Middle-School Students Discuss a Hot Topic
In this Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy article, Shireen Al-Adeimi and Jennie Baumann (Michigan State University) say the IRE pattern of classroom discussions – initiate, respond, evaluate – is ubiquitous in K-12 classrooms:
The teacher initiates by asking a question.
A student responds.
The teacher evaluates the response.
This dynamic, say Al-Adeimi and Baumann, tends to elicit factual knowledge and “leaves little room for elaborated discussion or student input.”
The authors studied videos of several seventh- and eighth-grade classrooms in which the teachers stepped back from the traditional role and facilitated “dialogic” talk (a.k.a. accountable or academically productive), where the teacher-student power dynamic was more equal and students engaged in critical thinking, perspective-taking, text comprehension, and argumentative reasoning, built on each other’s ideas, and engaged in collective thinking and understanding.
The classes were discussing whether a D.C.-area football team, then called the Washington Redskins, should change its name because of what many considered its derogatory connotations. (A few years after these discussions, the team changed its name to the Washington Commanders.) Al-Adeimi and Baumann analyzed transcripts of the classroom dialogues and considered whether the class time spent was academically productive. Here’s what they found.
The classes were using the interdisciplinary Word Generation curriculum, and discussions spanned social studies, science, math, and language arts lessons over several school days, culminating in students arguing their positions supported by evidence and reasoning. The academic focus words for the unit were derogatory, stereotype, connotation, slur, and stigmatize.
During discussions, students’ participation fell into four categories as the floor was held by successive speakers, facilitated by the teacher (who took up about half of the air time):
Primary – often initiated and sustained discussions, talked frequently, with or without evidence to support their claims – 12 percent of class time;
Secondary – their contributions aligned with, elaborated on, and supported those of the primary participants – 12.5 percent of the time;
Tertiary – engaged in playful quips, surface-level contributions, or sarcasm, sometimes eliciting laughter – 7 percent of the time;
Peripheral – few claims, little substantiation, not well reasoned – 10 percent of time.
Students took on different roles depending on their personalities, engagement with the topic, and personal investment and knowledge on the topic. Some students shifted from one role to another and power and control of the discussion were very much in play as students expressed their views, debated points, and sometimes interrupted.
Al-Adeimi and Bauman say students were eager to engage and the discussions were lively, with broad student participation and listening to other perspectives. But the classes didn’t arrive at consensus, and it appears that few students changed their initial positions. This was not a failure because the object was for students to “think for themselves with others,” explore a high-interest topic, express and hear different viewpoints, and develop thinking, speaking, and listening skills.
“Roles of Engagement: Analyzing Adolescent Students’ Talk During Controversial Discussions” by Shireen Al-Adeimi and Jennie Baumann in Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, September/October 2023 (Vol. 67, #2, pp. 42-52); the authors can be reached at aladeimi@msu.edu and povenmir@msu.edu.
