Socraticdiscussion and Writing - Mscin Capstone

STUDENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS WRITING 1
The Impact of Socratic Discussion on Student Analysis Writing
Laura Austin
A Capstone Presented to the Teachers College Faculty
of Western Governors University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science Curriculum and Instruction
20 July 2021
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative action research was to study how dialogic talk, also
called Socratic discussion, impacted student’s ability to elaborate and develop original thought in
analysis writing. An observed problem within the English Language Arts setting is that students
struggle to elaborate and develop original thought in writing when analyzing literature. The
researcher conducted a Quantitative study using pre and post writing tests graded using the six-
point AP Rubric to answer the following question: How does Socratic discussion activities added
to the “To Kill a Mockingbird” unit impact ninth grade students’ literary analysis writing as
measured by pre and post writing tests? Twenty-five ninth grade students were selected from the
researcher’s instructional setting and agreed to participate by signing the Informed Consent form.
This quantitative action research study took place within the researcher’s ninth grade English
Language Arts classroom across approximately sixteen to twenty hours of instruction for the
entire unit. The design is quantitative because a six-point writing rubric was used to measure the
impact on scores from the pre and post assessment through descriptive statistics. Overall, the
results shown in Table 1 detail growth with the class average increasing from 51.33% to 69%.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Student Analysis Writing ........................................................................................ 5

Topic: The Impact of Socratic Discussion on Student Analysis Writing ................................. 5
Problem Statement........................................................................................................................ 6
Problem Background and Causes ............................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 7
Topic and Problem Conclusion ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Overview of the Literature ......................................................................................................... 10
Content: Types of Writing Tasks .............................................................................................. 10
Teaching: Teaching Reading Comprehension and Writing Strategies ................................. 12
Writing Strategies: Student Dialogue and Input ..................................................................... 13
Chapter 3 - Research Methodology ........................................................................................... 16
Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 16
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 16
Participants .................................................................................................................................. 17
Data Collection Instruments and Methods ............................................................................... 17
Data Security and Confidentiality ............................................................................................. 18
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 4 - Results...................................................................................................................... 20
Results Overview ......................................................................................................................... 20
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 23
Answers to the Research Questions........................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................................... 29
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Problem Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 29
Strengths and Weaknesses ......................................................................................................... 30
Influential Factors ....................................................................................................................... 31
Further Investigation .................................................................................................................. 32
References .................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 57
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 61
Chapter 1 – Student Analysis Writing
Topic: The Impact of Socratic Discussion on Student Analysis Writing
Every English Language Arts teacher carries the responsibility of student literacy on their
shoulders. Essential skills in Reading and Writing—the primary skills through which every
person alive communicates, learns, and imparts knowledge—can be a particularly daunting task
for educators. Historically, reading and writing have been the vehicle through which all
education is communicated and that has continued to evolve with cultural and economic
considerations. In studying the standards by which educators are expected to teach, certain
cultural tensions have emerged such as focus for either “college preparatory versus workforce
preparatory,” (McConn and Blaine, 2018) which debates the overall purpose of education and
therefore just how in-depth or rigorous writing instruction should or should not be. Additionally,
“content versus skills acquisition,” in considering how much literature or writing is required; and
finally, “student-centered versus teacher/content centered” (McConn and Blaine, 2018) which
considers if content should be chosen by the teacher or if there is room for choice by students.
These tensions continue to be present but deciding definitively on one has been found difficult
by studies and educators because it is necessary to measure the success of student skill.
It is interesting how often Reading and Writing are divided, in instruction and testing,
when it is impossible to teach one without the other. Many studies assert that writing should not
be taught separately, but instead is dependent on reading as they are inextricable (Doubet and
Southall, 2018). They are equally important in helping students become masters of their own
thoughts and communication. The broad research topic to consider is Student Writing in
connection to Reading Comprehension. Entwined as key facets of Literacy, writing can produce
numerous struggles and strategies for both teachers and students to improve.
Problem Statement
To narrow the topic to practical application, when considering a Ninth Grade English
Language Arts classroom, standards for writing often begin with structural emphasis, and then
are used as a separate tool within the reading standards. Critical thinking isn’t always an essential
ingredient with this standard focus. Within the researcher’s specific setting, the research problem
is: Students struggle to elaborate and develop original thought in writing when analyzing
literature.
Problem Background and Causes
Teachers want to help students become independent thinkers and writers so that they can
apply the skill to cross-curricular and real-world settings. However, it has been found in the
English Language Arts setting when analyzing multiple writing tasks, the instruction often
determined whether student answers were in-depth exercises in critical thinking, or if they
instead summarized isolated facts with minimal explanation (Matsumara, Corenti, and Wang,
2015). This shallow application of an essential skill creates a mindset in students that writing is
only for school, thus reducing tests to hoops students must jump through but have no application
for their future. The purpose in writing should not be to meet a one-size-fits all mold, but to
encourage students to apply curiosity, questioning, and analysis to the world around them.
Instead of considering writing tasks and standardized tests and hoops, teachers must help
students to see the real-world application. It is suggested that “standardized tests as a distinct
genre of writing” helps students learn how to operate within a system and use critical thinking
skills to navigate what is out of their control, like mandated education content (Parfitt and Shane,
2016). Additionally, because high-stakes testing provides consistent measurements, some studies
have found it to be helpful to teachers and students to be aware of improvements to be made. In

