Park Estate School (TLIF 5-027) - Dialogic teaching at Park Estate School Publications
Publication Details
Project Reference: Park Estate School (TLIF 5-027) - Park Estate School had already engaged in professional learning in science that had led to some improvements in practice and the creation of templates for planning lessons that promote active student learning. However, classroom talk continued to be mostly teacher led, with limited evidence of students using language to facilitate critical thinking or perspective-taking.
Author(s): (Inquiry Team) led by Gretchen Bennett
Date Published: February 2019
Overview
The school wanted to explore the concept of dialogic teaching as a way to generate more productive talk. This was a need across all learning areas, but it made sense to begin by building on what had already been begun.
This TLIF inquiry was important learning for our team and our school. It elevated the importance of student talk in our classrooms and served to reinforce our commitment to enhancing student dialogue. Student talk was planned for and expected. Teachers had regular professional learning in dialogic pedagogy.
Final report
This inquiry unfolded in a series of cycles, with teachers creating and then implementing a set of resources to aid in collaborative planning, observation, and reflection. They were supported in this by their critical friend, who is an expert in dialogic teaching. High staff turnover along with the Covid-19 lockdowns threatened progress. However, the growing bank of resources and one-on-one professional learning sessions for new teachers kept the project moving. The project reports evidence of changes in classroom talk and that students have noticed and valued the change. There is also indicative evidence of improved student achievement outcomes.
These improvements indicate the value of dialogic practice as a means of facilitating growth in students’ critical literacy. It also demonstrates the value of approaching significant change in a carefully structured and phased way, of capturing shared learning in professional resources, and of being deliberate in inducting new teachers into the pedagogical practices to which the school aspires.
The inquiry story
This year-long inquiry was led by the school’s deputy principal and focused on its years 4–6 teachers and students. Unfortunately, high staff turnover meant that only one of the original teachers was still with the project at its conclusion. This challenge was in addition to the multiple lockdowns at Auckland schools due to Covid-19.
What was the focus?
In 2018, teachers at Park Estate School had engaged in a professional learning journey focused upon science. A big part of that learning was around using a ‘notice, think, wonder’ framework to support students to make observations and communicate about scientific ideas. The professional learning had seen some improvement, but it was apparent that students and teachers were struggling to establish and maintain quality dialogue, not only in the context of science learning but across the curriculum.
Teachers were familiar with Susan Sandretto’s (2011) book, Planting seeds: Embedding critical literacy in your classroom, which emphasises the crucial importance of effective ‘dialogic practice’ – the use of talk to stimulate and extend student thinking, learning, and understanding. They wanted to strengthen this, initially within science. Through this work, they hoped to see students leading and participating in rich conversations, respectfully questioning others, using evidence to justify their opinions, and showing awareness of other people’s perspectives. In the longer-term, they hoped to embed critical literacy into the entire school curriculum by moving through the following three phases:
- Inquiring into how we are using dialogue in our science teaching
- Teachers integrate dialogic practice in literacy teaching and learning
- Creating a school curriculum where critical literacy is integrated.
The school’s TLIF project was intended to address the first of these three phases. The team asked the question, “How can we strengthen teachers’ understanding and use of dialogic pedagogy to increase opportunities for students to communicate their thinking in science?”
What did the teachers try?
Each cycle of learning consisted of the team getting together to learn about dialogic pedagogy and collaboratively plan science lessons with a dialogic focus. They carried out peer observations, gathered and analysed data, and met regularly for reflection and feedback.
The approach to lesson planning was shifted from ‘heavy’ topics (such as global warning) to selecting cross-cutting themes (such as ‘structure and function’) and using shorter ‘more wondrous’ science experiences (such as those on Explorify) to fuel dialogue about these themes. Professional learning included an online workshop with NZCER on using its assessment tool, Junior Science: Thinking with Evidence.
An early task was to design a set of tools to support this process. These included the following:
- The expectations for talanoa (respectful dialogue) were made into a poster to be displayed on classroom walls as a prompt for teachers and students. These were: everyone participates, speak clearly, listen and look at the speaker, connect ideas, and ask questions.
- A science planning template that had been developed during the science-focused professional learning was adapted to include dialogic teaching. This included explicit learning intentions for dialogue and links to supporting information about the goals for productive talk and the ‘talk moves’ that can help achieve these goals.
- A classroom observation tool was created to monitor progress.
