TEACHERS’ CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HIGH-QUALITY TEXT DISCUSSIONS & ITS Relationship with practice

1. TEACHERS’ CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HIGH-QUALITY TEXT DISCUSSIONS & ITS Relationship with practice With Implications for Professional Development Elaine Wang Learning Sciences and Policy Ph.D. Student University of Pittsburgh elw51@pitt.edu NCTE Annual Convention, Chicago November 18, 2011

2. Statement of Problem Conceptualization of Quality Practice Learning Outcome Enacted Practice

3. Prior Research • Teachers’ beliefsinfluence their perception and decisions, which affect quality of instruction (Clark, 1988; Pajares, 1992; Pintrich, 1990; Richardson, 1996; Richardson et al., 1991) • Changes in teacher behavior often lead to changes in teacher belief (Guskey, 1986), suggesting recursive nature of relationship • Debate about consistency-inconsistency of beliefs and practice (Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Readence, Konopak, & Wilson, 1991) without probing/development of theory of conditions • Lack of research examining teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality instruction, enacted practice, and student learning outcome altogether (Fang, 1996; Pajares, 1992)

4. Research Questions • To what extent are teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality text discussions aligned with best practices? • In what ways or along which dimensions are they most aligned or not? • To what extent are teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality text discussions aligned with their enacted practice? • In what ways or along which dimensions are they most aligned or not? • How might teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality text discussions interact with their enacted practice to influence student learning outcome?

5. Research Design and Context Alignment along 6 dimensions Conceptualization of Quality Practice Researched Best Practices Learning Outcome Alignment along 6 dimensions Perceived Constraints Enacted Practice Alignment along 6 dimensions

6. Participants • 7 – elementary language arts teachers each from a different school in a large public district in Maryland • 3-4thgrade teachers, 4-5thgrade teachers • 6 females, 1 male • 4 Caucasian, 2 African-American, 1 Asian • 1 Doctorate, 4 Master’s, 2 Bachelor’s • all certified to teach • average 12.28 years of teaching experience (range 5-30 years)

7. Data Collection

8. Data Analysis Dimensions & Codes (Nystrand et al., 2003; Soter et al, 2009) • Question Source • Teacher vs. Student • Question Type • Close-Ended vs. Authentic • Question Cognitive Level • Basic Comprehension/Recall/Summary vs. Inference/Analysis • Response Evaluation • No/Low-Level vs. High-Level/Withheld • Response Sharing1 • Serial, Divergent • Sensemaking1 • Teacher vs. Individual Students vs. Class/Collective 1 Unit of analysis = an exchange

9. Alignment of Teachers’ Conceptualization of High-Quality Text Discussions with Best Practices

10. Alignment of Teachers’ Enacted Practice of Facilitating Text Discussions with Best Practices

11. Alignment of Teachers’ Conceptualization of High-Quality Text Discussions with Enacted Practice

12. Teacher-Level MSA Student Achievement Status and Growth Status 1 L = Low; M = Medium; H = High, based on percentile rank of class average calculated using larger sample (n=61) 2 Based on percentile rank of median percentile growth calculated using larger sample (n=61), and adjusted for Achievement Status 2010 3 MSA achievement data is incomplete; this participant was excluded from analyses involving student learning outcome

13. Influence of Teachers’ Conceptualization of High-Quality Text Discussions & Enacted Practice on Student Learning

14. Type 1: Conceptualization = Enacted Practice

15. Type 2: Conceptualization > Enacted Practice

16. Type 3: Conceptualization < Enacted Practice

17. Summary of Findings Type 1: Conceptualization = Enacted Practice Type 2: Conceptualization > Enacted Practice Type 3: Conceptualization < Enacted Practice

18. Focal Teachers’ Background Data1 1 Based on interview and survey data

19. Irwin (Type I) vs. Dana (Type 2)

20. Cognitive Level of Questions

21. Irwin: Inference / Analysis 1 T: Now as he climbs higher, the ledge gets narrower. How do you think Doug is feeling? 2 S: (multiple students answering) About ready to cry. Scared. 3 T: Tina? 4 S: He's afraid. He probably wants to get down, but he keeps pushing himself (inaudible). 5 T: Right, because he has a motive to go and find his brother. So he's scared, right? Diana? 6 S: He finds (inaudible)…his fear place, the ledge that small (inaudible). 7 T: …He's getting more scared. As a reader, how do you feel about this whole thing? 8 S: I'd be, I feel like while I want to know what happens next, if he does lose his fear place (inaudible). 9 T: Ok, so, if he feels like, I’m going to use that word, anticipation, I wonder what's going to happen next, right? So as a reader, you're feeling a little anticipation when you're reading this, don't you? You might even feel a little bit scared with him, even though it's not you that's actually doing this.

