in turns taken may have been due to students being able to

interact about a dilemma during the same class period as the controversy was identified and

studied. Coles (1994) suggested that traditional stories many times lack the pedagogical context

for engaging students in critical discussions, but other than “The Night the Bed Fell,” each of the

traditional stories used posed a critical problem in which to reflect.

Elapsed time between read-alouds and class discussions.

Also, time elapsing between the reading aloud of fiction and factual pieces and the

discussions that followed may have affected the dynamics of those six talks. Only one fiction

story, “A Sound of Thunder” produced a dialogue deemed wholly exploratory of the six stories

chosen for this study. In all cases in which stories were discussed, the read-alouds occurred

during the class period before the class discussion transpired. This break between story

comprehension and the retention required to vocalize about it two days later may have caused


some participants to second-guess whether or not they would engage at all. As for the moral

dilemma texts shared aloud, those were actually read during the same class periods as the talks

that coincided with them. In this sense, comprehension of the moral dilemma texts were fresher

on students’ minds and could have contributed to increased frequencies of moves in comparison

to moves spoken during fiction and factual narrative talks.

Text evidence and vocal participation.

Similarly, participant recall of text evidence was more challenging for students to deliver

during talks about fiction and factual narrative topics. Since those discussions ensued two days

after their in-class readings, evidence about characters, plot occurrences, and theme were on the

cognitive forefront of students’ minds. Evidence that could be gleaned from moral dilemmas

read in class on the same day as the dialogues ensued was easily retrieved mentally for

participants. Moreover, textual evidence was not available for students to reference at all when

discussing non-textually developed topics. For those discussions, participants relied on

experiences and observations exclusively. In this sense, ideas and opinions may have been

perceived as more refutable since no concrete textual proof existed during talks that emerged out

of interest topics. In fact, the four non-textually developed interest topic discussions averaged 80

Disputes per dialogue – more than was averaged within any other category of discussion topics.

Topic-question syntax and engagement dynamics.

While the presence of textual and non-textual dilemmas allowed for participants to

produce topic questions that elicited critical responses, it was found through this study that topic-

question construction contributed considerably to the depth in which students would engage in

thinking out loud. Furthermore, it had been previously discovered that analytic class discussions


created a more progressive flow of expression, and this engagement stemmed from allowing

students to pose problem situations and frame their own question prompts (Freire, 1970; Gadotti,

1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Shor, 1992). Likewise, the diction and syntax used in the

creation of topic questions proved important to the dynamics that were ultimately expressed

throughout the current study. Certain stem words (instigating prompt-words) mattered toward

indicating how participants would comprehend topic-question context. This comprehension

thusly affected how participant responses would be expressed. If a question-stem posed “why”,

the dynamics of reasoned and unreasoned talk proved different from those times when the topic-

stems prompted “what would you do”. “Why” was noted as a stem prompting reasoned

explanations – a catalyst toward exploration. “What would you do” on the contrary impelled

students to respond inwardly, expressing personal thoughts that did not move the class toward

joint understanding – which, as Bahktin (1981) and Vygotsky (1978) discovered, occurred as an

outward projection within a social context. Topic questions like “What would you do in Heinz’s

situation?” and “What was going on with this family and phobias?” did not help to initiate

critical thinking out loud. Those questions did, however, trigger a number of expressed personal

aims, resulting in self-centered deliveries on the whole.

Further understanding was attained, also in relationship to topic-question syntax and its

importance to the promotion of reasoned responses. Atwood et al. (2010), Burbules (1993),

Cazden (2001), and Lipman (2003) all found that dialogues which promoted shared

understanding also prompted perspective-taking. Likewise, I discovered that close-ended

question-stems requiring participants to take a moral side consistently moved participants toward

reason-giving during those dialogues employing such stems. Topic-questions such as “Should we

kill animals?” “Do you pull the switch?” “Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing?” “Can killing a


butterfly in the past have an effect on the future?” and “Was the dropping of atomic bombs on

Japan justified?” syntactically prompted students to choose sides. Moreover, once a side was

chosen, the syntax used also prompted vocal participants to provide a reason for their initial

opinions. While only two of the five questions listed here produced wholly exploratory talks, the

frequency of exploratory moves expressed in each was considerably greater than delivered

during those discussions that did not prompt students to take sides. However, one prompt that did

elicit side-choosing but that did not qualify syntactically to aid in the production of exploratory

talk was the topic-question “Which school is better, TLA or CKA?” While a request for

participants to reason as to why TLA or CKA is better was implied, the fact that 23 of 25 class

members had attended only CKA (of the two schools discussed) and possessed only experiences

from that school, caused the dynamics of this discussion to slant inwardly. The syntax was

constructed in a way that was comprehended by participants to reply more through the

expression of personal and anecdotal experiences.

Two other topic questions that seemingly employed stems identified to be promoters

leading participants toward exploration fell short of prompting a high frequency of critical

reasoning because of their confusing syntactical construction. “Why did Mathilde marry a clerk

if she was unhappy with her position in life?” and “Was not being humiliated worth the death of

a living creature?” tallied more votes than any other topic-question submissions offered for their

given stories, yet the level of participant understanding, as analyzed through data-transcription

coding, did not compare with the attention each received. The question about Mathilde from

“The Necklace” was not thematically important and caused many participants to venture toward

responding off-topic – about a question more related to the main idea of the story. The question

related to the actions of George Orwell from “Shooting an Elephant” caused responses of


confusion as well. The syntax structure of the chosen question itself “Was not being humiliated

worth the death of a living creature?” seemed to cloud complete comprehension of the prompt.

The negating qualities of the word “not” seemed to easily produce a misunderstanding of this

question. Likewise, many responding participants chose to disregard this question altogether in

lieu of a side-taking submission that did not win the student vote: Did George do the right thing?

Influences of mainly-exploratory participants.