The classroom observation tool had space for the teacher being observed to identify the dialogic focus of the observation (for example, “help individual students share, expand and clarify their own thinking”), the types of talk they intended to incorporate, and the sequence of interactions that might be expected. The observer could record the talk moves they saw, but also video record a 10-minute segment with a focus group. The tool included suggested focus questions that the two teachers could use for joint analysis (for example, “Did the students meet the learning objectives (for dialogue) for this lesson? Why, or why not?”) The teachers were then prompted to co-construct next steps for teacher learning and practice.
The tool also included a script to be used for interviews with student focus groups. The intention was to understand the impact on them of teachers’ attempts to change practice. For example, students were asked, “Your teacher has been working on classroom dialogue (talking). Which strategies did they use in today’s video-recorded lesson that supported your learning?”
All data was uploaded and shared on Google Drive for reflection as a team and in sessions with the project’s critical friend. Due to Covid-19 and the high staff turnover, the sessions with Susan Sandretto included one-on-one sessions via Zoom that enabled accelerated learning for teachers coming in late to the project.
What happened as a result of this innovation?
Despite the interruptions and challenges faced by the project, all teachers were motivated to engage in professional learning with their critical friend. They reported that these sessions increased their understanding of dialogic pedagogy and supported them to set goals and next steps in dialogic teaching.
The peer observations made teaching practice visible to the teachers and they valued both the peer feedback and that from their critical friend. Teachers also value the observation and planning tools created in the first cycle and recommend sharing them across the school and potentially with others.
The new resources and the collaborative engagement in learning, planning, and inquiry were regarded as particularly helpful by teachers who were either beginning teaching or had recently arrived in Aotearoa.
Some resources, such as the talanoa poster were shared across the school. However, it was evident that without professional learning they were either ignored or the messages they contained were misunderstood.
The videos were helpful both for the peer observations and joint analysis and for adding to the growing bank of teacher resources. However, their use was limited by having inadequate recording equipment.
The scripted interviews with students did not happen as intended, limiting the value of the data they produced. Nevertheless, there was sufficient information to indicate that the social norms for talanoa were being taught in classes and students could verbalise the expectations and explain how some of the talk moves helped in their learning.
Over this inquiry, students recognised change in classroom talk and felt more positive about talking at school and talking with their teachers. Assessment data was interrupted due to COVID-19, but the small amount the team had captured showed a positive shift in students’ ability to think and communicate in science.
The school’s leaders are committed to supporting and embedding critical literacy at Park Estate School. The next steps will be to integrate dialogic practice into literacy teaching and learning – the second phase of this journey.
What did they learn?
The learning for the school includes the following:
- Implementing dialogic teaching practices – or talanoa – into classrooms impacts positively on student outcomes.
- To ensure the social norms for talanoa are established within classrooms, teachers and students need shared understandings and expectations. There need to be visual prompts and cues and the norms need to be deliberately taught on an ongoing basis.
- Support and advice from a critical friend can be essential for planning and structuring an inquiry so that it retains its direction through challenging circumstances.
- Collaborative planning and peer observations are an effective way to support and induct new teachers to our school. Additionally, online one-on-one professional learning can help newcomers to a project catch up.
- Teacher resources can facilitate the growth of shared knowledge and practice around dialogic teaching. However, teachers need support to implement them.
- To get the full benefit of video recorded interactions, it is necessary to have good quality microphones.
Inquiry team
The team was led by Gretchen Bennett. Her fellow team members were Karli Fee, Sally Avern, Isabel De’Ath,
The project’s critical friend was Associate Professor Susan Sandretto (University of Otago, College of Education).
In the early part of the inquiry, the team also accessed the expertise of Susan Heeps (Evaluate Associates).
For further information
If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leader, Gretchen Bennett, at gretchenb@parkestate.school.nz
Reference list
Edwards-Groves C., Anstey M., & Bull G. (2013). Classroom talk: Understanding dialogue, pedagogy & practice. Newtown, NSW: PETAA.
Michaels, S. & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.
Sandretto S., & Klenner, S. (2011). Planting seeds: Embedding critical literacy into your classroom programme. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Sandretto, S. (2016). Engaging students in dialogue. In D. Fraser & M. Hill (Eds.), The professional practice of teaching in New Zealand (5th ed., pp. 98-116). Melbourne: Cengage Learning.
Explorify: https://explorify.wellcome.ac.uk/
TERC: The Inquiry Project: Seeing the world through a scientist’s eyes. https://inquiryproject.terc.edu/
Navigation
Contact TLIF
If you have any questions about TLIF projects, please contact us at:
Email: TLIF Mailbox