22. Dana: Basic Comprehension/Recall 1 T: Now he's on this ridge, the sides are enclosing him, so how would it make him feel? Think about his thoughts and his action. He's reassured, why is he reassured? Because now he's found strength. He doesn't feel as though he's going to fall off, because what's on both sides of him now? 2 S: Walls. 3 T: A wall, alright? There are walls, so he feels like now I can do this forever. I got this. I have strength. I can do this forever, as long as there's what? 4 S: (together) A wall. 5 T: A wall on what? 6 S: (together) On both sides. 7 T: On both sides because once you remove one of those walls, he immediately is going to feel as though he might... 8 S: Tip over. 9 T: Not just tip over, but what? 10 S: Fall. 11 T: Fall off.

23. Sensemaking

24. Irwin: Class/Collective Sensemaking 1 T: How do you think the father…feels about all of this? He 's standing there, mother's mad, saying making me serve your soldiers, and you've got my son in jail. You know, my daughter's helping your son after he fainted. How do you think the British commander, Thomas' father feels right about now? 2 S: Kind of guilty? 3 S: Because… 4 S: I think he kind of feels regretful because now he finds out that Eliza…is helping out his son, and he thought maybe…that the Patriots weren't good people. 5 T: Ok, excellent comments, both of you. 6 S: I agree with Jackie. I think he feels guilty because he did all these things and he told his son stories about them, and then he realized they could be nice…he feels like, why I just do that, and now she's helping out my son, and…I just took …her brother… 7 S: I agree with (Name) and Jackie because I know if I did that to somebody, I would feel guilty, so I think he would feel the same way.

25. Dana: Teacher Sensemaking 1 T: …What did he do? Here, the character starts the action, he's out in this open space, he's back on this ledge. The wind is coming from every direction. What is happening to poor Doug? He was reassured… "Doug held tightly to the rock." He held tightly to the rock because he didn't want to look down, but he did. What happens when he looks down? 2 S: (multiple students answering) You get frightened. 3 T: You get frightened, but it didn't frighten him because there was plenty of room this time between him and the edge, so now he's come out. Look at the picture on page 189…It's open, so he doesn't have to be on that narrow ledge. So is he afraid, do you think? 4 S: No. 5 T: He is not. So how is it impacting Doug, Mike? 6 S: It's impacting Doug by that (inaudible)… 7 T: No. It's impacting Doug, Mike, because now he's confident, alright? He's more confident because when he came out to the open space, even though it was windier, there was still plenty of room between him and the edge.

26. Perceived Constraints

27. Curriculum Framework as Constraint Dana: We can't be as creative or do as much as we would like outside [the box]. We try, we do add…personality …but it really is challenging [because] we are mandated to do particular [things]…. People come around your room, and they're expecting to see you at a certain place at a certain time, and not like you have to be on the same word each day, but they are expecting us to be at a certain pace, all at the same pace at the same time. Christine: I view it as a hindrance because it is too specific... It makes people a little bit lazier than they should be. You read that and think, “Good, the County says I should be at this point on this date at this time, I guess I should do it this way”, so it does sort of cut off that creative flow..

28. Testing as Constraint Christine: Testing, that's probably the biggest thing…You have less freedom really to move skills and things around where you think you should teach them throughout the school year because they're going to have a FAST test that models the MSA, and if they haven't learned the skills, then how are they supposed to take the test… Arlene: The constraints are the amount of testing the district does per year, because we have our FAST test, we have our SRI test three times a year. There's a lot that they have to include.

29. Mary (Type 3) “I [definitely] tend to align my goals [for teaching reading] with what the County has given us in terms of what these students have to know by a certain time frame.”

30. Implications for Theory Development Conceptualization of Quality Practice Interactional Learning Outcome Mutually Informing / Recursive Enacted Practice

31. Implications for Professional Development + + o -

32. Implications for Professional Development • Align conceptualization of high-quality teaching with best practices • importance of student as source of questions • importance of sharing divergent responses and weaknesses of serial sharing • Align enacted practice with best practices • cognitive level of questions • evaluation of student responses • Align conceptualization with enacted practice • cognitive level of questions • For Type 2 teachers, consider leveraging teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality teaching • For Type 3 teachers, help them become aware of good enacted practices and use these to develop more permanent beliefs about best practices

33. Limitations & Next Steps • Limited sample size • Only one interview conducted to elicit teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality text discussions • Inter-rater reliability of coding yet to be established • Probe more into the possible conditions that affect how well teachers’ conceptualization of high-quality text discussions align with best practices • Probe more into possible “high-leverage” beliefs and practices • Use of standardized test as measure of students’ ability to engage in high-level thinking limits interpretation of results

34. Thank You! Please address additional questions and comments to: Elaine Wang University of Pittsburgh elw51@pitt.edu