{"title":"Using Backchanneling Technology to Facilitate Dialogic Discussions about Literature","authors":"J. Chisholm","doi":"10.1108/S2048-045820180000009006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nPurpose – The purpose of this study was to understand how, if at all, backchanneling technology supported an early career English teacher’s facilitation of literary discussions in his 10th grade classroom. Although emerging findings from studies of backchanneling in teaching contexts have illustrated its potential power, little attention has been given to how teachers learn to use the tool or reimagine their pedagogical roles as they use backchanneling for instructional purposes. \n \nDesign/Methodology/Approach – Discourse analyses of 16 face-to-face (frontchannel) and online (backchannel) transcripts of discussions exposed how participants used these two venues to interact simultaneously around a literary text. Methods from Nystrand’s (2002) dialogic discourse analysis isolated each teacher interjection in the contexts of each discussion. \n \nFindings – The teacher used the backchannel to probe for elaborated student responses and model dialogic discourse moves. The teacher’s behind-the-scenes support limited his participation during frontchannel discussions, allowing for open discussion among students without the teacher’s consistent interjection, which disrupted the initiation-response-evaluation discourse structure that is pervasive in US schools. \n \nPractical Implications – Although backchanneling technology can be used to archive records of students’ participation that could be useful for assessment purposes, the teacher’s skillful capacity to negotiate two discussions at once reconstituted his role during the discussion from facilitator to a fellow reader with his students as they explored meaningful questions that literature provokes – a less obvious and potentially more powerful affordance of this digital tool for instructional purposes.","PeriodicalId":309500,"journal":{"name":"Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820180000009006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study was to understand how, if at all, backchanneling technology supported an early career English teacher’s facilitation of literary discussions in his 10th grade classroom. Although emerging findings from studies of backchanneling in teaching contexts have illustrated its potential power, little attention has been given to how teachers learn to use the tool or reimagine their pedagogical roles as they use backchanneling for instructional purposes.
Design/Methodology/Approach – Discourse analyses of 16 face-to-face (frontchannel) and online (backchannel) transcripts of discussions exposed how participants used these two venues to interact simultaneously around a literary text. Methods from Nystrand’s (2002) dialogic discourse analysis isolated each teacher interjection in the contexts of each discussion.
Findings – The teacher used the backchannel to probe for elaborated student responses and model dialogic discourse moves. The teacher’s behind-the-scenes support limited his participation during frontchannel discussions, allowing for open discussion among students without the teacher’s consistent interjection, which disrupted the initiation-response-evaluation discourse structure that is pervasive in US schools.
Practical Implications – Although backchanneling technology can be used to archive records of students’ participation that could be useful for assessment purposes, the teacher’s skillful capacity to negotiate two discussions at once reconstituted his role during the discussion from facilitator to a fellow reader with his students as they explored meaningful questions that literature provokes – a less obvious and potentially more powerful affordance of this digital tool for instructional purposes.