Each of the three dialogues that came to be wholly defined as exploratory (Dialogues 6,

11, and 14) included at least one-third of the number of students also being deemed as mostly

exploratory as well. Dialogue 6 produced 11 mainly-exploratory speakers, Dialogue 11 presented

8 such explorers, and Dialogue 14 contributed 10 mainly-exploratory participants. Even

Dialogue 10, a talk very nearly defined as exploratory, produced 7 of 25 mainly-exploratory

participants. In fact, within each of the four dialogues either considered exploratory or deemed

almost exploratory, no fewer than half of the mainly-exploratory participants were less-assertive

members of class. Of all the less-assertive participants who emerged as a mainly-exploratory

contributor, Mallory stood out. Mallory not only expressed inward exploratory positions and

deductions but, perhaps more important to the contribution of discourses as a whole, she inquired

more critically, inducing others to engage in exploration as well. In this sense, Mallory served as

a second facilitator during 7 of the 14 observed talks.

Influences of argument-sequences on modes of discourse.

Just as back-and-forth sequences of student exploration helped to lead conversations

toward critical and creative understandings, so too did sequences of dispute through

argumentation contribute to disputational delineations. Dialogues which were comprised of a


small number of argument sequences (argument-rebuttal-counter-argument sequences) aided in

leading a discussion toward exploration. However, dialogues that produced six or more argument

sequences did not lead to wholly exploratory talks, and those discussions that included nine or

more argument sequences led to highly disputational discourses.

Sequences of dispute were defined as those series of participant turns and moves which

initiated as arguments. In this study, for a sequence of dispute to have been identified, multiple

participants had to initiate argumentation, followed by rebuttal and counter-argumentation. It

was discovered that the more these sequences emerged in a given dialogue, the less chance

exploratory talk had in becoming initiated. Three different dialogues produced nine of more

sequences of dispute. None of these three talks (Dialogues 4, 9, and 12) came to be identified as

wholly exploratory. Moreover, dialogues that produced very few sequences of dispute, like

Dialogues 7, 8, and 13, did not end up as exploratory discussions on the whole either. The three

dialogues that came to be defined as exploratory overall (Dialogues 6, 11, and 14) produced five,

four, and three sequences of argumentation, respectively. In any case, the inclusion of some

sequences of dispute triggered interjections from those who hoped to steer discussions more

toward exploration: be they the facilitator or a participant. However, talks whereby the sequences

of dispute rose into the 10s proved harder for exploring interjectors to steer toward exploration.

Table 41 details those observed dynamics that most influenced exploratory and

disputational speech. Each of the four discourse categories (Non-Textually Generated,

Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas, Traditional/Classical Fiction, and Factual Narratives) are

separated from the others, indicating influences on modes of discourse. Dilemma-delineations,

topic-question syntax, numbers of pure explorers, and argument sequences are shown in

relationship to the number of Explorations and Disputes expressed within each of the four


discourse categories. In Table 41 “Dilemma” indicates whether or not the discussed text or topic

provided a quandary in which to deliberate. “Syntax” refers to whether or not the topic-question

constructed and chosen by the class elicited critical reasoning consistently. “Explorers” in Table

41 indicates how many participants within each discussion explored more than he or she

disputed. “AR Sequences” represent here the number of times multiple participants engaged in a

back-and-forth dispute that was initiated by argumentation and progressed into rebuttal and

counter-argumentation. “Ex” and “Dis” stand for the total moves of Explorations and Disputes

expressed during each of the 14 observed dialogues.

Table 41

Influential Dynamics Essential for Defining Whole-Class Dialogues

Non-Textually Generated


1 Why don’t … attention to lyrics? yes no 0 6 14 56

5 Which school is better? yes no 5 6 41 75

9 Should we kill animals? yes yes 2 9 53 95

13 What would you do … last day? no no 2 0 58 92



2 What would you do… Heinz’s? yes no 3 3 27 64


6 Purpose of “Frederick?” yes yes 11 5 67 47

10 Do you pull switch?/Push man? yes no 7 4 84 90

14 Did Luttrell do the right thing? yes yes 10 4 62 45



3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? yes no 4 3 23 46

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? yes yes 3 2 53 65

11 Can killing in past affect future? yes yes 8 3 70 63

Factual Narratives


4 Was not being… worth death? yes no 7 10 23 60

8 What’s up with family/phobias? no no 3 3 35 65

12 Was… atomic bombs justified? yes yes 2 11 51 74

Student participation and its effect on modes of discourse.

Emerging from the 25 students observed in the current study were nine lead-speakers –

participants who took more turns per talk than others. Most discussions were led and guided by

the moves of this group of lead-participants. Partially, these nine participants came to be deemed

dominant-speakers because of their consistent intents, not only to join into a discussion, but to

deliver claims and positions more often than less-assertive students. Another defining quality of


a lead-speaker was a tendency to deliver lengthier responses more than other less-dominant

speakers. However, a commonality shared by this group of lead-speakers was that the more they

vocally controlled a given dialogue, the more disputational talk ensued within these discussions.

This revelation also coincided with data pointing to the fact that a greater frequency of vocal

moves expressed within a given dialogue indicated that that discussion trended toward being

defined as disputational. Less-assertive participants, on the other hand, produced a lower ratio of

disputational moves and were more apt to deliver moves of exploration in comparison to lead-

speakers within given talks. In fact, speakers emerging within certain dialogues who contributed

more exploratory moves than disputational moves were more often less-assertive members of

class. Table 42 shows the categorization of Explorations, critical inquiries, and Disputes spoken

by each of the nine lead-speakers within the context of all 14 class dialogues enacted for this

study.

Table 42

Total Numbers of Explorations, Critical Inquiries, and Disputes Made by Lead-Speakers

Lead-Speaker Explorations Critical Inquiries Disputes

Becca 62 14 92

Calvin 55 10 141

Aaron C. 49 4 75

Elizabeth 48 14 46

Marcus 41 10 67


Jamie 35 8 56

Shannon 35 10 55

Kasey 33 10 52

Kathy 27 3 52

Totals 385 of 661 83 of 130 636 of 937

As indicated by Table 42, nine lead-speakers in a class of 25 students contributed 58% of all

Explorations delivered, 64% of all critical questions asked, and 68% of all Disputes uttered. All

other moves of exploration and disputational talk were delivered by the other 16 non-dominant

participants. Of special note were the contributions of Mallory. Though not considered a lead-

speaker (because she never tried to enter into a dialogue until she weighed the thoughts of others)

Mallory provided 100 moves categorized as Explorations, Critical Inquiries, and Disputes. Even

though she expressed fewer moves than eight of the nine dominant-speakers listed in Table 41,

Mallory surpassed all nine with her individual contributions of Explorations (64) and critical

questions (20). Furthermore, Mallory uttered fewer Disputes (16) than any lead-speaker

throughout the current study.