helping students learn to analyze literature and dig deeper into their thoughts, they will carry
those critical thinking skills into their future pursuits.
To improve student writing and reading, teachers must needs evaluate their instructional
strategies and curriculum content in tandem with student performance. Thus, additional
strategies in writing instruction are necessary and assessing needs of students. Teachers must
consider whether tasks meet the cognitive needs of students and challenge them on an individual
level. This is important because often those students that see themselves as struggling readers
have been noted in other studies to be “saddled with limited strategies,” and therefore were prone
to giving up on the learning process in writing (Harmon, Wood, Smith, Zakaria, Ramadan, and
Sykes, 2016). In planning a study, it is very fortunately possible to implement interventions at
any time because Freshman English is cyclical. Teachers and students are found practicing this
skill with the aim to improve, eventually teaching students to expand and support their ideas in
writing. Teachers impact individuals when they adjust in their instructional strategies to meet
needs at each student’s cognitive level. This is clear throughout a particular literature review of
over 3504 articles and studies, where the authors found that “when thoughtfully planned within
an instructional setting that encourages cognitive acts, content-area writing tasks positively
impact a variety of students’ learning outcomes, across both disciplines and different types of
learners” (Miller, Scott, and McTigue, 2018).
Research Questions
This research will take place in a ninth grade English Language Arts classroom using
Socratic discussion and be conducted during the study of a literary text, “To Kill a
Mockingbird.” The following question provides specific focus to direct the study:
 How does Socratic discussion activities added to the “To Kill a Mockingbird” unit impact
ninth grade students’ literary analysis writing as measured by pre and post writing tests?
o Quantitative method will be used in measurement and analysis because the pre
and post writing assessments are graded on a six-point scale. The largest value,
four points, is focused on evidence and commentary, i.e., elaboration in writing.
The teacher will monitor growth using data tables in an excel spreadsheet, noting
point values and categories to determine the impact between the pre and post
writing assessments. Students will monitor personal progress and changes to
writing using a writing portfolio.
Topic and Problem Conclusion
Writing is an essential skill that students will use throughout their education and
professional lives. While not every student will write a novel or become teachers or scholars,
they will have to write and communicate. Socratic discussion may not only be used to help the
writing, but also to allow students to grow in confidence giving verbal input. Most students are
uncomfortable speaking up, and the classroom is a familiar setting that allows them to practice.
This concept has found traction in quite a few studies that have found “Classroom talk—
organized by the teacher’s explicit statements, questions, and revoicing—helped students define
the rhetorical situation within which they were participating” (VanDerHeide, 2018). When
teachers pose open-ended, interpretive questions without the pressure of a formal assignment
then students are invited to give reflective answers (Pedersen, 2018), it also then translated when
similar questions were included in prompts for writing tasks. Moreover, students will have to
answer questions verbally for the rest of their lives from discussions with peers to job interviews.
Including this strategy in the classroom should allow teachers to ask questions according to
student need without putting pressure on them. Moreover, it allows students to question and
practice their critical thinking skills before writing and apply these thoughtful skills in multiple
scenarios.
Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature
Overview of the Literature
Given that the entire human experience is communicated in reading or writing, there is a
plethora of research on these topics. Often, they are separated to make the research and findings
manageable and quantifiable, but even in reading a study on, for example, Reading
Comprehension Strategies, one can see that writing and reading go together. Throughout the
reading of available literature, a few patterns, or themes, emerge when examining the chosen
research: Content, or types of writing tasks; Teaching Strategies, regarding both writing and
reading comprehension; and Writing Strategies, specifically using student input to improve the
skill. The following gives an overview of these themes as found in the literature reviewed by the
researcher. These themes help give direction to the study and focus to the process.
Content: Types of Writing Tasks
Historically, reading and writing have been the vehicle through which all education is
communicated and that has continued to evolve with cultural and economic considerations. In
studying the standards by which educators are expected to teach, certain cultural tensions have
emerged such as focus for either “college preparatory versus workforce preparatory,” (McConn
and Blaine, 2018) which debates the overall purpose of education and therefore just how in-
depth or rigorous writing instruction should or should not be. Additionally, “content versus skills
acquisition,” in considering how much literature or writing is required; and finally, “student-
centered versus teacher/content centered” (McConn and Blaine, 2018) which considers if content
should be chosen by the teacher or if there is room for choice by students. These tensions
continue to be present but deciding definitively on one has been found difficult by studies and
educators because it is necessary to measure the success of student skill. This is often where
high-stakes testing comes in to use quantitative data to determine the effectiveness of the
content. One such study observed that because this is the common measurement, test-centric
language then creeps into overall instruction as its own genre of content, noting “test preparation
(e.g., overt references to upcoming state assessments, practicing test-formatted questions) in 22%
of the coded lessons,” (Davis and Vehabovic, 2018). Many other studies have pursued this topic
as an area of concern because there are complex aspects of literacy and reading comprehension
that cannot be tested (Davis and Vehabovic, 2018). This area of content writing is important to
consider because it can determine the type of writing a student produces.
However, not all studies are concerned with the focus on high-stakes test writing tasks,
but instead find it testing as content to have a positive effect on student writing. It is suggested
that “standardized tests as a distinct genre of writing” helps students learn how to operate within
a system and use critical thinking skills to navigate what is out of their control, like mandated
education content (Parfitt and Shane, 2016). Additionally, because high-stakes testing provides
consistent measurements, some studies have found it to be helpful to teachers and students to be
aware of improvements to be made. However, test-prep is not the only type of writing tasks that
are being assigned in curricular content.
State standards are also used as a framework when creating writing tasks that educators
work within to improve the quality of the writing tasks instead. Quality as a consideration has
repeatedly been deemed important for mindsets of teachers and students. In a particular literature
review of over 3504 articles and studies, the authors found that “when thoughtfully planned
within an instructional setting that encourages cognitive acts, content-area writing tasks
positively impact a variety of students’ learning outcomes, across both disciplines and different
types of learners” (Miller, Scott, and McTigue, 2018). This finding is affirmed in numerous
studies of different focuses because reading and writing continue to be a topic considered by
educators and policymakers (Magnusson, Roe, and Blikstad-Balas, 2019).
In addition to thoughtful content, it must necessarily be accompanied by thoughtful
teaching strategies. In analyzing multiple writing tasks, the instruction often determined whether
student answers were in-depth exercises in critical thinking, or if they instead summarized
isolated facts with minimal explanation (Matsumara, Corenti, and Wang, 2015). Often, in the
literature concerning content of writing tasks it is recommended that teaching strategies must
improve.
Teaching: Teaching Reading Comprehension and Writing Strategies
After considering the content of writing tasks, it is the delivery by teachers that have the
next greatest influence over quality of writing of students. Many studies assert that writing
should not be taught separately, but instead is dependent on reading as they are inextricable
(Doubet and Southall, 2018). Moreover, writing does not add to reading but instead can be an
excellent tool for interventions in reading comprehension, and vice versa (Morris, 2015). Writing
and reading are an exercise in meaning-making and can be dependent on thought processes and
student engagement. It has been noted that it is then important for teachers to spend some time
focusing on reading comprehension strategies and transferring them to writing. Observations by
teachers have revealed how often teachers are using these strategies and using that to “inform
educators about possible ways to include essential elements of reading instruction in daily
teaching practices” (Magnusson, Roe, and Blikstad-Balas, 2019). This exercise in noticing and
numbering the amount of time spent daily on reading and writing strategies is quantitative data
that teachers can use to focus and find where gaps in reading and writing instruction and make
space for inquiry and practice (Litman and Greenleaf, 2018). Alongside finding these gaps, it
will also reveal qualitative information about teacher beliefs and crutches in instruction, such as
if they are focusing on structural form rather than critical thinking and ideas (Newell, Bloom,
Kim, and Goff, 2019).
Once teachers are aware of how they are teaching, they can then explore strategies. With
a wide variety of students, it’s important that teachers have numerous strategies. Discussed in a
study specifically about Emotional Behavior Disorder students, it has been noted that steps or
stages can be beneficial to help students with learning disabilities. These steps would often begin
with context information, discussion, then move into memorizing knowledge, finding support,
and then writing (Lusk, Chiu, and Sayman, 2018). Using steps for reading and writing can be
helpful, but teachers must be cognizant of the effect in the classroom. As mentioned above, if
they continue to note time spent, they can then consider what strategies they might be missing,
and then explore new interventions. For instance, emerging in the research is the concept of
“dialogic talk” (Davies, Kiemer, and Meissel, 2017, p. 6) in the classroom between teachers and
students. Teachers are encouraged to develop high-level thinking questions or statements to
encourage students to ask questions and interact with peers and teachers. While the evidence on
this topic is conflicted, it has been found to have positive affect on student discussions and
consequently their writing (Davies, Kiemer, and Meissel, 2017). Strategies that involve student
input and ownership was a prominent pattern in much of the literature about improving writing
and reading performance.
Writing Strategies: Student Dialogue and Input
A final and important theme in the literature regarding the connection between
reading and writing is student dialogue and input. In interview-based studies teachers would
express that students often expressed discouragement if they could not match what their teacher
modeled as good or bad writing (Pedersen, 2018). Additionally, those students that see
themselves as struggling readers have been noted in other studies to be “saddled with limited
strategies,” and therefore were prone to giving up on the learning process in writing (Harmon,
Wood, Smith, Zakaria, Ramadan, and Sykes, 2016). As mentioned above, this is where dialogue
has become a strategy studied more and more to help students overcome self-doubt and take
ownership for their work. This goes back to language and communication being universal and
considering that everyone tells stories, so the trick is to use dialogue to help them put it in
writing. If teachers and students consider telling, hearing, and reading stories as the cornerstone
to being literate then it will become a focal point in considering achievement (Deane,
Somasundaran, Lawless, Persky, and Appel 2019). Notably, this concept has found traction in
quite a few studies that have found “Classroom talk—organized by the teacher’s explicit
statements, questions, and revoicing—helped students define the rhetorical situation within
which they were participating” (VanDerHeide, 2018). Reviewing these findings and statement,
many have noticed that because it invites students into the instruction process it then places
responsibility for achievement with them, rather than leaving it entirely up to an educator.
Educators are essential to guide students to these skills, and dialogue is an approach that
has had some positive results in studies. When teachers pose open-ended, interpretive questions
without the pressure of a formal assignment then students are invited to give reflective answers
(Pedersen, 2018), it also then translated when similar questions were included in prompts for
writing tasks. Additionally, it has been found that including argumentation produced high
engagement from students and helped them brainstorm thoughts to include in writing. This was a
benefit found to be cross-curricular, not just in English Language Arts (Litman and Greenleaf,
2018). For teachers to continue to invite students to be a part of their instruction and learning,
teachers must continue to notice how they or their students define “good writing,” and then
analyze the effect on the written responses (Newell, Bloom, Kim, and Goff, 2019). With this
mindset and thereby using intentional strategies and interventions students have been found to
have more confidence in expressing themselves, and consequently more in-depth writing (Lusk,
Chiu, and Sayman, 2018).
Summary
Considering these themes gives teachers concrete topics to delve deeper into their
curriculum and adapt to student need. To the naked eye, all teachers can see that when students
are engaged their learning improves, so student input is an essential part of the instruction
process. The literature above discusses the ways that dialogic talk has gained traction, thus
giving an intervention for teachers to experiment with to invite students into the instructional
process through questioning. Curiosity is an important part of learning and Socratic discussion
encourages that. With so much high-stakes testing, there is a tendency for students to wait to be
told exactly what to do, rather than thinking and questioning their way to action. From a teacher
standpoint, it also allows for another look with a questioning eye at the content given. It is
essential to question, invite student input, and improve content and teaching strategies to reach as
many students as possible.

