II. Influential Research Framing Personal Theories of Learning (Part 1)
During my summer courses, my professors exposed me to many different theories of education in depth. One model that stood out to me and has been an integral part of my inquiry process has been Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. In reflecting upon and examining student verbal participation, the idea continually emerges that discussion is inherently a social and a collaborative process, for it requires at least two people to conduct a discourse. Like its name suggests, the sociocultural model of learning focuses on the importance of social and cultural factors in a student’s ability to learn and to develop. In order to “understand thinking,” Vygotsky focused upon “trying to understand the context of thinking” and how that could affect an individual’s perception of the world as well as what she is learning (Smagorinsky, 2007, p. 62). Thus, learning is at least a two-way process in which “people’s thinking shapes their physical and symbolic worlds, and their engagement with those worlds in turn shapes how they (and others) think” (Smagorinsky, 2007, p. 62). Through social interactions, Vygotsky argued, students best learn and grow collaboratively.
Additionally, students can have an optimal learning experience, referred to as a zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which students co-create this zone with a teacher or another student (see Figure 1). In this zone, students are learning or performing a challenge at a high level of competency, in which they are neither bored nor complacent for the activity is difficult; yet, the activity is also not so difficult that they are discouraged or completely overwhelmed (Ormrod, 2008, p. 332). As a result, a student’s ZPD hits the perfect sweet spot for the learner between having the prior skills and knowledge to work on a difficult or challenging task. Furthermore, a key component of being able to create this ZPD resides in social, dialogical interactions; it cannot be created independently.
Continuing to notice the trend of very few vocal participants in my classes with my new exposure to sociocultural theories of learning, I worried that students who were not speaking or interacting with others in discussion were missing out and not garnering as much from my class discussions as they possibly could. As Wolf, Crosson, and Resnick (2006) asserted, “social interaction supports and increases cognitive development in students’ learning” in discourse-based classes like English (p. 1). Were students who failed to engage in class discourses verbally stunted in their development and ability to articulate thoughts?
The more that I noticed this pattern among my students, the more that I began reflecting on my own practice as an active agent capable of shaping the dynamic of class discussions. Throughout the fall, my classes were very much teacher-centered. In the first two novels that I taught, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card and Night by Elie Wiesel, most of the discussions that I led focused narrowly on plot and never dug beneath the surface to a deeper level (Artifact 1). Further, these discussions took the form of the IRE model (Teacher Initiation--Student Response--Teacher Evaluation) in which I, the teacher, would ask a question, to which one student would respond, and then I would respond back in an evaluative manner, commenting on their answer, never giving other students the opportunity to jump into the discussion (Gambrell, 2004, p. 212). Consequently, my class discussions were monologic in which “one voice, the teacher’s dominates” as opposed to a “dialogic discourse” where “many voices contribute” (VanDeWeghe, 2003, p. 88).
Obtaining exposure to VanDeWeghe’s (2003) idea of monologic versus dialogic discourse in my fall methods course has been crucial to deciding which avenues to test out and investigate my inquiry question. VanDeWeghe (2003) regards the teacher as an active facilitator of a class discussion capable of generating either a monologic or a dialogic discourse. For a dialogic discourse to occur, a teacher must ask authentic questions, ones that “have no known or predetermined answers”; participate in “uptake” by encouraging students to build upon and respond to one another’s comments; give a high level of evaluation to student responses; and lead discussions at a high cognitive level, pushing beyond the surface level to the realm of speculation, analysis, and evaluation (VanDeWeghe, 2003, p. 89).
Critically evaluating how I was facilitating discussions, I remained displeased with how monologic the discourse was in my classroom. Attempting to change the flow of conversation, I tried to develop more open-ended questions for students to wrangle with and I encouraged students to respond to one another. I also increased wait time after asking a question in order to allow all students to think before responding rather than calling on the first hand that shot up. As Black et al. (2004) stated, “A consequence of such short ‘wait time’ is that the only questions that ‘work’ are those that can be answered quickly, without thought--that is, questions calling for memorized facts” (p. 11). I made a conscious effort, then, to reconstruct much of how I asked questions, trying to push students to respond to one another in complex ways, constantly asking why, while also pausing at appropriate lengths for students to have the chance to think.
Additionally, students can have an optimal learning experience, referred to as a zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which students co-create this zone with a teacher or another student (see Figure 1). In this zone, students are learning or performing a challenge at a high level of competency, in which they are neither bored nor complacent for the activity is difficult; yet, the activity is also not so difficult that they are discouraged or completely overwhelmed (Ormrod, 2008, p. 332). As a result, a student’s ZPD hits the perfect sweet spot for the learner between having the prior skills and knowledge to work on a difficult or challenging task. Furthermore, a key component of being able to create this ZPD resides in social, dialogical interactions; it cannot be created independently.
Continuing to notice the trend of very few vocal participants in my classes with my new exposure to sociocultural theories of learning, I worried that students who were not speaking or interacting with others in discussion were missing out and not garnering as much from my class discussions as they possibly could. As Wolf, Crosson, and Resnick (2006) asserted, “social interaction supports and increases cognitive development in students’ learning” in discourse-based classes like English (p. 1). Were students who failed to engage in class discourses verbally stunted in their development and ability to articulate thoughts?
The more that I noticed this pattern among my students, the more that I began reflecting on my own practice as an active agent capable of shaping the dynamic of class discussions. Throughout the fall, my classes were very much teacher-centered. In the first two novels that I taught, Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card and Night by Elie Wiesel, most of the discussions that I led focused narrowly on plot and never dug beneath the surface to a deeper level (Artifact 1). Further, these discussions took the form of the IRE model (Teacher Initiation--Student Response--Teacher Evaluation) in which I, the teacher, would ask a question, to which one student would respond, and then I would respond back in an evaluative manner, commenting on their answer, never giving other students the opportunity to jump into the discussion (Gambrell, 2004, p. 212). Consequently, my class discussions were monologic in which “one voice, the teacher’s dominates” as opposed to a “dialogic discourse” where “many voices contribute” (VanDeWeghe, 2003, p. 88).
Obtaining exposure to VanDeWeghe’s (2003) idea of monologic versus dialogic discourse in my fall methods course has been crucial to deciding which avenues to test out and investigate my inquiry question. VanDeWeghe (2003) regards the teacher as an active facilitator of a class discussion capable of generating either a monologic or a dialogic discourse. For a dialogic discourse to occur, a teacher must ask authentic questions, ones that “have no known or predetermined answers”; participate in “uptake” by encouraging students to build upon and respond to one another’s comments; give a high level of evaluation to student responses; and lead discussions at a high cognitive level, pushing beyond the surface level to the realm of speculation, analysis, and evaluation (VanDeWeghe, 2003, p. 89).
Critically evaluating how I was facilitating discussions, I remained displeased with how monologic the discourse was in my classroom. Attempting to change the flow of conversation, I tried to develop more open-ended questions for students to wrangle with and I encouraged students to respond to one another. I also increased wait time after asking a question in order to allow all students to think before responding rather than calling on the first hand that shot up. As Black et al. (2004) stated, “A consequence of such short ‘wait time’ is that the only questions that ‘work’ are those that can be answered quickly, without thought--that is, questions calling for memorized facts” (p. 11). I made a conscious effort, then, to reconstruct much of how I asked questions, trying to push students to respond to one another in complex ways, constantly asking why, while also pausing at appropriate lengths for students to have the chance to think.