Gender and its effects on modes of discourse.

As observed dialogues progressed chronologically, and the emergence of participants

who came to deliver Explorations increased as a whole, boys were noticed to have expressed

fewer exploratory moves than girls. Partially because girls outnumbered boys 14 to 11, total

moves in general were spoken by girls. It was also observed that dominant-speaking boys were


more apt to deliver arguments, rebuttals, counter-arguments, and topic-shifting claims. However,

when it came to moves of exploration, especially moves of critical inquiry, boys delivered

questions to the group less frequently by far. Boys, throughout the first eight discussions,

explored more inwardly than outwardly. Most exploratory moves expressed by boys, especially

during Dialogues 1-8, were uttered as statements of position or requests for reasons. In fact, not

until Dialogue 9 did a lead-speaker boy (Calvin) pose a question of critical inquiry: divergent,

assessment, or informational. Interestingly, during the final six talks, boys, as a group, delivered

more moves of exploration. In accordance, total exploratory moves for the class were spoken

with greater frequency. Table 43 shows the division, by gender, of Explorations and Critical

Inquiries made during each observed dialogue.

Table 43

Exploratory Moves and Critical Inquiries Delivered According to Gender

Dialogue # Total Explorations Boy Explorations/Crit Inquiries Girl Explorations/Crit Inquiries

1 14 2/0 12/2

2 27 10/0 17/2

3 23 12/2 11/2

4 23 9/0 14/3

5 41 15/2 26/4

6 67 20/0 47/10

7 53 13/0 40/8


8 35 9/0 26/2

9 53 25/8 28/9

10 84 35/7 49/8

11 70 40/12 30/4

12 51 16/4 35/9

13 58 24/3 34/12

14 62 24/5 38/12

Totals 661 254/43 407/87

Facilitator participation and its effects on modes of discourse.

A contributing factor to an increase in boys’ critical engagement during the final six

dialogues was a proliferation in the number of facilitator interjections spoken during those six

discussions. Interjections by the researcher as facilitator were delivered for the sake of moving

each given dialogue toward exploration. When I interjected, speakers were directed on topic,

toward involving others, or toward deeper reasoning. Procedural interjections, delivered most

often, were uttered to keep the talk flowing – yet flowing toward exploration. Following 102

procedural interjections, the next participants’ turn resulted in an exploratory move. Substantial

interjections, by design delivered to elicit exploration, also prompted participants to think out

loud critically. Dialogues which included more procedural interjections than substantial ones

indicated that that given discussion required more of a push toward exploratory talk. Discussions

in which substantial interjections were greater showed that the participants themselves were


steering the talk toward exploration. During these dialogues, my role changed from that of

ground-rule enforcer to that of participant-learner. When dialogues took on more exploratory

slants, resembling Community of Inquiry, I was able focus my interjections on prompting

speakers to think deeper out loud. Table 44 charts the relationship between facilitator

interjections and student expressions throughout the 14 discussions of this study.

Table 44

Total Facilitator Moves in Comparison to Student Explorations and Disputes

Non-Textually Generated Topics


1 Why don’t we pay attention to lyrics? 8 2 14 56

5 Which school is better, TLA or CKA? 16 9 41 75

9 Should we kill animals? 27 11 53 95

13 What would you do on your last day? 17 1 58 92

Totals 68 23 166 318



2 What would you do in Heinz’s situation? 11 9 27 64

6 What is the purpose of “Frederick?” 12 15 67 47

10 Do you pull the switch?/Push the man? 34 27 84 90


14 Did Officer Luttrell do the right thing? 24 10 62 45

Totals 81 61 240 246



3 Why did Mathilde marry a clerk? 12 4 23 46

7 The narrator: crazy or clever? 8 12 53 65

11 Can killing in the past affect the future? 15 7 70 63

Totals 35 23 146 174

Factual Narratives


4 Was not being humiliated worth killing? 16 4 23 60

8 What was up with this family’s phobias? 7 6 35 65

12 Was dropping atomic bombs justified? 14 9 51 74

Totals 37 19 109 199

Thinking out loud and the emergence of Community of Inquiry.

Six of 14 observed dialogues indicated at least one sequence representative of

Community of Inquiry. Although two of the three exploratory discussions presented two distinct

sequences of Community of Inquiry, one exploratory dialogue (Dialogue 11) did not venture

once into identifiable aspects of community talk. Within this study sequences representative of


being defined as Community of Inquiry had to involve multiple speakers engaged in a back-and-

forth critical exploration of a given topic. Those sequences deemed representative of Community

of Inquiry also exhibited at least some moves of student inquiry. During the six Community of

Inquiry sequences, turns and moves did not last longer than a minute or two, but each indicated

an honest, critical and respectful concern for exploration. Even within discourses that came to be

identified as more disputational than exploratory, Community of Inquiry emerged in directional

shifts between moves of dispute and exploration. Once the sequences of classroom community

transpired, they did not consume many turns or time on task, but possibilities were observed

indicative that such critical, creative, and caring discourse could exist within a whole-class

dialogue with seventh-grade participants.

The effect of procedural norms on exploratory talk.