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology
Research Design
This quantitative action research study will take place within the researcher’s ninth grade
English Language Arts classroom and span across four weeks, approximately sixteen to twenty
hours of instruction for the entire unit. The design is quantitative because the impact will be
determined through descriptive statistics that consider pre and post-test results. The chosen
rubric to evaluate the product comes from the AP Literature Writing assessment. This was
chosen because it is a national standard and the largest point value focuses on evidence and
commentary, allowing the researcher to quantify student achievement within that specific area.
The intervention, Socratic Discussion, will be applied throughout instruction and tied closely to
formative assessments that will be graded by the same rubric to compare formative data to the
summative result.
Research Questions
This research will take place in a ninth grade English Language Arts classroom using
Socratic discussion and be conducted during the study of a literary text, “To Kill a
Mockingbird.” The following question provides specific focus to direct the study:
 How does Socratic discussion activities added to the “To Kill a Mockingbird” unit impact
ninth grade students’ literary analysis writing as measured by pre and post writing tests?
o Quantitative method will be used in measurement and analysis because the pre
and post writing assessments are graded on a six-point scale. The largest value,
four points, is focused on evidence and commentary, i.e., elaboration in writing.
The teacher will monitor growth using data tables in an excel spreadsheet, noting
point values and categories to determine the impact between the pre and post
writing assessments. Students will monitor personal progress and changes to
writing using a writing portfolio.
Participants
There are twenty-five total participants that are selected from the researcher’s immediate
ninth grade English Language Arts classroom. The makeup of the chosen group is fifteen male
students and ten female students, all between the ages of fourteen and fifteen. Within those there
are four learners that have been placed on an Individualized Education Plan and three are also a
part of the English Language Learner program at the high school. This group of students was
assigned to the researcher by the high school counseling office and will all be given the same pre
and post writing test to assess their writing abilities. These specific categories will be used to
further disaggregate data and provide more insight through descriptive statistics. Through these
additional insights, the researcher may find a more complete picture as to the impact within the
personal classroom.
In considering the ethics and treatment, participants will be properly notified, and consent
obtained. Also, while students are treated as individuals within a classroom and instruction
provided to help the individual, the results will be determined in numbers and thereby allow the
participant to remain anonymous. The participants are minors, but proper permissions will be
obtained through the school district and the student’s legal guardians. The overall purpose of the
study is to determine how the intervention impacts student writing, so there is no pressure for the
students to achieve a certain score. Students simply will be learning and writing.
Data Collection Instruments and Methods
The data used to answer the research question will be taken from the results of a pre and post
writing test, assessed by a six-point writing rubric. Students will be given a writing test to assess
their understanding and interpretation of themes of a literary reading, and the post test will assess
their interpretation of themes in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” The question types are consistent for
pre and post, as well as with the rubric that will be used to assess the pre and post scores. The
focus of the rubric accentuates student analysis specifically.
The AP Literature writing rubric is recognized as a national standard. Moreover, the largest
value, four points, is focused on evidence and commentary, i.e., elaboration in writing. This
aligns to the researcher’s question because it will measure specific literary analysis writing
qualities. The AP rubric specifies elaboration in terms of evidence to support claims, consistent
explanation of how the evidence supports reasoning, and further specifies individual
interpretation of a work of reading through literary terms (AP Central College Board, 2019).
In addition to aligning to the research question posed, the rubric provides specific,
quantitative data. Each category of the rubric is tied to a numeric score with very specific
descriptions. The overall scores will then be collected and compared in a data spreadsheet to
compare pre and post to determine the impact of the intervention. Using Descriptive Statistics
the researcher will include the mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation within the
data table. These will include the pre and post, as well as one formative essay assessment mid-
unit. The teacher will monitor growth using data tables in an excel spreadsheet, noting point
values and categories to determine the impact between the pre and post writing assessments.
Students will monitor personal progress and changes to writing using a writing portfolio.
Data Security and Confidentiality
Prior to this study, all permissions from IRB, on-site administration, and parent permission
were obtained. The researcher reviewed IRB policies and procedures to ensure the study is
ethical, and then turned in a description of the study to be approved by on-site administration at
Dayton High School. With permission obtained, letters were then sent to all participant’s parents
along with a follow-up phone call. Parents were given a hard copy permission slip to sign, which
students turned in to the teacher-researcher. Parents were also informed that confidentiality was a
priority. All data gathered from this research is private and confidential. Each student’s
information is assigned a letter code and the list connecting student names to this code is kept in
a locked file. When the study is completed and the data has been analyzed, this list will be
destroyed. No student names will be used in any report. Data will be reported in the aggregate
spreadsheet, not individually. The teacher-researcher will not discuss student scores with anyone
but individual students, and all references within the study analysis will refer to the lettered
codes only. All possible precautions to maintain confidentiality have been taken, and permissions
obtained from parents are kept with data and to be destroyed along with the corresponding list.
Summary
This quantitative action research study should provide insight to the researcher and add to
other quantitative studies about improving student writing through dialogue. Socratic Dialogue is
the intervention chosen to address the problem that students struggle to elaborate and develop
original thought in writing when analyzing literature. Through use of Descriptive Statistics, the
pre- and post-test results will provide meaningful insight as to the impact that discussion may
have on student writing. The AP Writing Rubric is a useful tool because, again, it is a national
standard which allows the teacher-researcher to consider the results of this intervention for future
classes and students. Writing is so essential to literacy and education overall, and Socratic
discussion is one way to encourage students to find cross-curricular connection and meaning.
Chapter 4 - Results
Results Overview
This quantitative action research study was conducted within the researcher’s
instructional setting, ninth grade English Language Arts class. Twenty-five students were
selected and agreed to participate, each filled out the Informed Consent (see Appendix C) and
returned it to the researcher. The research began considering the problem: Students struggle to
elaborate and develop original thought in writing when analyzing literature. During this action
research the intervention dialogic talk, or Socratic discussion, was applied to consider the impact
on developing thoughts in writing. In Figure 1, results were collected using a Pre, Formative, and
Post Writing assessment and graded using the AP Literature Writing Scoring Rubric. Each
student was given a score out of six on the three assessments.
Figure 1. gives a visual representation of all 25 students scores on Pre, Formative, and Post Essay Test out of 6 total
points on the AP Literature Scoring Rubric.

