Teacher Discourse in a Second Grade

Writing Workshop

Presented by Colleen Pennell

WSRA Annual Convention
February 3, 2010
My Journey

 Practice case study methodology

 District writing curriculum adoption

 Mrs. S.: strong background in writing

instruction & training through TCRWP

 Second grade – Unit of Study Authors as

Mentors
Framework of Writing Workshop
 Writing Workshop revolves around Unit of
Study (genres of writing)
 Mini-lesson (5-10 minutes)
 connect
 teach
 active engagement (turn and talk)
 link to ongoing work
 Independent Writing and Conferring (45 min)
 Sharing (5 minutes)
Calkins, 1986
Initial observations

 Mrs. S. maintained predictable format

 mini-lesson architecture consistent

 stamina of students

However, there was something more…

 …Discourse of course!

TRADITIONAL (MONOLOGIC) DIALOGIC

 Initiate, Respond, Evaluate  Purposeful exchange of

 Initiate – teacher initiates ideas
question  Students build on
 Respond – student responds questions/ideas with one
 Evaluate or provide feedback another
– teacher evaluates or  Not always teacher
provides feedback
centered
 “default setting”  Student knowledge and
expertise valued
(Cazden,2001)
(Alexander, 2009)
Dialogic Teaching
 Collective: Teachers and children approach learning
collectively. Learning is not done in isolation.
 Reciprocal: Ideas are listened and shared; all viewpoints
are reflected upon.
 Supportive: Students share ideas without fear of being
wrong; other students support in the understanding of new
learning.
 Cumulative: Thoughts develop through dialogue. Meaning
is strengthened through inquiry and the exploration of
ideas.
 Purposeful: Teachers have learning goals and utilize
classroom dialogue as a means to achieve them.
(Alexander, 2009)
Mrs. S. use of discourse

1. Deepened student understanding: dialogic

2. Facilitated student writing identity: dialogic

3. Powerful formative assessment tool:

dialogic and traditional
Mrs. S stance on talk

“They like to talk, and I think that the teacher

doesn’t have to be involved all of the time.
They have to put that responsibility on their
peers....you know, nobody can get by without
learning because everybody is involved. We
used to call on one person, one person did the
thinking and everyone else just sat there.”
(S.S., personal communication, September 24, 2009).
Transcript Observations
 Partner talk was integral in understanding of a
comeback line
 Teacher not locus of knowledge – all opinions mattered
 Mrs. Schultz encourages differing viewpoints – there is
not one right answer
 Traditional Discourse would have asked:
 Where should we put the comeback line?
 Student responds
 Teacher evaluates response
 Only certain members have access to the “literacy club”
(Smith, 1987)
Conferring: Focus on the Writer

 Dialogic discourse at the heart of conferring

 Dialogic discourse allows the teacher to focus

on the writer not the writing
Focus on writer but provide
feedback/instruction
 Mrs. Schultz: Anything else you’d like to try? (focus on the
writer, not the writing – researching the writer)
 Chloe: I’d like to use ellipsis in the story but I don’t know where.
(Chloe’s response provides Mrs. S. a teaching point)
 Mrs. Schultz: You don’t know where? Okay, let’s look back and
look at Mr. Putter and Tabby and see where she uses ellipsis.
Read through that Chloe and see how she uses that ellipsis there.
(Chloe reads). It slows us down and it tells us that something is
going to happen. Do you see how Cynthia Rylant used that
ellipsis in this book?
 Chloe: Yeah, (Chloe reads aloud) For the next big snow dot dot
dot. Dot dot dot means it slows us down.
Conference moves forward with Chloe trying ellipsis in her
writing
Lessons Learned

 Teachers should become aware of their own

discourse
 Dialogic Discourse is at the heart of Writing
Workshop
 Toolbox of discourse strategies important
 Future Directions: active engagement is once
during the mini-lesson – should we provide
more?
 Ground Rules for Dialogue: 20 days

1.We don’t do rude.

2.You can never be unkind to another human; we don’t laugh at other’s
ideas or roll our eyes.
3.You never raise your hand.
4.Use your mouth and your manners; if two people talk at the same time –
each decide who will go first “I hear more than one voice, you need to
work this out”
5.Think for 40 seconds; then turn and talk in a whisper – listen and add to
what your neighbor says. Whispering requires listening: 40 seconds of
thinking – 40 seconds of sharing

Share to the group the ideas of your partner. You are learning to
honor the thinking of others.

(L. Laminack, personal communication, December 8, 2009)

To access this Power Point

http://digitalreadingteacher.blogspot.com

Full Case Study available in the Summer, 2010

Journal of WSRA

Pennell, C., 2010. Improving student writing

through classroom talk: A case study. WSRA
Journal, Vol. 49 (2), pp 5-18
References
Alexander, R. (2009). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking
classroom talk (4th ed). Thirsk: Dialogos.

Calkins, L. (2009). A quick guide to teaching second grade writers

with units of study. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth: NH.

Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching

and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Smith, F. (1987). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into

education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.