The 12 ground-rules enacted in support of exploratory, dialectical talk existed as a

referenced and useful safeguard against threats of blatant disrespect; however, these procedural

norms did not suffice to serve as a specified platform for participants to follow in order to

achieve critical, creative, and caring social interactions. While consistent review of the ground-

rules aided some participants in expressing themselves with care and respect, those pre-dialogue

reviews were not observed as functioning elicitors of critical and creative expressions. Few

dominant-speakers, once engaged with emotions and aspirations to debate, used the 12 posted

ground-rules as a guiding factor for change. Some participants, especially a few less-assertive

members, did rely on the guidelines set forth by the ground-rules. They would occasionally try to

enact various moves recommended by the posted norms – sometimes with success, sometimes to

no substantial avail. Greater success in getting participants to follow the ground-rules was done

indirectly by way of facilitator interjections. By delivering utterances of procedural reminders


interspersed within dialogues in attempt to lead participants toward an observance of our norms,

I, as facilitator, was able to provide a greater impact on individual students of how to engage

critically and respectfully.

Conclusions

The emergence of lead-speakers and less-assertive speakers.

A resultant, encapsulating idea which emerged from this study of thinking out loud was

that seventh-grade adolescents might not have a basis from which engage socially. Their

culmination of prior experiences, as related to classroom talk, indicated consistent familiarities

with initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) methods of teacher-student interactions (Cazden,

2001). Judging from our lead, dominant speakers’ propensity for uttering claims and “being

right” with their vocalized ideas, participants for this study had been taught in traditional and

directly authoritative ways. For the most part, my participants’ vocal utterances in the classroom

had been teacher-solicited for the sake of evaluating their topic knowledge (Cazden, 2001;

Mercer & Dawes, 2008). In this sense, dominant-speakers throughout the current study

interacted with peers as they had experienced interaction with their teachers – by means of

imparting “knowledge” on more acquiescent members of our group (Atwood et al., 2010;

Burbules, 1993; Cazden, 2001; Lipman, 1980; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff, 1990).

Participants’ lack of dialectical experiences stemmed, seemingly, from their educational

upbringings. The participants of this study had been educated in a tradition by which they were

perceived as the receptors knowledge from authoritative sources (Habermas, 1984; Shor, 1992).

Once engaged in a social, dialectical environment, their obvious interactions within emerged

awkwardly and according to their prior experiences with conversation. The more dominant


participants of this group initially and consistently understood Thinking Out Loud dialogues to

exist as debates in which to win. These lead-speakers, despite consistent reviews of procedural

norms, did not, as Lipman (1980) and Freire (1970) suggested from dialogue participants,

suspend their personal beliefs for the sake of shared knowledge. When provided opportunities to

vocalize with a group, their speech turned inwardly. Critical questions of inquiry asked of others

were issued seldom by lead-speakers throughout the four months of this study. In lieu of

exploratory inquiry, a major goal of many of our lead-speakers was the transfer of knowledge

from them to the other students – a mirror image of methodologies in which they were

consistently exposed, whereby these very students were instructed by a person of authority

(Burbules, 1993). There existed an air with our lead-speakers (especially Calvin, Becca,

Shannon, Aaron C., Marcus, Kathy, and Jamie) that they were the ones “in the know” and that

other students were not. Some of these dominant-speakers even expressed a sort of dutiful

agenda to relay their knowledge to the other students in the class. In some situations, less-

assertive speakers acquiesced to these authoritative offerings and shut themselves off from

engagement in our dialogues. In other situations, some less-assertive members (Mallory, Tripp,

and Javier) emerged to take the mantle of critical, creative, and caring talk upon themselves for

the sake of establishing exploratory discourses. Moreover, as our dialogues progressed and

engagement moves became more respectful, lead-speakers began to join more in exploration and

in posing questions of critical inquiry.

The importance of dilemmas and timing.

Enacting class dialogues for this study centered on initiations of dilemmas in which to

discuss. As the procedure for carrying forth discussions was aligned with methods used to

achieve Community of Inquiry and exploratory talk, literary quandaries were necessitated in the


form of in-class read-alouds (Fisher, 2013; Lipman, 2003; Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Wartenberg,

2009). Without the advent of a dilemma in which to discuss, dialogues would transgress into

modes of dispute and/or agreement, devoid of a catalyst promoting exploration (Lipman, 2003;

Mercer & Dawes, 2008). During this study it was found that while the inclusion of literary

dilemmas was essential toward achieving exploration or a Community of Inquiry, time elapsing

between the read-alouds and ensuing discussions contributed positively and negatively to the

dynamics of talks over stories.

Fiction and factual narratives read-aloud for this study required student-participants to

maintain a cognizant comprehension of those texts for an additional day before dialogues could

take place. As the host school of this study, CKA, functioned on an every-other-day block

schedule. Chances to read-aloud stories of length and to discuss them within the same class

period were not available. Even with class periods lasting an hour and a half, a push to read and

try to hold a 30-40 minute discussion was always out of the question. Under that circumstance,

students during this study, even upon hearing a review-refresher over the stories read prior, had

to delve deeper into their understandings of given pieces of fiction and factual texts in order to

initiate mental evidence useful for our talks. Copies of discussed texts were always provided

before engaging in the dialogues, yet the elapsed time between readings and discussions may still

have contributed to silences and unclear vocalizations. While participants’ cognition and

memories of text evidence were stretched during dialogues resulting from our six pieces of

literature, discussions initiated from non-textually generated topics also faced drawbacks related

to students not being able to provide text evidence. Since non-textually generated topics derived

from student and teacher interest, evidence supported during these talks originated and


developed strictly out of prior experiences. Documented evidence could only be indirectly

referenced, if at all.

Philosophical/moral dilemma read-aloud texts used during this study were shared and

discussed within the same class periods. Moral dilemma texts were short enough to read to the

group and then enact a discussion all in one class session. Cole (1994) suggested that moral

dilemma texts were of lesser literary value but, in contrast, possessed more pedagogical context

than traditional stories for engaging students in critical discussions. In analysis of the four moral

dilemmas discussed, two of the four talks (almost three of four) came to be defined as wholly

exploratory, and I wondered if the terseness of the context and the immediacy of an ensuing

dialogue contributed to the frequency by which participants explored during these discussions of

moral texts.

Non-textually generated discussions and the advent of disputes.