This quantitative action research study was conducted over four weeks, during which time
the research established routine lessons over approximately sixteen to twenty hours of
instruction. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, a Hybrid schedule was put in place by the
researcher’s school district, and the classes were set up in A and B group blocks, so the lessons
took place over two separate days with each new lesson to ensure all received the same
instruction. Given this circumstance, the researcher used a unit plan (see Appendix A) to keep
both groups on the same schedule with the same lessons. Differentiation occurred for the four
students on Individualized Education Plans and three other students who were English Language
Learners. Those two groups of students had access to a paraprofessional helper or a language
instructor on the high school campus. Both groups of students often had to leave to get additional
tutoring for formatting an essay.
The first class of the unit was a two-hour long block class period and students were given the
pre-writing assessment, and then graded using the six-point AP Rubric. In this first lesson the
teacher-researcher gave contextual information to students, prompting them to think about the
idea of lessons and themes that are learned in various stories. The Pre-writing Assessment
Prompt then asked to identify and analyze a theme in a literary work of their choice (see
Appendix B). The prompt gave them suggested literary terms for analysis to discuss how the
author develops the theme.
The following approximate six classes all maintained a pattern of journaling, reading,
Socratic discussion, and writing. For example, the second day, after the pre-test, students read
the beginning of the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” and discussed Scout Finch’s childhood. The
journal given at the beginning of class asked students what life lessons they have learned in their
childhood, helping them find personal connections (see Appendix A). All following lessons kept
the same pattern and progress through the novel with a focus on the Socratic discussion part of
class. Students used a personal journal in which the teacher-researcher posed a thematic question
for students to interpret meaning. This was an important preparation for Socratic discussion
because students were required to share thoughts and ask their own questions. During the first
few lessons, the teacher modelled this practice, and then students were assigned to lead the
discussion using their journals. Every day, the journals served as an exit ticket with writing that
was assessed using the four-point section of the rubric and ask students to focus on not only the
literary term, but the evidence and explanation provided. Students were encouraged to use class
discussion topics in writing.
On day six, students were given a formative essay assessment in which they were asked the
same question as the pre-test (See Appendix B), except they had to choose a theme in the first
fifteen chapters of To Kill a Mockingbird. Figure 1 shows that the scores did not change for most
students, with only two students decreasing in score. The two student scores were possibly due to
absences prior to the formative test, as both returned the day the essay was given. For the
majority lack of change, the test was given only five lessons after the pre-test, so many students
were still uncomfortable with the focus on verbal discussion in class. Writing is a challenge for
most students, speaking up proved to be harder, and as the formative was given so close to the
pre-test there was little variation seen in ideas and commentary.
Afterwards, the following four to six lessons maintained the same pattern, but the teacher-
researcher pushed students to lead more of the discussions and stepped back, so to speak, as the
class concluded the novel. In a focused effort to test the intervention, day eleven, the final lesson
before the post-writing assessment, a Socratic Seminar was conducted by students. This was a
more formal practice of the dialogic talk intervention, and students took it much more seriously
than previous in-class discussions because it was so close to the final test. Students were
permitted to use their journals and other notes they took to aid in their discussion. This activity
was the most meaningful because it proved to be the first lesson in which the teacher-researcher
did not have to prompt any student discussion. All students came prepared and participated.
The post-test also proved to be the essay students put the most effort into, and Figure 1
shows that student scores improved by at least one to two rubric points, with only two student
scores decreasing due to absences. On the day of the post test, all students used notes taken
during the Socratic Seminar to help them write their essays.
Data Analysis
For this quantitative study, the researcher wanted to assess how this strategy would
impact student analysis writing. The researcher used three essay prompts and the AP Literature
Writing Scoring Rubric (see Appendix B) to assess the impact of the intervention. During each
class the researcher maintained a routine of journaling, reading, Socratic discussion, and writing.
Students were instructed on how to discuss and presented contextual information where
appropriate in the unit to help them understand the story and setting in the Jim Crow South.
Student scores were out of six total points on the AP Rubric, and percentages calculated.
The most heavily weighted category of the rubric pertained specifically to commentary,
evidence, and analysis. This rubric is a national standard and allowed the researcher to focus on
the research problem. In Table 1 the researcher used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.
Table 1
Overall Class Writing Score Analysis
Pre-Test Formative Test Post Test
Mean 51.33% 50% 69%
Median 50% 50% 67%
Mode 50% 50% 66.67%
Range 66.67% 83.33% 67%
Standard Deviation 18.58% 18.63% 19.05%
Table 1 compiles descriptive statistics for the Pre, Formative, and Post Tests given to the research group of 25
students.
As shown on Table 1, the results when all twenty-five students took the pretest, the class
average was 51.33%, with all but one student loosing points on the commentary and analysis
section of the rubric. When the formative test was given five class periods after the pretest, and
two scores decreased due to absences, thus the class average decreased to 50%. The post test was
given six days after the formative test, and the class average shows growth at 69% passing score.
Students took the posttest more seriously because it was a final, so this impacted the score
growth. The median score remained 50% for both the pre and formative tests, but increased to
67% by the post test, which is supported by Figure 1 as all, but a few scores increased on the
posttest. Likewise, the mode, or most common score on these writing tests, was a 50% for pre
and formative but also increased to a passing 67% score by the post test. Only two students’
scores decreased due to absences and did not achieve that 67% mode.
The range shown on Table 1 gives more insight to scores as it shows how the individual
scores spread from highest to lowest. The pretest had a 66.67% spread because, as shown in
Figure 1, the lowest scores were a two out of six and the highest was one student that
consistently earned a six out six. The formative test revealed a wider spread shown in Table 1 at
83.33% because one student outlier was absent and scored a one out six, as shown in Figure 1.
The post test range reduced to 67%, closer to the pretest as the one moved back to a score of two
in Figure 1.
The standard deviation in Table 1 remained a bit more consistent as the data maintained
similar distance from the class average. The researcher calculated 18.58% standard deviation
from the mean. Once again, only a small change on the formative test due to two student
absences, the standard deviation increased to 18.63%. The posttest saw more change as more
students scored higher and the standard deviation from the mean was 19.05%. Overall, the
numbers indicate growth from the pretest.
Within the overall class data, the researcher gained insight by consider struggling student
groups such as students with an Individualized Education Plan. Table 2 shows the descriptive
statistics from this group of four students.
Table 2
Students with IEP Writing Test Data
Mean 33.33% 33.33% 54%
Median 33.33% 33.33% 58%
Mode 33.33% 33.33% 66.67%
Range 16.67% 33.33% 33%
Standard Deviation 8.33% 13.61% 15.96%
Table 2 compiles descriptive statistics for the Pre, Formative, and Post Tests for students under an IEP.
Within this disaggregated set of data, the numbers were consistent in many areas up until
the post test. The class average score remained 33.33% in Table 2 for both the pre and formative
tests. Both the median and mode stayed at 33.33% for the pre and formative tests. These
numbers likely remained consistent because this separated category is considering only four
students, whose scores remained consistent. Growth is seen in the post test as the average of
these four scores increased to 54%, with the median being 58%. The mode is shown on Table 2
at 66.67% as most of the four students were able to make a passing score. The differences seen in
these numbers are likely due to the absence that one of the students had just before the formative
assessment. Also, three out of the four students took advantage of their accommodation and went
to a paraprofessional for help with the final essay to pass.
The range and standard deviation give a bit more insight into the spread of the four
student scores. The range was 16.67% for the pretest but increased to 33.33% for the formative
and posttest. This is likely because in the formative test, one student was absent and so the score
decreased to a one, increasing the range. There was no change for the posttest because all four
student scores went up, but with one student increasing an additional point to maintain the gap
between the highest and lowest scores. The standard deviation is seen to increase in Table 2 with
the largest spread from the mean on the posttest with a deviation of 15.96%. This is again likely
because of absences. One student out of the four improved their score by two or more points,
while the others went back to their original scores or only gained one point.
Similarly, another small groups data differed from the overall class average. Table 3
shows the descriptive statistics for the three students that were English Language Learners.
Table 3
English Language Learner Writing Data
Mean 50% 50% 72%
Median 50% 50% 67%
Mode 50% 50% 66.67%
Range 0% 0% 17%
Standard Deviation 0% 0% 9.62%
Table 3 compiles descriptive statistics for the Pre, Formative, and Post Tests for English Language Leaner students.
The data for this small group shows no change in Table 3 for either the pre or formative
test, because all three students scored the 50% on both tests. Thus, the spread in the range and
standard deviation shows 0%. However, the posttest saw growth in all areas as all three students
received help from a language tutor. The average between the three increased to 72% passing
score. The median stayed at passing with 67%, as well as the mode as two of the three scored
66.67%. The range increased to 17% because one of the three increased by two points, and thus
the standard deviation reflects that at 9.62% spread from the mean. This group of struggling
students showed the most growth compared to students with an IEP. This provides insight to the
researcher on the value of resources for these struggling students.
Answers to the Research Questions
The teacher researcher wanted to answer the question—How does Socratic discussion
activities added to the To Kill a Mockingbird unit impact ninth grade students’ literary analysis
writing as measured by pre and post writing tests? As the data shows the class average increased
51.33% to 69% in Table 1, the intervention improved overall student scores. Figure 1 supports
this, as only two student scores decreased from the pre to the post test, and this was likely due to
the absences of both students. The researcher planned Socratic discussion activities in every
lesson of the teaching unit (see Appendix A), thus students had plenty of discussion notes to pull
ideas from. The improvement is also supported by the disaggregated data in Tables 2 and 3 as
students with an IEP improved from 33.33% average pretest score to 54% average post test
score. English Language Learner students improved from 50% average pretest score to 72%
average post test score. These measures indicate an overall trend of growth from using this
intervention over the course of a twelve-day unit.

Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion
Overview
The purpose of this action research was to study how dialogic talk, also called Socratic
discussion, would impact student’s ability to elaborate and develop original thought in analysis
writing. Including this strategy in the classroom the teacher-researcher was able to ask questions
according to student need and encourage them to use it in their writing. The design was
quantitative because the impact was determined through descriptive statistics that consider pre
and post-test results. The chosen rubric to evaluate the product comes from the AP Literature
Writing assessment. This was chosen because it is a national standard and the largest point value
focuses on evidence and commentary, allowing the researcher to quantify student achievement
within that specific area.
Overall, the intervention improved scores with the class average showing on Table 1 the
pretest starting at 51.33% and showing growth on the posttest with a class average of 69%.
Additionally, a formative writing test was given in between to check student progress, which
decreased to a 50% average due to two student absences prior to the formative test. While
students took the posttest much more seriously, all students used notes they had taken during the
Socratic discussions. The teacher-researcher was transparent in instruction and encouraged
students to listen while talking with the class, then journaling and taking notes gave students
ideas they could apply to writing. Figure 1 also shows growth across individual scores as all, but
five students increased by one to two rubric points.
Problem Solutions
The teacher-researcher considered the problem that Students struggle to elaborate and
develop original thought in writing when analyzing literature. The applied intervention was
dialogic talk, also known as Socratic discussion, proved to be helpful and showed growth in the
teacher’s research setting. During the teaching unit, it was a way to invite students into the
instruction process as they formed their own questions and observations (see Appendix A). The
opportunity to share and challenge thoughts with their peers gave them notes and ideas they may
not have otherwise thought of.
In the researcher’s setting this strategy improved scores and helped students grow. Figure
1 shows that all but five students’ scores improved by one to two rubric points; the class average
shown in Table 1 also showed improvements from the pretest average at 51.33% increased to
69% average on the post test.
Given the growth scores and numerous pieces of supporting professional literature,
Socratic discussion is a strategy that can be used to solve the problem of students struggling to
elaborate and develop original thought in writing when analyzing literature. By analyzing
verbally, it gives students a familiar way to communicate and sort out thoughts on complex ideas
they’re reading. This strategy helped students consider new ideas that they were then able to use
in writing. As it improved in this study, it is possible that if it were applied as a regular strategy
all year long, it may possibly continue to improve writing.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Research study is so important to the field of education because much like students it is
ever evolving. Teachers require an arsenal of strategies they can use to address any problem they
might have and help students achieve. This research study focused on writing because it is
something that has been shown to be a struggle for students even in other subjects, such as social
studies or health. One strength of this study is that it focused specifically on the important topic
of writing and a strategy to address this issue. The English Language Arts classrooms is where
students learn essential writing skills, and they will use them across other curriculums and when
they graduate and go out into the world. This essential skill requires constant attention and new
strategies to help students.
Another strength of this study was that the intervention Socratic discussion did improve
student scores overall. Additionally, it helped students to see how closely entwined
communication, writing, and reading are related. The more students discussed the complex
themes in the book, the better they understood. It also allowed struggling students to voice
concerns and realize they weren’t the only ones who struggled.
A weakness within this study is that while the research question may be answered for the
researcher’s personal setting, but it does not follow that it is necessarily applicable in a general
sense. The participants were the researcher’s ninth grade students, it is not a randomly selected
sample of ninth grade students overall. It is not even students from across the researcher’s school
district; it is only representative of the researcher’s school and classroom. So, while the study did
give insight into the researcher’s classroom and show growth, this intervention may not be as
easily applied as a general assumption. Because of the setting there was an inability to perform a
real experimental study. Without that true experimental comparison, the researcher cannot be
completely sure the intervention is the reason that scores have improved. These weaknesses must
be acknowledged because interventions work differently between different classrooms, let alone
different schools or places.
Influential Factors
As the study was conducted within the teacher-researchers personal classroom setting,
this is an influential factor. The researcher had a prior relationship as all the twenty-five
participants had been in the classroom for additional units prior to the study. In addition, Table 1
shows the greatest growth on the post-test. The researcher regularly observes students take their
final tests much more seriously because they want a good score, so that is another factor that may
have improved scores in ways beyond the Socratic discussion. This is possible as even in the
groups of struggling students, they declined the services and resources available to them until the
final test which they worried would affect their overall grade. In considering this intervention it
is essential that these factors be considered, and the strategy adjusted per student needs.
Further Investigation
Strategies to improve thought in student writing is an area worth research and
investigation. Socratic discussion is one strategy which some research and professional literature
has considered, but it must be applied to test it for general application. In the future, it could be
useful to apply the strategy to more than twenty-five students and instead look at multiple
classrooms within a school. Random selection across a school district would be a better way to
test this strategy because it would prevent research bias. While the results and the literature show
the positive impact that is possible with this intervention, it is clear more research is needed to
determine whether dialogic talk truly does improve student writing.

