Teacher professional dialogues during a school intervention: From stabilization to possibility discourse through reflexive noticing

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Rainio, R. Hofmann
{"title":"Teacher professional dialogues during a school intervention: From stabilization to possibility discourse through reflexive noticing","authors":"A. Rainio, R. Hofmann","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2021.1936532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: Teachers’ limiting conceptualizations of students influence students’ learning opportunities. We analyze teachers’ professional conversations to understand how dialogues can expand teachers’ conceptualizations. Methods: We examine professional dialogues from nine whole-school intervention meetings. Drawing on discursive psychology and activity theoretical notions of learning the study conceptualizes teachers’ collective assumptions as a lived ideology actively sustained by stabilization discourses. We analyze the discursive devices through which the teachers’ talk about their students limits/expands their sense of what is possible in their teaching and their dialogic effects. Findings: Our analysis finds a range of discursive strategies that sustain or re-stabilize the lived ideology. Even when challenged by contrary evidence (e.g., surprises), dilemmatic tensions and reframing repair actions are found to close potential dialogic openings. Importantly, we identify a form of discourse that avoids immediate closure, characterized by sustained reflection on the students’ challenges developing a need to change. We term this reflexive noticing: it is enabled through sustained puzzle, constructing dilemmas as origin of change and discursive consciousness of stabilization. Contribution: We illustrate why contrary evidence often fails to shift limiting conceptualizations about students and show the discursive mechanisms generating possibility knowledge. Implications for teacher learning are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"23 1","pages":"707 - 746"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936532","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: Teachers’ limiting conceptualizations of students influence students’ learning opportunities. We analyze teachers’ professional conversations to understand how dialogues can expand teachers’ conceptualizations. Methods: We examine professional dialogues from nine whole-school intervention meetings. Drawing on discursive psychology and activity theoretical notions of learning the study conceptualizes teachers’ collective assumptions as a lived ideology actively sustained by stabilization discourses. We analyze the discursive devices through which the teachers’ talk about their students limits/expands their sense of what is possible in their teaching and their dialogic effects. Findings: Our analysis finds a range of discursive strategies that sustain or re-stabilize the lived ideology. Even when challenged by contrary evidence (e.g., surprises), dilemmatic tensions and reframing repair actions are found to close potential dialogic openings. Importantly, we identify a form of discourse that avoids immediate closure, characterized by sustained reflection on the students’ challenges developing a need to change. We term this reflexive noticing: it is enabled through sustained puzzle, constructing dilemmas as origin of change and discursive consciousness of stabilization. Contribution: We illustrate why contrary evidence often fails to shift limiting conceptualizations about students and show the discursive mechanisms generating possibility knowledge. Implications for teacher learning are discussed.
学校干预中的教师专业对话:从稳定到反身性注意的可能性话语
背景:教师对学生概念化的有限性影响了学生的学习机会。我们分析教师的专业对话,以了解对话如何扩展教师的概念。方法:我们研究了9个全校干预会议的专业对话。利用话语心理学和学习的活动理论概念,该研究将教师的集体假设概念化为一种由稳定话语积极维持的活生生的意识形态。我们分析了教师谈论学生时所使用的话语手段,这些话语手段限制/扩展了教师对教学中可能发生的事情的认识,并分析了教师谈论学生所产生的对话效果。结果:我们的分析发现了一系列维持或重新稳定生活意识形态的话语策略。即使受到相反证据的挑战(例如,意外),进退两难的紧张局势和重新构建修复行动也会关闭潜在的对话机会。重要的是,我们确定了一种避免立即关闭的话语形式,其特点是持续反思学生面临的挑战,从而产生改变的需要。我们称之为反思性注意:它是通过持续的困惑,构建困境作为变化的起源和稳定的话语意识来实现的。贡献:我们说明了为什么相反的证据往往不能改变关于学生的限制性概念,并展示了产生可能性知识的话语机制。讨论了对教师学习的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信