Shor (1992) found that facilitated discussions initiated out of student interest helped to

bridge a schism existent between teacher-generated topics and peer-conversations. Dilemmas

identifiable with the experiences of the students who would be discussing them proved

significant toward merging teacher-student talk into a third idiom (Shor, 1992). Within this

study, the advent of non-textually generated dilemma topics instituted dialogues that became

defined by dispute. The four dialogues that ensued from non-textually generated topics combined

to average 80 disputes per talk. This number eclipsed the average number of disputes registered

by any other category observed within this study. This increased advent of disputational talk

seemed related, at least somewhat, to the fact that participant claims could not be vetted and

questioned against any text available. Opinions originating “off the top” of participants’ heads


were provided more so during non-textually generated dialogues than during any other type.

Although student-to-student conversation was observed to be more at ease during these four

dialogues, I found participants’ ease within a discussion to be a prerequisite for disputational

talk.

Topic-question construction and the importance of syntax.

An emergent aspect to this study was the importance attributed to topic-question

construction. In order for questions to prompt participants to respond in a reasoned, exploratory

way, specific elements of syntax had to be included. Question-stems requiring participants to

take a side with an opinionated response also helped participants to produce reasoning to support

their opinions. This supporting answer emerged as an answer to the question “why” or “why

not.” Interestingly, the syntax of those side-taking topic-questions did not elicit participants to

explain “why” or “why not” – students were simply apt to do so. However, question-stems that

prompted participants to state what they would do in certain circumstances did not produce vocal

exchanges to exemplify exploratory talk.

Of the 14 topic-questions discussed, seven were constructed syntactically to allow for

more reasoned responses. Six of those seven topic questions prompted participants to take a side

when responding; one question did not elicit side-taking but did prompt students for a thoughtful

purpose to a picture-book dilemma. Two of these six topic questions were constructed by

student-participants, and four were created or supplied by me as facilitator. Besides the query

that asked students to discuss the purpose of “Frederick”, one other student-submission was

constructed so that more reasoned-responses might be delivered. Mallory’s topic-question

submission for “A Sound of Thunder” (Can something very insignificant, like killing a butterfly


in the past, have a huge effect on the future?) also elicited students to take sides. All four of the

remaining syntactically-strong submissions prompted side-taking and were constructed or

supplied by me as facilitator. I had come to understand through facilitating other groups and

from successes of drawbacks observed within this study that any submission supplied or created

by me for consideration by this class would benefit this study by utilizing more reason-eliciting

syntax.

Interestingly, nine of 14 topic-questions were constructed by individual participants. Of

those nine questions created by students, seven exhibited syntactical concerns. Three of those

seven questions prompted participants to respond inwardly, prompting students to respond with

what they would do under certain circumstances. One of the seven questions with concerning

syntax did prompt participants to take a side, but the implied request for reasoning only allowed

for students to respond inwardly with utterances of personal experience (Which school is better,

TLA or CKA?). Two other student-created topic-questions proved to be ill-constructed and

either caused confusion among responders (Was not being humiliated worth the death of a living

creature?) or required participants to answer a question not related to an underlying theme of the

story, “The Necklace.” Incidentally, in the case of both of these latter two submissions,

authoritative lead-speakers (Becca and Shannon) provided these vote-winning questions. I

speculated that their perceived intelligence by others in class (along with their confident manner

of speech) contributed to several tallied votes in favor of their given question-submissions.

The effects of ground-rules and procedural interjections on modes of discourse.

Posted dialogical procedural norms known to participants in this study as ground-rules

proved useful insomuch as they were consistently referenced by adhering students or by me as


facilitator. As stated by Wegerif and Mercer (1997), these norms are to be actively maintained

and facilitated if certain challenges and disagreements allowed for by the ground-rules are to be

kept on-topic and respectful. This knowledge was certainly useful to the process of facilitation,

as I discovered that active procedural interjections would influence the guidance of participants

toward exploratory aims as much as, if not more than, pre-dialogue reminders about the 12

ground-rules. While pre-talk reviews and reminders served to reset our discussion-focus before

each dialogue, consistent and active procedural interjections by me as facilitator proved

necessary in enlisting new speakers and resetting the discourse for exploring. With the number of

dominant-speakers vying for chances to engage totaling about half of the total number of

participants vocalizing during a given dialogue, my own procedural interjections helped to quell

their potential, encompassing monopoly on the conversations as a whole.

Following the entire observation process, I identified two qualms in regard to ground-

rules reviews and my own procedural interjections. I have come to believe that ground-rule 1

(Discuss things together.) should have been posted more descriptively. While I understand that

my own procedural moves accounted more toward keeping talks moving forward to exploration,

an additional phrase tagged to the posted ground-rule 1 for students to “Ask why” might have

made a difference in the frequency of critical inquiries posed during the course of our talks. The

inclusion of “ask for reasons why” was actually included in the context of the original ground-

rule 1 used by Mercer and Dawes (2008), but I had omitted it to keep the rules concise and

memorable. The reason I think the addition to ground-rule 1 was necessary was because, as a

facilitator dedicated to the idea of student autonomy, telling participants definitively how to

engage during procedural moves would not have been in accordance to my truth as a teacher or

in accordance to the validity strived for by this study. However, if the addition of “Ask why” had


been attached to ground-rule 1, I would have felt more at ease about engaging students in pre-

talk discussions about its meaning on as many of the 14 occasions as they saw fit.