References
AP Central College Board. (2019). AP English Literature Scoring Rubrics. Retrieved from
https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-english-literature-and-composition-frqs-1-2-3-
scoring-rubrics.pdf?course=ap-english-literature-and-composition
Davies, M., Kiemer, K., & Meissel, K. (2017). Quality Talk and dialogic teaching-an
examination of a professional development programme on secondary teachers’
facilitation of student talk. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 968–987.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3293 Retrieved from:
https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=271f7c4b-8d21-4da6-8c96-
fa5b2c216ab9%40pdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=125
541551&db=eue
Davis, D. S., & Vehabovic, N. (2018). The Dangers of Test Preparation: What Students Learn
(And Don’t Learn) About Reading Comprehension from Test‐Centric Literacy
Instruction. Reading Teacher, 71(5), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1641 Retrieved
from: https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=47c01589-2391-44f1-
bb3c-
b6837d67dc2c%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
wMTc1Nzgmc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=128214411&db=eue
Deane, P., Somasundaran, S., Lawless, R. R., Persky, H., & Appel, C. (2019). The Key Practice,
Building and Sharing Stories and Social Understandings: The Intrinsic Value of
Narrative. ETS Research Reports Series, 2019(1), 1. Retrieved from:
https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=02341784-e5bf-40b7-8057-
daa7861b0b31%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l
0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=141076914&db=edb
Doubet, K. J., & Southall, G. D. (2018). “Nobody but a Reader Ever Became a Writer”:
Integrating Reading and Writing Instruction to Help Adolescents Tell their Stories.
Virginia English Journal, 67(2), 25–33. Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=54b3187c-f314-4547-8449-
37a1322ee25d%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
Harmon, J., Wood, K., Smith, K., Zakaria, N., Ramadan, K., & Sykes, M. (2016). Teaching and
Learning in High School Reading Classes: Perspectives of Teachers and Students.
Reading Psychology, 37(7), 962–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1157536
Retrieved from: https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9beb20ac-
7888-4eb7-9ac0-95b1ad99ed2c%40pdc-v-
646953&db=eue
Lindsay Clare Matsumura, Richard Correnti, & Elaine Wang. (2015). Classroom Writing Tasks
and Students’ Analytic Text-Based Writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 417.
Retrieved from: https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=edca9a6b-c302-
49da-98cd-933c4ed11b3c%40sdc-v-
sessmgr02&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnMwMTc1Nzgmc2l0ZT1lZ
HMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=edsjsr.43999133&db=edsjsr
Litman, C., & Greenleaf, C. (2018). Argumentation Tasks in Secondary English Language Arts,
History, and Science: Variations in Instructional Focus and Inquiry Space. Reading
Research Quarterly, 53(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.187 Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=4fe6a8f5-2f5e-4c04-b335-
07f440924d37%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
Lusk, M. E., Chiu, C. L., & Sayman, D. (2018). Lessons Learned: An Action Research Project in
Self-Regulated Strategy Development Writing Instruction for Secondary Students with
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Journal of Teacher Action Research, 4(2), 10–30.
Retrieved from: https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=532ccd18-
5020-462a-b936
dfdc173de358%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnMw
MTc1Nzgmc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=128943467&db=eue
Magnusson, C. G., Roe, A., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2019). To What Extent and How Are Reading
Comprehension Strategies Part of Language Arts Instruction? A Study of Lower
Secondary Classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 187–212.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.231 Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=7b9d4155-1c0b-4354-a7cb-
25dc9af06012%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
McConn, M. L., & Blaine, A. M. (2018). Literature Standards Past and Present: Driving Toward
a Disappearing Horizon. High School Journal, 101(3), 134–154.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2018.0007 Retrieved from:
https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=28f62833-389a-4449-822e-
c6ed209991c4%40pdc-v-
969270&db=a9h
Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Writing in the Secondary-Level
Disciplines: a Systematic Review of Context, Cognition, and Content. Educational
Psychology Review, 30(1), 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z
Retrieved from: https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=b9799d1b-
9ddb-4613-b129-
7ff180df4768%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnMw
MTc1Nzgmc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=128112280&db=eue
Morris, A. (2015). Book Review: Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and
high school classrooms. English in Texas, 45(1), 56–58. Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=2acfabf2-9124-4c3c-9bb2-
ea8e97ee597b%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
Newell, G. E., Bloome, D., Kim, M.-Y., & Goff, B. (2019). Shifting epistemologies during
instructional conversations about “good” argumentative writing in a high school English
language arts classroom. Reading & Writing, 32(6), 1359–1382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9905-y Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=6e1537d6-c59a-4b71-bc30-
f59118219e5a%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPXNzbyZjdXN0aWQ9bnM
Parfitt, E., & Shane, S. (2016). Working within the System: The Effects of Standardized Testing
on Education Outreach and Community Writing. Community Literacy Journal, 11(1),
118–126. Retrieved from:
https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=32dba8dd-766b-4ee6-8b48-
03f349d9190e%40pdc-v-
sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=EJ1
148489&db=eric
Pedersen, J. (2018). Revision as Dialogue: Exploring Question Posing in Writing Response.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.885
Retrieved from: https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=421f55f2-2660-
4d5f-9ced-1142898f729f%40pdc-v-
456361&db=eft
VanDerHeide, J. (2018). Classroom Talk as Writing Instruction for Learning to Make Writing
Moves in Literary Arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 323–344.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.196 Retrieved from:
https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=608a3333-bbaa-4c52-beb4-
d2fa9a42988c%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l
0ZQ%3d%3d#db=eue&AN=130362293
Appendix A
To Kill a Mockingbird Unit of Instruction: Using Socratic Discussion for Literary Analysis
Writing
Title: Using Socratic Discussion for Literary Analysis Writing
Subject: English I
Topic/Unit of Study: To Kill a Mockingbird Reading Comprehension and Literary Analysis
Writing
Grade: 9
Group size: 25 students
Learning Context:
This is the third unit of study for the school year, so procedures have been established. When
students walk in, they pick up a copy of homework, notes, and other materials from a cart at
the front of the room. Objectives and activating activity are displayed and students understand
they begin once the bell rings. These Lessons focus on students using terms and skills
previously acquired to create a coherent analysis essay in which critical thinking and complex
themes are introduced.
Notes:
4 students have an IEP and 3 are English Language Learners with specific accommodations—
a set of completed notes has been copied and given to each. Grading is modified for these
students according to ability and understanding. They are allowed extended time and to leave
the room for a quieter environment if necessary.
These accommodations may also be used at discretion of educator for any struggling student—
differentiation is paramount.
Standards and Objectives
State Standards:
Nevada Academic Content Standards CCR.RL1.9-10
- Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as
inferences drawn from the text.
- Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the
text, including how it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective
summary of the text.
- Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and
connotative meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone
(e.g., how the language evokes a sense of time and place; how it sets a formal or informal tone).
- By the end of grade 9, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the
grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
Nevada Academic Content Standards CCR.W1a.9-10
- Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning
and relevant and sufficient evidence. a. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from
alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among
claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
Nevada Academic Content Standards CCR.W2.9-10
- Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information
clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content
Nevada Academic Content Standards CCR.W10.9-10
- Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time
frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences.
Unit Objectives:
1. Students will be able to identify details about characters, question and discuss how the plot advances
based on the actions of The Ewells, Atticus, and the town of Maycomb as observed by Scout.
2. Students will be able to determine, discuss, and analyze specific experiences in chapters that reveal a
central theme leading to the Tom Robinson trial; they will also use details to explain how the theme is
developed by characters, plot details, and ideas within the text.
3. Students will be able to construct a fully developed essay response in which they choose to a. analyze
character development; b. argue a position on the complexity of the novel and why it is considered a
Literary work; or c. identify and analyze an additional theme within "To Kill a Mockingbird."
**Research Question:
• How does Socratic discussion activities added to the “To Kill a Mockingbird” unit impact ninth grade
students’ literary analysis writing as measured by pre and post writing tests?
Materials/Resources
Students should have basic school supplies such as journals, lined paper, pen/pencil,
highlighters, etc.… Anything the teacher might use to help them transfer discussion to
writing.
Timing is a suggestion—these lessons are given during the Hybrid schedule due to covid
and may require alteration. Some days, reading may take precedence, and others the
discussion may run long. Adjust as needed based on student need.
Day 1: To Kill a Mockingbird books to be checked out to students
- Other days it is noted that the teacher may want to give out 3x5 notecards, sticky notes, or
other small pieces of paper for a quick exit ticket or other comprehension check—this is not
required, just an instructional strategy for a short formative check.
Day 9-11: Print copy of Socratic Seminar Questions for students to use to prepare for
formal discussion on Day 11.
Day 1,6,12: Print copy of Pre, Formative, Post Essay Test questions
Days 1, 6, 12: Writing Rubric for Pre, Formative, and Post Tests
AP Central College Board. (2019). AP English Literature Scoring Rubrics. Retrieved from
https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-english-literature-and-composition-frqs-1-2-3-
scoring-rubrics.pdf?course=ap-english-literature-and-composition
Day 1- Planned for 2-hour Hybrid block (may be shortened)

Day 1 Objective. Given previous study of literary terms—specifically theme, plot
development, and characterization— Students will write a literary analysis essay about a story
of their choice in which they use text/plot/character details and literary devices to analyze
themes in the story of their choice.
Instructional Plan: Sequence of instructional procedures/activities/events
- Identification of Student Prerequisite skills needed for lesson:
Students can read and have previously learned some literary terms such as theme,
plot development, and characterization.
- Approx. 20 minutes-
Activator:
Partners Optional (7-9) minutes): When students enter the room, they see the day’s
objective and must begin writing in their journal about a story, movie, book, etc.
that has inspired them and why. They will be asked to write down at least 1 thought
or question they have. Students may discuss with a partner
Whole Class (5-10 minutes): After giving students a chance to reflect in writing,
the teacher leads a class discussion and asks for volunteers to share what stories
have inspired them and why.
Teacher will write on the board and write down common ideas that come up in
discussion. Students should also note repeated ideas in journals.
Teacher will question why students think these ideas may come up again and again.
Encourage students to ask their own questions—give time to do so.
- Presentation of New Information or modeling: Approx. 20 minutes

After discussion, the teacher will ask students to take out a blank piece of paper for
brainstorming and writing.
Teacher has prepared an example of a story that inspires them—for example, “The
Lion King” has many lessons and is based on “Hamlet,” which makes the story fun
and gives it some depth. (Any example may be used in context of themes present in
stories)
Teacher will model bubble-mapping to brainstorm. Students will bubble-map on
their scratch paper and choose a story that they feel has “Literary” depth (allow for
discussion of what “literary” is and what should qualify)
Give students time to come up with at least 2 stories they feel has “literary depth”
and to draft some lessons one might learn from these stories.
- Guided Practice: Approx. 5-7 minutes
Hand out Pre-test Writing Prompt and go over the question with students.
Encourage them to ask questions and use any notes they have on Literary Terms.
Check to see that every student understands what the task is asking them to do.
- Independent Practice: Approx. 50 minutes
Allow students adequate time to write the Pretest Essay—it need only be 1 page, so
45-50 minutes may be adequate.
- Culminating or Closing Procedure/Activity/Event: Approx. 2-5 minutes
Students will receive copies of To Kill a Mockingbird, which they begin the
following day.
Pedagogical Strategies:
- Pair-share and think-aloud during activator
- Direct instruction/lecture for notes and new information
- Modeling on whiteboard
- Independent reading and writing
Differentiated Instruction:
- Students are permitted to choose their partners at the beginning of class, to
encourage them to learn from peers.
- For notes, preferential seating is in place and IEP students can work with their
paraprofessional as needed
Student Assessment/Rubrics:
Pre-Writing Test to be graded with AP Literary Analysis Rubric (with consideration for 9 th vs.
12th grade)
Day 2—Read Chapters 1-2
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to use contextual details to discuss ideas introduced
through characters in chapters 1-2.
Activator:
JOURNALS (7-9) minutes): When students enter room, they will take out their
journals and respond to the following prompt:
“Do you think the lessons people learn in childhood affect them for the rest of their
lives? What lessons have you learned that you think will or won’t stick with you?”
Pair Share (7-10 minutes): Give students 2-3 minutes to share with a partner what
they wrote, then ask the whole class. Discuss various lessons from sharing, being
kind, and so on. Encourage all to share.

Once class has discussed new information, introduce the novel’s main characters to
the students: Scout and Jem.
Using learning material found on PBS Learning Media, the teacher presents a video
called “Portrait of a Southern Town,” and then a short clip on “Scout Finch”
- https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/am12.ela.rv.text.south/setting-a-portrait-
of-a-southern-town-in-the-1930s/
These short clips give students brief context about what it was like to grow up in a
small southern town in the Great Depression and introduces the characters to build
anticipation.
Finally, ask students what they know about the Jim Crow South (contextual
information was touched on in both clips)
Allow students time to think, question, and share. Teacher should give more
context if needed.
- Independent Practice: Approx. 20-30 minutes
Ask students to write down the following in their journals:
1. 2 things I know about Civil Rights and Jim Crow…
2. 2 things I learned…
3. Questions I have…
Give students time to read Chapters 1-2 (on a Hybrid schedule with 2-hour blocks,
there is plenty of time for them to finish)
-- Allow students the option to read individually, with a partner, or as a class using
either read aloud or an audiobook.
While students are reading, encourage them to write questions. It is helpful to
model this practice.
- Guided Practice: Approx. 20 minutes

Coming back to their journals, ask students what questions they have so far. What
impressions? What thoughts? What did they learn today?
Socratic method is teacher-lead in the beginning but allow the conversation to
develop naturally around the topic.

Teacher will check off students work in journals to ensure participation.
- Pair-share and read-aloud during activator
- Check off for quick assessment
Formative—journal writing and verbal discussion
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to use text details to discuss the characters and their
traits as introduced in chapters 3-6.
Activator:
--Interpret Atticus’ lesson to Scout that “you never really understand a person till
you look at things from their point of view, till you climb into their skin and walk
around in it.”
What does he mean and how could Scout use this? What does this life lesson look
like in real life?

Give the class more time to discuss this topic and ask students to write notes in
their journal of examples from the book where Scout can “look at another point of
view”
Topics the teacher may use to prompt could be Scout’s experience at school, Miss
Caroline, Walter Cunningham, as well as prior day context information like Jim
Crow South, Great Depression, etc.
model this practice by writing on the board ideas to be discussed—these ideas are
based on themes, quotes, characterization and so on the teacher notices.

Encourage students to ask their own questions about the book—remind them that
the purpose of Socratic discussion is to answer questions, share insight and make
connections. There is no right answer, only conversation to develop about general
ideas.

Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to cite examples of Southern Gothic Genre from the
text.
Activator:
“To Kill a Mockingbird is considered an example of Southern Gothic Genre, what
do you think this means? What could make TKAM a ghost story? What scary
stories from your childhood have made an impression on you?”
(Teacher should lead students to discuss Boo Radley specifically and the actions of
Jem, Scout, and Dill in their curiosity about him. Encourage students to recall
details from the text about Boo, and to form their own ideas and insight)

Introduce the idea of Southern Gothic Genre to students. The teacher may present a
PowerPoint with pictures of Gothic architecture and information that is easily
available through the internet and encyclopedias.
https://oxfordre.com/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/ac
refore-9780190201098-e-304
As students take notes, be sure to encourage them to find examples in “To Kill a
Mockingbird” that might make the South appear Gothic. (i.e., crumbling buildings,
Boo Radley as a ghost, childhood superstition, old/decaying ideas leading to Tom
Robinson’s arrest…)

At this time, assign a student to ask the first question for Day 5—Students should
now be comfortable with journaling, discussing, and notetaking. Others may
need help/encouragement but allow stronger students to begin to lead
discussions.

Day 5—Read Chapters 10-11, 15-17
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to discuss characterization and Southern Gothic genre
and how Harper Lee uses these devices to develop the plot.
Activator:
“Consider all the Finch family drama in Chapter 9—have you ever had a similar
Christmas with your family? What did Scout learn about her family in this chapter?
(Consider her conversation with Uncle Jack…)”
(Specifically, have students focus on the differences between Scout’s father,
Atticus and her Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack)

In students journals, have them draw a bubble map with Scout’s name in the
center—then draw 4 more bubbles: Atticus, Uncle Jack, Aunt Alexandra, and
Calpurnia.
Remind students that these are the 4 most influential adults in Scout’s life, then ask
what she learns from them.
Under each bubble write the examples students share and draw lines back to Scout.
Ask students how this is an example of Characterization—How do each of these
characters affect Scout in the novel?
Ask students to keep out their journals and list what they know about Tom
Robinson—Who is he? How is he connected to Scout? Why does he matter to the
story?
Give students time to read Chapters 10-11;15-17 (on a Hybrid schedule with 2-
hour blocks, there is plenty of time for them to finish)
Ask students to pay special attention for a lesson Scout learns in Chapter 11

Ask students what they learned from Mrs. Dubose—what did Atticus want Jem and
Scout to learn?
At this time, assign a student to ask the first question for Day 6—Students should
now be comfortable with journaling, discussing, and notetaking. Others may
need help/encouragement but allow stronger students to begin to lead
discussions.

Day 6—Formative Writing Test
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to identify and analyze an additional theme within "To
Kill a Mockingbird."
Activator:
“List some lessons you have learned from the characters in To Kill a Mockingbird.
Why do you think this book is taught in schools?”

Review the Formative Writing Prompt with students—ask them what they feel is
the most important theme presented so far in the book?
Teacher will model bubble-mapping to brainstorm. Ask students to find textual

evidence to support ideas such as Courage is a theme in the book. Write down page
numbers and encourage students to use text details to support their ideas.
Hand out Formative Writing Prompt and go over the question with students.
Encourage them to ask questions and use any notes they have from previous
discussions. Check to see that every student understands what the task is asking
them to do.
- Independent Practice: Approx. 50 minutes
Allow students adequate time to write the Formative Essay—it need only be 1
page, so 45-50 minutes may be adequate.

Teacher will collect essays at end of class.
Formative Writing Exam to be graded with AP Literary Analysis Rubric (with consideration
for 9th vs. 12th grade)
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to use text details to support arguments.
Activator:
“Write down all the evidence presented so far in the trial—if you consider the facts
presented so far, do you think Atticus is right about Tom’s evidence? Do you have
any doubts? What other impressions do you have about the town of Maycomb’s
reaction to this trial?”

In journals, ask students to write down examples from the book that fit what they
learned about the Jim Crow South.
Ask students to draw a table with 2 boxes, and label one side EVIDENCE:
GUILTY and the other side EVIDENCE: INNOCENT
As students listen to the trial, ask them to write down all factual evidence given for
Tom Robinson’s guilt or innocence.
At end of class, they must decide whether they agree with the conviction or not.
Give students time to read Chapters 18-21 (on a Hybrid schedule with 2-hour
blocks, there is plenty of time for them to finish)

Ask a student to lead the discussion by answering this question: Do they think Tom
Robinson is guilty or innocent? Why?
Allow students to argue and discuss what happened at the trial—only interject to
remind them of the implications made about Mayella and her father. Encourage
students to consider actions and characterization.

Teacher will check off students work in journals to ensure participation and see
what their position on the conviction is.
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to determine, discuss, and analyze specific experiences
in chapters that reveal a central theme leading to the Tom Robinson trial; they will also use
details to explain how the theme is developed by characters, plot details, and ideas within the
text.
Activator:
“As you’ve grown, how has the way you see the world around you changed? Think
of a specific example of how you thought/felt as a child and how that has shifted to
now. Are your interests different? When do you think you changed?”
Ask students to connect this back to Scout—how has she changed since the
beginning of the novel?

Using learning materials found in Encyclopedias, PBS Media Learning, and other
resources, review the Scottsboro Boys trial that took place in Birmingham,
Alabama in 1931.
https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/scottsboro-boys
-
- https://youtu.be/IWbq639bsYc
This trial greatly influenced Harper Lee and what she wrote in the novel. Students
should take notes and make connections to Tom Robinson.
Students should answer the following in their journal:
--How does this real-life trial relate to the Jim Crow South?
--Is this an example of Southern Gothic?
--How do you think this influenced Harper Lee?
Students should write down 1-2 examples to answer the following in discussion:
How has the trial affected Jem?
How has the trial affected Scout?

Students should now be comfortable discussing on their own—here are the

questions to begin the day’s Socratic discussion:
1. How has the trial affected Jem?
2. How has the trial affected Scout?

text.
Activator:
“How has Tom Robinson’s trial and death affected Maycomb? How is this an
example of what Atticus would call ‘Maycomb’s disease?’”

Review Characterization and what has been learned so far about Southern Gothic
and Characterization.
Lead a discussion with the following question: Why could the South be considered
a decaying, “gothic,” society?
What has happened in the novel that is symptomatic of decay and disease? Do
students see any connection to today?
Remind students that great Literature often gives people a chance to explore tough
ideas found in everyday life through a fictional story. In today’s discussion students
should use real life and text examples to support their ideas.

Give students a chance to revisit the earlier discussion—if not brought up, ask them
to consider the example of what Scout learned at school from Miss Gates about
what was happening in Germany with Hitler in the 1930s…

text.
Activator:
“Make a prediction—what do you think will happen in these last chapters? Will the
children ever meet Boo Radley? Are you worried like Aunt Alexandra about Bob
Ewell? Will they forget Tom Robinson?”

Give students a printout of the following Socratic Questions to prepare for a formal
Student-lead Socratic Seminar on Day 11—review all questions with students and
encourage them to take notes during the reading today. Finishing the novel is the
priority
Socratic Questions:
How is the THEME/MOTIF of Courage demonstrated in the book? Who is
courageous? How does this fit the book’s definition of courage? Does that fit your
definition of courage?
- How is the THEME/MOTIF of Innocence demonstrated in the book? Who loses
innocence? How?
- GENRE— Southern Gothic—Compare the segregated South during the Depression

Era to our time and place today. Using evidence from the text, how are we similar?
How are we different?
- GENRE—Coming of Age story—Why did Harper Lee select a child to be the

narrator of the novel? Would the story have been as effective if she had chosen a
different narrator? Use evidence from the text and thoughts from our discussions.
- CHARACTERIZATION—Atticus often tells the children to walk a mile in other

people’s shoes—why is this quote important? How do Jem and Scout see Atticus
live this lesson in his daily life? What is learned from this?
- CHARACTERIZATION— “I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks.” Scout says
this to Jem when they are discussing why different groups in their town do not get
along. Do you think she is right or wrong? Explain. What do Scout and Jem learn
about people and the world they live in through their experience of the trial?
- THEMES and banned books—To Kill a Mockingbird is a highly controversial book

with some people arguing that it is inappropriate for children because of its themes
and the portrayal of certain characters and stereotypes. Which elements of the
book do you think they found troubling? What do you think? Should we or should
we not have studied To Kill a Mockingbird? Why?
- CHARACTERIZATION—How did your opinion of various characters change

throughout the story? (Consider Boo Radley, Aunt Alexandra, Mayella Ewell, and
others and explain how your opinion changed). What lesson do you think Harper
Lee was trying to teach through these characters?

Coming back to their journals, ask students what questions they have so far. Were
they expecting the ending? What surprised them about the ending?
Closing activity please give students the remaining 10-25 minutes to prepare for the
Socratic Seminar the following day.
- Culminating or Closing Procedure/Activity/Event: Approx. 20 minutes

Students may work with a partner and use their journals and book to complete the
Socratic Seminar questions in preparation for Day 11.
Day 11—Socratic Seminar
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to use details to discuss and analyze plot, themes,
characters, and genre.
Activator:
PREP (10 minutes)—allow students to work with a partner to review the Socratic
Seminar questions and write any additional ideas they may have.

Desks should be arranged in a fishbowl formation—4-5 desks placed in the inner
circle, and the rest placed around. Teacher may choose to assign the inner circle or
ask for volunteers.
Students will be assigned a partner to grade during the discussion.
Hand out 3x5 notecards to each student—they will write the following on it to be
turned in as their exit ticket:
1. FRONT- 5 insights/thoughts/comments made by classmates that can be used in
writing
2. BACK- Grading Partner’s name, 2 comments they make, and a letter grade
Students can use the prepared Socratic Seminar questions to begin, but they are
encouraged to come up with their own topics, questions, themes, and ideas to share.
Explain to students that the inner circle is where the conversation is happening, and
it should be a conversation. The outer circle is observing, writing notes, and
grading partner.
The discussion takes place in the inner circle, and the outer circle will tap in to
replace the inner circle. Every student will be given the opportunity to make at least
3 comments/questions, etc. Students are graded on their participation and exit
tickets. Remind them that the ideas shared could give them ideas for a final essay.
Students bring notes, book, pen/pencil with them to discussion—this Socratic
Seminar will take up the bulk of the class period to give all 25 students an
opportunity to participate.
Teacher should only interject if conversation hits a lull and students struggle.
Otherwise, allow students to start and maintain a full conversation and discussion.
Often it will begin awkwardly, but students enjoy talking to each other and they
have prepared ideas during the unit through journals and formal preparation.

Coming back the last 15-20 minutes of class, let students finish filling out
notecards.
Ask them to share a few ideas that surprised them and a few they would use in a
final essay.
Remind them that on Day 12 they take the final test and to use the seminar as
preparation.

Teacher will collect Exit Ticket (3x5 cards) for formative comprehension check.
- Socratic Seminar
Student-led discussion
Formative—verbal/written discussion
Day 12—Post Test
Day 1 Objective. Students will be able to use contextual details to discuss ideas introduced
through characters in chapters 1-2.
Activator:
“Review the journals you’ve written up till this point—what is the most important
lesson a reader should learn from To Kill a Mockingbird”
Pair Share (5 minutes): Give students 2-3 minutes to share with a partner what
Review the Post Writing Prompt with students—ask them what they feel is the
most important theme presented so far in the book?
Teacher will model bubble-mapping to brainstorm. Remind students that this is the
final exam for the unit, so they should use what they have learned from discussions.

Hand out Post Writing Prompt and go over the question with students. Encourage
them to ask questions and use any notes they have from previous discussions.
Check to see that every student understands what the task is asking them to do.
Allow students adequate time to write the Posttest Essay—it need only be 1-2
pages, but it is the final so 50-70 minutes should be adequate.

Teacher will collect essays at end of class.
Post Writing Exam to be graded with AP Literary Analysis Rubric (with consideration for 9th
vs. 12th grade)
Appendix B
Appendix C

Socraticdiscussion and Writing - Mscin Capstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Socraticdiscussion and Writing - Mscin Capstone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socraticdiscussion and Writing - Mscin Capstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS WRITING 1

The Impact of Socratic Discussion on Student Analysis Writing

A Capstone Presented to the Teachers College Faculty

of Western Governors University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science Curriculum and Instruction

Chapter 1 – Student Analysis Writing ........................................................................................ 5

Topic: The Impact of Socratic Discussion on Student Analysis Writing

Problem Background and Causes

have found it to be helpful to teachers and students to be aware of improvements to be made. In

those critical thinking skills into their future pursuits.

Sykes, 2016). In planning a study, it is very fortunately possible to implement interventions at

learners” (Miller, Scott, and McTigue, 2018).

four points, is focused on evidence and commentary, i.e., elaboration in writing.

writing assessments. Students will monitor personal progress and changes to

writing using a writing portfolio.

Topic and Problem Conclusion

Overview of the Literature

Content: Types of Writing Tasks

consider because it can determine the type of writing a student produces.

are being assigned in curricular content.

educators and policymakers (Magnusson, Roe, and Blikstad-Balas, 2019).

In addition to thoughtful content, it must necessarily be accompanied by thoughtful

Teaching: Teaching Reading Comprehension and Writing Strategies

focusing on reading comprehension strategies and transferring them to writing. Observations by

Kim, and Goff, 2019).

students. Teachers are encouraged to develop high-level thinking questions or statements to

and reading performance.

Writing Strategies: Student Dialogue and Input

Chiu, and Sayman, 2018).

many students as possible.

four points, is focused on evidence and commentary, i.e., elaboration in writing.

writing using a writing portfolio.

Data Collection Instruments and Methods

focus of the rubric accentuates student analysis specifically.

Data Security and Confidentiality

student was given a score out of six on the three assessments.

points on the AP Literature Scoring Rubric.

tutoring for formatting an essay.

author develops the theme.

discussion topics in writing.

pre-test there was little variation seen in ideas and commentary.

during the Socratic Seminar to help them write their essays.

Overall Class Writing Score Analysis

Pre-Test Formative Test Post Test

Mean 51.33% 50% 69%

Median 50% 50% 67%

Mode 50% 50% 66.67%

Range 66.67% 83.33% 67%

Standard Deviation 18.58% 18.63% 19.05%

numbers indicate growth from the pretest.

statistics from this group of four students.

Students with IEP Writing Test Data

Pre-Test Formative Test Post Test

Mean 33.33% 33.33% 54%

Median 33.33% 33.33% 58%

Mode 33.33% 33.33% 66.67%