The second issue I had in retrospect since the completion of data collection for this study

was in regard to my delivery of procedural interjections. During the process of all dialogues, I

was very cognizant of entering and interjecting my voice into the talks too much – an act

definitively identifiable by Atwood et al. (2010), Cazden (2001), Nystrand (1997), and Rogoff

(1990) as teacher-imposing. I made a point to interject with questions more than edicts, and, for

the most part, I stayed true to that ideal. Yet, with the number of turns and length of moves made

by some of our dominant-speakers, it might have been helpful to non-dominant speakers if I had

suspended briefly some lead-speakers from entering talks. This is a practice I had employed prior

to this study, in other classes during other school years, but during the current study, I chose not

to suspend any lead-speakers because of the number of turns they took. Looking back, I think, as

a facilitator, I should have made more procedural attempts to have lead-speakers suspend, and I

should have made more of a procedural effort to involve other less-assertive members into our

discussions -- with more frequency. With retrospective knowledge I came to observe several of

our less-assertive speakers guide our talks toward exploration – leading our environment of

social interaction toward joint understanding. Moreover, it was our less-assertive speakers who

initiated sequences of Community of Inquiry more so than other lead-speakers throughout the

observed dialogues – supporting theories of both Cazden (2001) and Young (1992). Both

suggested that the indicators of communities of inquiry revolve around asking questions,

engaging in turn management, and reacting to others’ answers. As the progression of our talks

continued, our less-assertive speakers began to fit that description more and more. Furthermore,

if my analysis was apt to show and our less-dominant speakers emerged more poised to deliver


moves of critical inquiry, then inserting my own facilitating voice more in regard to eliciting

these less-assertive speakers would have proved beneficial toward engaging the whole-class

more critically.

Implications for Practice

Teachers who follow a constructivist approach and those who consider themselves

facilitators of learning will benefit from the observed breadth of narrative documentation

included within this study. Those educators who are open to instructional practices whereby

students are permitted to take the lead in order to shape understanding together in the classroom

will appreciate how the participants within this study exchanged ideas back-and-forth, sometimes

seeking and finding common ground, sometimes challenging each other in dispute, and

sometimes exploring the topics at hand. Within this study, there exists a wealth of data

potentially useful in the further research of adolescents and whole-class dialogues. Findings

made here regarding the specificity of dilemma-texts, topic-question syntax, lead-speaker/less-

assertive speaker dynamics, and facilitator dynamics will prove beneficial to those hopeful about

adding further to limited empirical collections of narrative, dialectical research.

Implications for curriculum developers should also be noted. Consistently, dialogues

resulting from the study of philosophical/moral dilemmas provided more exploratory moves than

they did moves of dispute. Within no other observed category of study did explorations happen

as frequently in accordance to the total number of moves spoken as they did during discussions

about moral-reasoning texts. If critical, creative, and caring talk was observed at its most

frequent during talks over moral dilemmas, careful considerations should be taken by


instructional strategists and curriculum developers for the considered implementation of

philosophical/moral dilemma texts into the seventh-grade reading canon.

A further implication that emerged and deserves greater analysis is the study of

constructive dynamics associated with facilitators of class dialogues. From this study alone,

greater explorations into the metacognitive role of a dialogue facilitator could be examined. A

facilitator’s role, if researched and practiced, includes many attributes – attributes detailed in this

current study. If teachers are to become facilitators, or in the least, more constructive modelers in

the classroom, a closer examination of the construction of discourse environments, inquiry

methods, guiding speech toward creativity and care, and the understanding of when to remain

silent are all implications worth knowing.

Recommendations for Future Research

The quantity and intricacies of data collected for this study allowed for much more to be

examined and understood. For example, emerging dynamics concerning adolescent gender-roles

as those influencing speaker-dominance in the process of whole-class talks should be considered

as a leading topic for future research. The data transcripts detailed for this study allow for better

understanding about the dynamics leading to speaker-dominance as well as speaker-acquiescence

to emerge. Moreover, this study presented conditions whereby several speakers remained mute

throughout multiple or many dialogues. Explorations into the psyches of silent students (as well

as secure and veteran participants) within group environments also arises as a recommended

study of interest. Also, observing the growth of participants’ critical, creative, and caring speech

as they progress through our talks chronologically is another intriguing study that can be enacted

with the narrative data available from my dialectical observations. Furthermore, I specifically


hope to continually explore the dynamics that arise vocally in relationship to student-constructed

topic-questions as opposed to those topic-questions constructed by facilitators.

Concluding Remarks

This study of early adolescents’ spoken dynamics within whole-class dialogues proved

largely to be an observation of on-going exchanges of ideas. The class environment was

constructed in a way to allow for freedoms of expression – democracy in the classroom, as

Dewey (1916) and Freire (1970) might add. Our goals for vocalizing originated from what

Lipman (1980) and Fisher (2013) identified as critical, creative, and caring engagement.

Thinking out loud took place. Although at times expressions were selfish and inward,

argumentative and competitive, drifting and unclear, and shallow and callous, these 25 seventh-

graders also expressed speech both respectful and insightful, inventive and inquiring – many

times in the course of a few minutes. These observed dialogues never did culminate as complete,

packaged lessons that started in ignorance and ended in understanding, as Barnes (1976), the

initiator of exploratory talk might have one time imagined they would. However, all 14 talks

existed as exercises in social construction. For most of the 25 participants, vocalizing their

poignant and critical thoughts to a group of peers was new and awkward. Many had only been

allowed to project answers and claims in classroom situations, and many relied upon those

experiences when engaging in this study. In that sense, cognizant of the prior discussion

experiences of our group, the dialogues enacted within this study never progressed toward any

exact, joint knowledge of topic questions. In guessing, students took away from our talks a

myriad of challengers and solidifiers to their own beliefs about the questions prompted. Their

knowledge, as coined by Vygotsky (1978), was achieved intra-mentally. Very little emerged as

unanimously concrete for those present during Thinking Out Loud discussions; more inter-


mental, shared learning was not outwardly observed. Yet, as Oakeshott was quoted as suggesting

from the beginning of Chapter I, the unanimous ideal was that participants took part in

conversations that “went on in public and inside each of ourselves” (Reed, 1998, p. 55). Every

utterance from this study was perhaps accepted, disregarded, remembered, and forgotten, but

regardless, it was the acts of conversation about meaningful things that gave place and character

to these talks. Whether or not the memory of things spoken by peers to other peers in a seventh-

grade English classroom in the fall of 2014 will linger, these topical expressions came to

resemble democracy; students were invited to join in a forum of ideas, and they did so by

thinking out loud.


References

Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. McNurlen, B. Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A.

(2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking

across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.

Armstrong, P. (2008). What teachers expect in reform: Making their voices heard. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge and

classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358-402.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.

Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.) Inspired

by the work of Douglas Barnes. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Barnes, M. (1999). Cumulative and exploratory talk in a collaborative learning classroom.

MERGA, 22, 53-59.

Biesta, G. (2011). Philosophy, exposure, and children: How to resist the instrumentalization of

philosophy of education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 305-319.


Bleazby, J. (2011). Overcoming relativism and absolutism: Dewey’s ideals of truth and meaning

in philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 453-466.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, C. R. (1956). Taxonomy of

educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive

domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Bourdage-Reninger, K. & Rehark, L. (2009). Discussions in a fourth-grade classroom: Using

exploratory talk to promote dialogic identities. Language Arts, 86(4), 268-279.

Boys, M. (1999). Engaged pedagogy dialogue and critical reflection. Teaching Theology and

Religion, 2(3), 129-136.

Bradbury, R. (2005). A sound of thunder and other stories. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Burbules, N. & Bertram, B. (2001). Theory and research on dialogue as teaching. In V.

Richardson Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th Ed.). Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois-Urbana Press.

Burgh, C. (2005) In C.D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.) Vygotskian perspectives on literacy

research. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp. 51-85).

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.


Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, J., & Demers, K. (2008). (Eds.) Handbook of

Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts (3rd Edn.).

Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Coles, C. R. (1994). Pathologies of one-to-one teaching. Medical Education, 28(3), 234-238.

Copeland, M. (2010). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and

high school. Portland, MN: Stenhouse.

Core Knowledge Foundation. (2014). Educational excellence and equity for all children.

Retrieved from

http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/480/CKFSequence_Re

v.pdf.

Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniels, H. (2012). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Davey, S. (2005) In C.D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.) Vygotskian perspectives on literacy

research. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp. 51-85).

De Bono, E. (1994). Parallel thinking: From Socratic thinking to de Bono thinking. Sydney,

Australia: Penguin.

De Maupassant, G. (2011). “The Necklace”. In Michael J. Marshall (Ed.), Realms of gold: A

core knowledge reader, volume two (pp. 52-62). Charlottesville, VA: Core Knowledge

Foundation.


DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers.

Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.

Dewey, J. (1896). My pedagogic creed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning in Classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of

Educational Research, 61, 157-178.

Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and

Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400-424.

Fisher, R. (2013). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom (4th Ed.). London:

Bloomsbury.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing

Corporation.

Gaarder, J. (1991). Sophie’s world. New York: Penguin.

Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Gilligan, C. (1977). Concepts of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4),

481-517.


Giroux, H. A. & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state and cultural struggle. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th Ed.). Boston:

Pearson.

Glina, M. (2013). Expanding the parameters of exploratory talk. Analytic Teaching and

Philosophical Praxis, 33(2), 16-32.

Gregory, M. (2007). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teaching Philosophy,

30(1), 59-84.

Gregory, M. (2011). Philosophy for children and its critics: A Mendham dialogue. Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 199-219.

Grondin, J. (2011). Gadamer’s experience and theory of education. In P. Fairfield (Ed.)

Education, dialogue, and hermeneutics. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

Haberman, M. (1991). Pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),

290-294.

Habermas, J. (1984). What is universal pragmatics? In: Communication and the evolution of

society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. New York:

Houghton-Mifflin.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1993). The core knowledge curriculum – what’s behind its success?

Educational Leadership, 50(8), 23-30.


Howe, K. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis, or dogmas die hard.

Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

Hunter, D. L. H. (2008). Using the community of inquiry methodology in teaching bioethics: A

focus on skills development.

Jackson, J. & Liu, M. (2008). An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learners' Unwillingness to

Communicate and Foreign Language Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 19(1), 71-

86.

Joseph, Sister M. (2002). The trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric.

Philadelphia, PA: Paul Dry Books, Inc.

Kennedy, D. (1995). Philosophy for children and school reform: Dewey, Lipman, and the

community of inquiry. In J. Portelli & R. Reed (Eds.), Children, philosophy &

democracy (pp. 159-178). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.

Kennedy, D. (2004). The role of a facilitator in a community of philosophical inquiry.

Metaphilosophy, 35(5), 745-765.

Kennedy, N. & Kennedy, D. (2011). Community of philosophical inquiry as a discursive

structure, and its role in school curriculum design. Journal of Philosophy in Education,

45(2), 265-282.

Kim, S. (2001). The effects of group monitoring on transfer of learning in small group

discussions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development. Harper: New York.


Kohn, A. (2011). Poor teaching for poor children in the name of reform. Education Week.

30(29), 32-33.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lionni, L. (1985). Frederick’s fables. New York: Knopf.

Lipman, M., Sharp A.M., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Lipman, M. (1982). Harry stottlemeier’s discovery. Upper Monclair, NJ: Institute for the

Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lipman, M. (1991). Squaring Soviet pedagogical theory with American practice. Education

Digest, 57(2), 72-76.

Lipman, M., (2003). Thinking in education (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University

Press.

Lyman, F.T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A.

Anderson (Ed.) Mainstreaming Digest, 109-113. College Park: University of Maryland

Press.

Malinowski, B. (1929). The sexual life of savages in north-western Melanesia: an ethnographic

account of courtship, marriage and family life among the natives of the Trobriand

Islands, British New Guinea. New York: Halcyon House.


Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning

in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:

Routledge.

Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human

Development. 51, 90-100. doi: 10.1159/000113158

Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In Mercer, N. & Hodgkinson, S.

(Eds.) Exploring talk in school. London: Sage.

Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-

cultural approach. London: Routledge.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (2008). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning

in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.

Mercon, J. & Armstrong, A. (2011). Transindividuality and philosophical enquiry in schools: A

Spinozist perspective. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 251-264.

Moshman, D. & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for the collective reality.

Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 231-248.

Murris, K. (2000). Can children do philosophy? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(2), 261-

279.


Murris, K. (2008). Philosophy with Children: The Stingray and the Educative Value of

Disequilibrium. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 667-685.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Los Angeles:

The Regents of the University of California.

Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of Education (2nd Edn.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Nussbaum, M. E. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative

frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2),

84-106.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning

in the classroom. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Orwell, G. (2011). “Shooting an Elephant”. In Michael J. Marshall (Ed.), Realms of gold: A core

knowledge reader, volume two (pp. 212-221). Charlottesville, VA: Core Knowledge

Foundation.

Papastephanou, M. (2012). Crossing the divide with continental philosophy: Reconstruction,

deconstruction, dialogue and education. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 31, 153-170.

Pardales & Girod. (2006). Community of inquiry: Its past and present future.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00196.x/full. Wiley.

Retrieved 16 April, 2014.

Paul, R. W. (1990). Dialogical thinking: Critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational

knowledge and passions. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking

skills: Theory and practice (pp. 127-148). New York: Freeman and Co.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00196.x/full


Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York:

Viking Press.

Peirce, C. S. (1966). The fixation of belief. In P. Weiner (Ed.), Selected Writings. New York:

Dover.

Poe, E. A. (2011). “The Tell-Tale Heart”. In Michael J. Marshall (Ed.), Realms of gold: A core

knowledge reader, volume two (pp. 63-69). Charlottesville, VA: Core Knowledge

Foundation.

Reed, R. (1992). On the use of criteria. In R. Reed (Ed.), When we talk: Essays on

classroom conversations. (pp. 87-98). Fort Worth, TX: Analytic Teaching Press, Texas

Wesleyan University.

Reed, R. (2010). Socrates and Plato. In R. Reed & T. Johnson (Eds.), Philosophical

documents in education (pp. 5-16). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Reed, R. (1998). Lost times/recovered times. Analytical Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 18

(1), 53-57.

Reed, R. (1999). Beneath the skin: The philosophy of the naturals. Analytic Teaching and

Philosophical Praxis, 18(2), 53-57.

Reed, R. & Johnson, T. (1999). Friendship and moral education: Twin pillars of philosophy for

children. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Reznitskaya, A. & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Analyzing argumentation in rich, natural contexts.

Informal Logic, 26(2), 175-197.


Reznitskaya, A., Anderson R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.

(2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argumentation. Discourse Processes,

32(2/3), 155-175.

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C. (2009).

Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of

Education. 39(1), pp. 29-48. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701952

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation.

Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449-472.

Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining

transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 37(4), 288-306.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Romney, T. (2005). The art of dialogue. http://americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-

data/research-studies-publications. Sage. Retrieved 8 March, 2013.

Roosevelt, F. D. (2011). “The Declaration of War against Japan”. In Michael J. Marshall (Ed.),

Realms of gold: A core knowledge reader, volume two (pp. 230-232). Charlottesville,

VA: Core Knowledge Foundation.

Rule, P. (2011). Bakhtin and Freire. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(9), 924-942.

Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, and

Giroux.


Santrock, J. W. (2008). Life span development a topical approach to learning. (4th Ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Sayers, D. L. (1947). The lost tools of learning. Retrieved from

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html.

Seixas, P. The community of enquiry as a basis for knowledge and learning: The case of history.

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/30/2/305.short. Sage. Retrieved 16 April, 2014.

Sharp, A. M. (1993). The Community of Inquiry: Education for Democracy. In M. Lipman (Ed.),

Thinking children and education (pp. 337-345). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Shields, P. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration.

Administration and Society, 35(5), 511.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M. P. (2011). A proposal for new schooling: Reciprocity and authentic dialogue. Mind,

Culture, Activity, 18, 297-300.

Stahl, R. J. (1994). The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom. ERIC Digest,

2-8.

Taylor, C., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: Theorizing power and participation.

Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), 161-175.

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/30/2/305.short


Thurber, J. (2011). “The Night the Bed Fell”. In Michael J. Marshall (Ed.), Realms of gold: A

core knowledge reader, volume two (pp. 222-227). Charlottesville, VA: Core Knowledge

Foundation.

Tibaldeo, R. F. (2011). The relevance of the idea of “community of inquiry” to contemporary

ethics. Ethics in Progress Quarterly, 2(1), 1-10.

Tomlinson, C. A. & McTigue, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding

by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Topping, K. J. & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for schoolchildren:

Cognitive gains at 2-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4),

787-796.

Vansieleghem, N. (2005). Philosophy for children as the wind of thinking. Journal of Philosophy

of Education, 39(1), 19-35.

Vansieleghem, N. (2006). Listening to dialogue. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25, 175-

190.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big ideas for little kids: Teaching philosophy through children’s

literature. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.


Weber, B. (2011). Childhood, philosophy, and play. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2),

235-250.

Wegerif, R. (1996). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum.

Computers and Education, 26(1-3), 51-60.

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in

research and educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347-361.

doi: 10.1080/01411920701532228

Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom.

Language and Education, 10(1), 47-64.

Wegerif, N., Mercer, N. and Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning:

an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.

Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 493-516.

Wilks, S. (1995). Critical and creative thinking. Strategies for classroom inquiry. Armadale,

Victoria, Australia: Eleanor Curtain.

Worthman, C. & Kaplan, L. (2001). Literacy education and dialogical exchange: Impressions of

Cuban education in one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(7), 648-656.

Young, R. (1992). Critical theory and classroom talk. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Zingaro, L. (2012). Speaking out: Storytelling for social change. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Press, Inc.


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Upon completion of this dissertation, Jeff Herr will have graduated for the third

time from Texas Wesleyan University. Desiring to immerse himself in a more critical and caring

profession, Jeff left the corporate world of television news and began teaching English in Joshua,

the rural town of his upbringing. For the past 20 years, he has taught various grades between 6th

and 12th at traditional public schools as well as at two different charters. Jeff was accepted into

Texas Wesleyan’s third Ed. D. cohort in the summer of 2011 and has maintained an interest in

critical pedagogy and social learning through dialogical means since the time of his Master’s

classes in the late 90s. When not teaching or involving himself in philosophical interactions with

friends and acquaintances, Jeff enjoys cutting grass, running, writing verse, talking baseball, and

watching professional soccer. Those responsible for keeping Jeff grounded are his wife of 21

years, Christina, and their four children: Emerson, Isabella, Redding, and Vadin.

THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS...

Documents

Transcript of THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS...