A TEACHER’S STRATEGIES IN EXPANDING DISCOURSE IN AN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASSROOM: A Case Study at a Primary School in Bandung Affiliated to an Islamic School in Singapore.

(1)

ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu

LIST OF TABLES

(4)

10

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

In this chapter, three theories that underpin this research are discussed. The first section elaborates the principles of expanding classroom discourse originally derived from Vygotsky‟s view. The second section discusses discourse strategies on expanding classroom discourse. The last section elaborates the expansion system of systemic functional linguistics of Halliday (1994) who has a parallel view to Vygotsky vis-à-vis learning language as social activity (Mercer, 2008: Emilia, 2010).

2.1 Principles of Expanding Classroom Discourse

Expanding classroom discourse rises as a critique to the initiation-respond- feedback pattern that is steadily found in the classroom conversation (Rose, 2005; Gibbons, 2002; 2009; Lipman, 2005; Mercer & Wegerif, 1999; Zhi Tan, 2007; Weihua Yu, 2009; Mauréen, 2009). The term expanding itself is from the concept of logico-semantic in systemic functional linguistics in which the participants of the conversation elaborate, extend and enhance the conversation (Halliday, 1994; Eggins and Slade, 1997; Martin, 1992).

(5)

11

ought to provide strong support to help their students to make more complete, explicit and grammatical meaning.

The most well-known example of expanding the discourse given by Gibbons (2009) is Nigel and his parent conversation that is taken from Halliday‟s research. It has been described that the father encourages Nigel to tell what he is referring to. Later the mother responds to Nigel‟s extended version by asking a question to extend the story and providing the wordings that the Nigel is attempting. In the end of the dialogue, Nigel does produce a retelling of the event that could be understood by someone although at this point he could not complete the dialogue. Therefore, Gibbons (2009) highlights that in expanding the discourse, the teacher‟s role is crucial in order to encourage the students to

elaborate, extend and enhance their conversation. As the results, the way the students elaborate, extend and enhance the conversation is the indication of their language development.

(6)

12

This premise basically underlines two fundamental aspects. The first is social interaction and the second is cognitive development, which are interrelated. The first aspect, social interaction, may develop students‟ voluntary attention, logical memory and concept formation skills (Lawson, 2002). In return, the second aspect, students‟ cognitive development, depends on how the teacher interacts with the students in meaningful social activities.

The interrelation between those aspects may occur in the situation in which the teacher assists the students to develop their potential. In Vygotsky views, the situation is well-known as Zone Proximal Development (henceforth ZPD). ZPD is a point at which the students need the teacher‟s assistance to get the knowledge (Kozulin, 1986; Mooney, 2000). It helps the students to negotiate the knowledge that they have already had and the knowledge that they will get.

The concept of ZPD has underlined the importance of involving the process of negotiation of the students‟ concepts and social life in the classroom interaction. Vygotsky highlights that the process of negotiation needs the development of inquiry process in acquiring the knowledge (Mercer, 2008; Mercer, et al., 1999). Therefore, the teacher ought to create the classroom interaction where the inquiry is highly proposed in the process of social interaction. Gibbons argues

(7)

13

Therefore, in line with the emphasis of zone proximal development, this study focused on the aspects to enhance students‟ thinking and their involvement in English language learning. This research underlines two principles of teaching in expanding the classroom discourse. These principles are to create classroom that is reflecting social interaction and developing thinking.

2.1.1 Reflecting Social Interaction

The first principle is reflecting social interaction in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, social interaction has been the central of Social Development theory or Socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky. He proposed that cognitive development is engendered through participating in socially meaningful activities that are mediated by language (Mooney, 2000; Tasker et al., 2008). Riddle and Dabbagh (1999: 1) highlight

According to Vygotsky, humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to mediate their social environments. Initially children develop these tools to serve solely as social functions, ways to communicate needs. Vygotsky believed that the internalization of these tools led to higher thinking skills.

(8)

14

regarding school as social interaction site means conducting process of sharing experiences between teacher and students in series of exchanges in order to extend thinking and enhance students‟ learning.

In classroom, the social interaction can be seen from two factors. The first is in the way teacher creates the classroom environment which ensure students to share experiences. The second is in the way the teacher builds activities, which give students plenty of opportunities to develop and create their experiences.

In creating environment, the teacher may regard students as interlocutors in conversation. Aziz (2005) argues that successful interaction most likely depends on how the speakers and hearers care of each other‟s feeling. Harmer (2007) argues that this feeling can be created in the way teacher recognizes students‟ names and listening their comments and questions. He also argued that teachers also need to show that they are interested in what students say. Moreover, the teacher also has to pay attention not only through listening but also through approaching them and making eye contact. Lipman adds,

To appreciate is to pay attention to what matters, to what is of importance. Never mind the seeming circularity: that what matters is of importance precisely because we pay attention to it. It is only partially true. Things in nature are neither better nor worse than other things, but when we compare and contrast them in particular perspective, we pay attention to and, therefore, values their similarities and differences (2003:265).

(9)

15

what is already known. Teachers may bridge and connect students‟ knowledge by moving their discourse from everyday to subject discussion. Edwards and Westgate said:

Knowledge is constructed by the individual knower, through an interaction between what is already known and new experiences…talk is central to this view of learning and knowing…because it helps learners to make explicit to themselves and others what they know, understand and can do (as cited in Burns and Myhill, 2004: 36).

In addition, to develop social interaction, the teacher may base his activities on problems (Wilks, 1995). Facing problems can encourage the students to solve and discuss solutions. Meyers (1986:8) says “students must actively struggle with real problems”. In other words, the students will involve and stay focus to the discussion if the discussion aims to uncover the problems that may appear in real social interaction. Meyers (1986:61) also argues “beginning a class with a problem or question related to the topic for that day also helps students settle down and focus their attention”. Therefore challenging students with question or problem not only can reduce inattention and in return involve them in active discussion but also it is as indication that the teacher has reflected his classroom as social interaction site.

Therefore, in this research the characteristic of classroom that reflects social interactions are, first, the teacher recognize the students‟ name. Second, the

(10)

16

question. Fourth, the teacher involves the students‟ experiences in classroom

discussion. Fifth, the teacher begins the classroom interaction with the problems.

2.1.2 Developing Thinking

The other principles of expanding classroom discourse are development of students thinking ability. The development of thinking has been the central aims of acquiring knowledge (Lipman, 2003). Dewey (as cited in Hill, 2006:2) argues “the process of inquiry as the way by which we attain knowledge, whether it be the commonsense knowledge that guides the ordinary affairs of our lives, or the sophisticated knowledge arising from scientific inquiry”.

The term of thinking literarily means to use the mind to consider ideas and make judgments, to believe something or have something as an opinion (Oxford Dictionary, 1999: 539). This term has triggered some education experts, who believe the important of thinking in education, to develop the term of thinking in education. Some definitions of thinking that are adopted in this research are first, critical thinking is thinking that helps us to solve problems and make decision (Sternberg in Hay, 1987). Seconds, critical thinking is thinking that helps students understand the logical connectives of English (Adler in Hay, 1987). 2002). Last, thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or to do (Ennis, 1996).

(11)

17

the questions (Meyers, 1986; Brown & Hirst, 2007). Moreover, Morgan and Saxton argues

The classic concept of learning is that it occurs when the teacher asks the questions and the students can answer them, but the reality is that learning does not occur until the learner needs to know and can formulate the questions for himself (Bolitho, 2008: 2).

Second, the students‟ thinking is developed when they actively articulate their thought (Fawcett & Garton, 2005). Moreover, they add that the number of utterances used in interaction between participants indicate the cognitive development. Third, the development is characterized by the use of clause complex produced by the students (Punchard, 2002).

Basically, this principle is influenced by the first principle. Developing the students‟ thinking ability depends on the way the teacher creates the classroom environment and builds the classroom activities. The student‟s thinking mainly requires the use of particular strategies in regarding the students as individuals who have experiences. In other words, the teacher‟s strategy in respecting the students and involving them in the classroom discussion impacts the development of the students‟ thinking.

Therefore, in this research, the teacher‟s discourse strategy places crucial roles in applying both principles. As mentioned in the background of the chapter I, the teacher‟s strategy in expanding the discourse has been the trend topic of the

(12)

18

second strategy is in connection with the way the teacher uses referential question. The third strategy is concerned with the importance of teacher‟s silence and pauses. The last strategy deals with uptake in feedback.

2.2 Discourse Strategies

Discourse strategy refers to verbal strategies that people employ to understand each other within the context of a particular conversation (Gumperz, 1982). In classroom context, discourse strategy is used by the teacher to ask students particular questions and to respond their statements and questions in classroom discussion. This study focused on four discourse strategies. Those are good rapport, referential questions, extended wait time and uptake strategy.

2.2.1 Good Rapport

Harmer (2007) argued that rapport is an appropriate relationship between students and teacher in order to create a supportive learning environment. The rapport depends on the way the teacher uses the verbal and nonverbal messages in his or her classroom. Kostelnik et al. said that “how much the teachers say, what they say, how they speak, to whom they talk, and how well they listen, all influence the students‟ estimation of self-worth” (as cited in Stanulis & Manning, 2002: 5).

(13)

19

The good rapport is established with calling students by their name or proper noun and employing direct and indirect responses to the students‟ questions and statements.

The use of proper noun indicates that the teacher recognizes the students. Students want their teacher knows who they are. They want their teacher know their names. They will feel excited if their teacher knows them and has some understanding of their characters (Harmer, 2007). The use of proper noun in also functions to monitor the students‟ off-task and to involve all students in classroom activities. Bishop said:

Teachers should invest some class time in learning students' names, asking about other classes, inquiring about students' lives outside college, or sharing something about their own. These informal interactions offer a chance to use facilitative responses. It may seem like schmoozing, but studies indicate that this kind of hospitality pays off in higher student achievement (2000:1).

The use of direct and indirect responses to the students‟ questions and statements indicates that the teacher listens to the students attentively. The form of these responses depends on the degree of the students‟ questions and statements.

(14)

20

responding their statements appropriately encourage students to participate and extend their talk.

The example of establishing good rapport in this study is shown in the following excerpt.

No. Turn Participants Talks

65 S4 Can I write with this?

66 T Yes,

67 S4 Thank you

68 T You are welcome

69 S8 Sir, What is this?

70 T I don't know, what is that?

NV SS [noisy]

72 S8 Mr. Look!

73 T I don't know, what is that?

74 S7 Mr. Lupa!

75 T How can?

78 T [name 5], [name 4], [name 3], Where is your note book?...Eh, [name 7]

Taken from data 1 with some modification

The italic words in the transcription above are the examples of good rapport. There are three strategies. The first is the use of direct response as indicated in turn 61 and 68, which is used to give permission and accepting gratitude. The second is the use of indirect response as indicated in turn 70, 73 and 75, which is used to develop students thinking. The third is the use of proper noun as indicated in turn 78, which is functioned to and the teacher uses the direct response to the students‟ question and statement. All strategies show that the students have established good rapport to their students.

2.2.2 Referential Question in Initiation Moves

(15)

21

In this study, this question is categorized into the teacher‟s and the students‟ questions. The teacher‟s referential question functions to acknowledge what students think and know, to challenge and develop students‟ knowledge, and to bridge the students‟ real world with their lesson (Meyers, 1986; Brown & Freeman, 2000; Groenke & Paulus, 2007; Myhill, 2006; Burns & Myhill, 2004; Mercer, 2008). It also indicates the students have developed their thinking ability (Nystard, 2006).

The referential question usually appears in initiation move (Brown, 1994). The default clause is full open interrogative (Zhi, 2007). However, in the conversation the clause usually is in the form elliptical, closed interrogative and open interrogative (Eggins and Slade, 1997).

The significant contribution of this question to classroom interaction has been proved in previous research. First, the students who are taught with more referential questions give longer and more syntactically complex responses (Brock in Nunan and Bailey, 2009). Second, this question can help establish a climate of equal participation between students and teacher. It also can promote and sustain discussion (Groenke & Paulus, 2007; Apleebee et al., 2003). Third, teacher‟s referential question can encourage collaborative and student-centered dialogue (Nystard & Gamora in Groenke & Paulus, 2007).

(16)

22

question not only generates the discussion (Groenker & Paulus, 2007; Apleebee et al., 2003) but also create „disequilibrium‟ condition in which the students are provoked to involve in the discussion (Meyers, 1986). As this research‟s concern on the expanded IRF pattern, therefore the referential question holds significance role in this research to initiate students to involve and contribute actively on expanding the classroom discourse.

The example of the use of referential question in initiation move is shown in the following excerpt.

No. turn Participants Talks

67 T Repeat. Number one, It is market day.==. It is market day. Number

two...still number one It is market day. Number two, What does farmer Brown sell? Who can tell me what the difference? [Name 2]?

68 S2 ==Yes, I know

12 (NV) [Pauses three seconds]

69 S2 The sounds

70 T The sounds? What‟s the difference about the sound, [name 2]?

Source: data 3 with modification

(17)

23

2.2.3 Extended Wait Time

Extended wait time is two seconds or more of pauses provided by the teacher after explaining and or questioning (Nunan, 1998; Richad & Lockhart, 1995; Gibbons, 2009). The extended of wait time is to provide students a thinking time (Gibbons, 2009). It also provides the students a period of “private thought” (Moriber in Olajide & Adeoye, 2010).

Research on wait time shows that two or three second extra wait time for students can lead to more extended, complex, and better answers (Dillon as cited by Gibbons, 2009). Increasing wait time also makes students able to say much, clearly and demonstrate their understanding (Gibbons, 1990). Moreover, the extended wait time after teacher‟s explanation most likely enhances students‟

achievement (Olajide & Adeoye, 2010). It also increases not only the number of students‟ response and more complex answer, but also student interaction (Walsh, 2005). However, another research shows that the number of pauses provided by the teacher much more relates to the type of questions the teacher asked. The higher-cognitive challenged questions need more than two or three wait time (Duell, 1992; Henning et al., 2008).

(18)

24

teacher shares control of the classroom with his students and the improvement of students‟ contribution on expanding classroom discourse, then providing extended wait time is importance in giving students‟ time to think and articulate their

thought, as Meyers (1986) says “thinking demands periods of silence, reflection, and incubation that are uninterrupted by any words”.

The example of extended wait time is shown in the following transcriptions.

No. turn participants Talks

67 T Repeat. Number one, It is market day.==. It is market day. Number

two...still number one It is market day. Number two, What does farmer Brown sell? Who can tell me what the difference? [Name 2]?

68 S2 ==Yes, I know

12 (NV) [Pauses three seconds]

69 S2 The sounds

70 T The sounds? What‟s the difference about the sound, [name 2]?

Source: data 3 with modification

(19)

25

2.2.4 Uptake Strategy in Feedback Moves

Uptake is a strategy used by the teacher in following up move in the form of restating students‟ response or turning students‟ response into questions in order to encourage further elaboration (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005). It comes from the work of Marshall, Smagorinsky, and Smith and Nystrad (Nystard, 2006). Uptake involves restating students‟ response or turning it into questions in order

to encourage further elaboration (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005).

In using uptake, teachers do not judge or evaluate students‟ responses by saying “good”, “right” or “that‟s it”. Evaluative comments of this type tend to

imply closure and shut down further discussion (Cullen, 2005). Uptake is also the most effective when it is used with the strategy of asking broader, more open-ended questions that focus on a key issues or interpretive problems (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005).

(20)

26

The contribution of previous research mentioned above shows that the use of uptake strategy is necessary in promoting discussion. The uptake probes students‟ thought and belief. As this research concerning to the way teacher expands the classroom discourse, then the uptake strategy is most likely crucial on expanding the classroom discourse, as Cullen (Harmer, 2007) says that giving feedback to the students‟ responses plays a crucial part in clarifying and building students‟ knowledge.

The example of uptake in this research is shown in the following transcription.

No. turn participants Speech Function Talk

42 T Continuing (I) Ok, good. Next We see two birds sleeping beside

the window

43 S R. Dev. Elaborate There is much is two

44 T F: uptake There are two birds, right?

45 S R. Answer Yes

46 T F: uptake Are you sure they are sleeping?

47 Ss R. Answer Yes

48 T F: Uptake Yes?

Source: data 2

The italic phrases are the example of feedback in the form of uptake. In the turn 44, the teacher gives feedback to the student‟s response that states that the birds are more than two. The teacher‟s feedback, which is in the form of question tag, is

(21)

27

respond the question (Groenke, 2007:43) as the question is took up and built on their previous comments (Applebee et al., 2003).

2.3 Expansion System

Expansion system is a type of clause complex in logico-semantic relation of Systemic Functional Linguistics (see Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004; Eggins, 2004). Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is developed by Halliday who got influenced from Firtht‟s system-structure theory, from Prague Linguistics, from the glossomatic theory of Hjelmslev and from British and American anthropology linguistic tradition, i.e Malinoswki, Sapir and Whorf (see Halliday, 1994; Painter, 1999; Christie, 2005; Emilia, 2005; 2009).

SFL also has similar view with socio constructivism‟s Vygotsky that believes that the cognitive development of individual much more relates to the extent of how language culturally and psychologically used in social meaningful activities. In SFL, learning and cognitive process are same things. Both are semiotic process, process of making meaning (Painter, 1999; Christie, 2005; Emmit & Pullock, 1995). The process of making meaning will be happen in the present of mediums or resources for making meaning, which is language (Halliday, 1994). Painter says

(22)

28

Both Vyostky and Halliday place language in the highest level of hierarchy in social context. They believe that language is very important in developing human capacity to live the life. Language is not passive resources. Similar with cognitive process, the language develops dynamically, independently and interactively in conscious way (Painter, 1999). This view directly contradicts with the concept of acquisition in which language is much more effective acquired in subconscious matter (Krashen, 1981). In other word, both Vygotsky and Halliday see through language, the cognitive development of individuals is brought about into conscious process (Jones, 2007).

The expansion system is one of indicators that language needs logic process in conscious way. Expansion builds up logic of natural language (Halliday, 1994). It consists of group of clauses in which one clause is expanded by other clauses (Halliday, 1994). The clause can be in the form of paratactic, independent clause, or hypotactic, dependent clauses (Halliday, 1994).

Moreover, the expansion would not work without the present of conjunction. Inserting conjunctions to each move of talk in the transcription can be used as test to know whether the subsequent moves elaborate, extend or enhance the previous ones (Martin, 1992; Eggins and Slade, 1997).

(23)

29

but. The conjunctions of because and so are used to give the detail of reasons and

condition (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992; Eggins, 2004). Both are the conjunction that are used to link idea in the enhancement relationship. Moreover, the conjunctions of but and and are used to add or contrast the information in the extension relationship (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992; Eggins, 2004).

Therefore, this research is focused on how the students uses because, so,

and, but in extending and enhancing their classroom discourse. This study also

focuses on how the students elaborate the talk of previous contributions by giving the example and clarification. Moreover, in this study, the expansion systems are used as theoretical bases for finding out the linguistic features of how the classroom discourse has been elaborated, extended and enhanced.

2.3.1 Elaboration

(24)

30

The elaboration relationship in this context may be in the explicit form by using the word means or for example. The use of explicit mean is exemplified in the following excerpt:

No. turn Participants Speech Functions Talk

13 T Continuing: (I) So that‟s why you are sweaty

14 S1 R: Question (R) Sweaty?

15 T Res: probe (F: uptake) Sweaty?==

16 S1 Pro: Elaborate (R) ==I mean What in Bahasa ==sweaty?

17 S2 Res: answer (F) ==Berkeringat

Sources: Data 1 with modification

The italic turn above is the example of elaboration relation. This exchange begins with the teacher reinitiates his talk by continuing his previous move (turn 13). The student responds by asking the word of sweaty in elliptical question (turn 14). In return, the teacher gives feedback by turning the student‟s response into

question/uptake (turn 15). The student, then, takes his teacher‟s turn (signified with ==). The student elaborates his 14 turn by restating his question using explicit I mean (turn 16).

Moreover, the clause in the turn 14 is as primary clause and the clause in turn 16 is as secondary one. The secondary elaborates the primary with using explicit

means, as indication of apposition (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen,

2004). Both clauses are paratactic relation or independent clauses.

(25)

31

40 T C: question (I) Where do you live? And the answer of

question?

41 S Res: Answer (R) I live in

42 T Rej: Probe (F) I live at

43 S Res:Dev. Elaborate (R) I live at Jalan Jingga No. 10 Padalarang

Indonesia

Sources: Data 1

In the excerpt above, the student elaborates his own previous move. In the turn 41, the student answers the question. However, the answer uses inappropriate preposition, as the teacher directly corrects the error. In return, the student restates his move using implicit conjunction, as indicated in turn 43. The student‟ clause in turn 41 is as primary clause, and his clause in turn 43 is as secondary clause. The secondary restates the information in the turn 41. Both clauses are paratactic in relation using implicit conjunction mean that indicates apposition (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004).

2.3.2 Extension

Extension basically indicates that one clause extends another by giving additional information (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004). In extending, secondary clause can add the information, contrast the information and give alternative to the primary clause by using coordinate conjunction as or, and and but (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004; Martin, 1994; Eggins, 2004).

(26)

32

Conjunction and indicates the secondary clause add the information to primary one (Halliday, 1994). It does not implicate clausal or temporal relationship between them (Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004). The last, but indicates the contrasting additives (Halliday, 1994). These three conjunctions presents implicitly and explicitly in paratactic form. However, the other additive conjunction comprising like, so, and also are usually indicated in non-symmetrical relation, hypotactic.

The example of extension relation is shown in the following excerpt.

15 T C:P:elaborate (I) Please, open your text book at….

16 S Res:D:extend (R) twenty three

17 T Rej:clarify (F) Twenty two

18 S Res:D:acknowledge (R) Ada

19 T Rej:resolve (F) Good. Let me check one by one. Twenty

two….ok...twenty two. 20 S Res:D:extend (R) The title is "Grandpa's house" Sources: Data 2 with modification

(27)

33

and. Therefore, this exchange has been extended in paratactic or independent

relation.

2.3.3 Enhancement

The basic premise of enhancement is that one clause enhances the meaning of another by giving additional information which relates to the time, place, manner and cause or condition of the information that happened (Halliday, 1994). The conjunctions that are used to link this relation are because and so.

Both because and so are for causal conjunction (Halliday, 1994; Eggins, 2004; Halliday & Mattheissein, 2004). They can be indicated in the form explicit and implicit (Martin, 1994; Halliday, 1994). Because indicates effect and cause relation, whereas so shows cause and effect relation (Halliday, 1994: 234). However, because is usually in hypotactic relation and so is in paratactic relation (Martin, 1994). The use of these conjunctions is exemplified in the following excerpt:

a) [4:56] Why did you win?

-because we trained hard

(Taken from Martin, 1994: 193).

b) ///In her books, Tove Jansson spoke initially to children// so the hero is himself quite young/// (Taken from Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 414).

Both examples above show the use of because and so in the clauses. In the example (a) above, „because we trained hard‟ is dependent clause. It will be

(28)

34

is called hypotactic in which the dependent clause depends on the presence of dominant one (Halliday, 1994). In contrast, in the example (b) above, both clauses are independent. „In her books, Tove Jansson spoke initially to children‟ is primary clause. „So the hero is himself quite young‟ is secondary clause. The

secondary enhances the primary one by giving the detail of reasons of something happened in particular information.

Therefore, in conjunction with this research, the expansion system is as a basic foundation of how the discourse is expanded. The expansion system may indicate the pattern of most exchanges that is more than Initiation-Response-Feedback pattern. The pattern characterizes the students‟ ability in elaborating, extending and enhancing the discourse. These three relations are featured with the use of implicit and explicit conjunction. Therefore, the use of conjunctions can be seen as the students‟ ability to link some clauses in previous moves to other clauses in subsequent turns.

(29)

35

Second, it may indicate that the students optimize their higher thinking capacity. In the developing the discourse, as mentioned previously, the students most likely clarify their idea, add the information that they thought, and contrast their friends‟ or their teacher‟s idea that opposite with their own belief. The students may also give conditional and causal reasons of how the information is important as part of the topic discussion. Clarifying, adding, contrasting, and giving reasons are some indicators of critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1996; Fisher, 2001).

(30)

36

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

In this chapter, the research method is presented. It begins with the elaboration of the research design. The setting and participants are also discussed in line with the limitation of the study. Moreover, the techniques of data collection with the strength and the weakness of the technique are elaborated. In the final section, the data analysis is discussed in conjunction with the research questions.

3.1 Research Design

This research employs a descriptive-qualitative design that describes and interprets settings as they are (Patton, 1990 in Hoepfl, 1997). This research also adopts the case study for some reasons. First, since this research focuses on a particular classroom in a particular school with a particular teacher and students, case study is suitable because one of its characteristics is bound system and contextualization (Punch, 1998 as cited by Silverman, 2005; Nunan & Bailey, 2009; Hood in Heigham & Crocker, 2009). Duff (2008) emphasizes the importance of bound system and contextualization as follows:

…the data reflect natural changes in the learners’ behavior and knowledge, influenced by numerous possible factors, such as the environment, physical maturation, cognitive development, and schooling, which the researcher must also take into account in order to arrive at valid conclusion concerning learning processes and outcomes (p.41 as cited by Nunan and Bailey, 2009: 158).

(31)

37

the students to participate in the classroom and then extend the classroom conversation. These jobs are not easy because teacher-talks-students-listen has been the commonest characteristic of classrooms in Indonesia. Therefore, involving and learning deeply the way teacher initiates students to expand classroom communication has been valuable resources.

Last, Hood (in Heigham & Crocker, 2009) elaborates that the results of qualitative case study do not prove anything in positivist sense rather they are used in two ways. First, it is used to improve the conditions or practice for the particular case in which the research is conducted. Second, it is used to widen the case to other settings that have similar characteristics (Connole, Smith, & Wiseman, 1993; Hancook, 1998; Johnson 1992; Hakim 1987). Therefore, by using a case study design, this research is expected to give some reflective sense to the teacher that is involved as a participant because sense of reflective is important in improving the practice of teaching. Moreover, the results of this research can be used as a model of how a teacher in Indonesia expands the classroom conversation because Indonesia has different culture with Western countries. Furthermore, the findings of this research may invite further research in this area in Indonesia so that the research on expanding the classroom discourse in Indonesia is developed.

3.2 Setting

(32)

38

declared to be an international school adopting Cambridge curriculum without neglecting national curriculum.

This research site is chosen for several reasons. First, the researcher has been familiar with the setting because it has been occurred a discussion about teaching English language for two years. Last, a lower primary class is chosen as participants in this research because the participants have their first encounter learning English language. Therefore, the findings of this research will be useful for teaching English language in both elementary and junior high of public school in Indonesia.

3.3 Participants

The participants of this study are an English teacher and his 9 students in academic term 2009/2010. The reason choosing the teacher is that the teacher has five years teaching English for young children in various contexts. His first experience was teaching English to primary students in public school, then continued in national plus school and finally in the school where the research setting is conducted. He also has developed speaking environment in his classroom for more than three years.

3.4 Data Collection

(33)

39

& Myhill, 2004; Mercer et al., 1999; Walsh, 2002; Nakamura, 2008; Chavez, 2007; Todd et al., 2008).

Second, using audio recording may give natural data. The audio recording device is usually small, so that it can be hidden. The hidden tape will not disturb the process of interaction. The students will participate in the classroom naturally. Therefore, the use of audio recording is suitable to reduce level of intrusiveness although it will not capture visual evidence that may contribute to the naturalness of the data (Walsh, 2002; Allwright & Bailly, 1991; Lazaraton, in Heighman and Crocker, 2009; Eggins and Slade, 1997).

The audio recording process is also conducted in several times to avoid the failure of electronic devices. In the final step, three recordings are chosen as the data of this research. Data 1 and data 2 were recorded on February the 2nd and 3rd. The last data was taken at April 29th, 2010. The three sets of data are chosen to provide comprehensive resource of the development of how the teacher and the students expand the discourse in the progress of time as the students’ ability in

English language is improving.

(34)

40

(1997) use intelligible abbreviation. Moreover, this system is able to capture authentic setting of the talk as proposed in naturalistic qualitative design.

3.5 Framework of Data Analysis

After transcription process, the data are categorized in conjunction with discourse units. One of the obvious discourse units is turn. Eggins and Slade (1997) define turn as all the talk that is produced by a participant before another participant gets it. The turn is coded in Arabic numeral such as 1, 2, 3…. For non verbal turn including pauses, the Arabic numeral is also used together with the abbreviation ‘NV’ (stands for nonverbal). The numbering process is shown in the following sample.

No. turn participants Talk

1 T Good Morning, students

2 Ss Good morning, sir

I NV T [pauses 3 seconds]

3 T Well, How are you?

In the above exchange, participant T (a teacher) talks for the first time. In turn 2, Ss respond verbally. Then, the teacher responds nonverbally by pausing for 3 seconds. After that, in turn 3, the teacher continues the conversation.

Another discourse unit that is very important is speech function. Eggins and Slade (1997) uses speech function to code talk by showing the distribution of initiation to responses. They divide speech function into two categories. The first is opening and the second is sustaining.

(35)

41

that the participants give goods and services. The grammatical realization of this function is modulated interrogative. The second is command that is used to demand goods and services. This function is usually in imperative forms.

The other opening functions are statement. The statement is categorized into two functions. They are the statement of fact and the statement of opinion. Both functions use full declarative. However, the statement of fact usually includes modality or appraising lexis.

The question is also categorized as opening. There are two types of questions i.e. questions of demanding fact in open and closed question and questions of demanding opinion in open and closed question. The open question is in the wh-interrogative form and the closed question is in the form of polar interrogative. The summary of the opening move is shown in the table 1.

Table 3.1: Speech Function Label for Opening Move (Eggins and Slade, 1997:194).

No .

Speech function and its

abbreviation Discourse purposes Grammatical realization

1 Attending (O:Atten) attention seeking Minor; formulaic

2 Offer (O:Offer) give goods and services modulated interrogative

3 Command (O:Comma) demand goods and services Imperative

4 Statement: fact (O:S:Fact) give factual information full declarative; no modality; no _appraisal

5 statement: opinion _(O:S:Opini) give attitudinal/evaluative _information full declarative; modality and or _{appraising lexis}

6 Question: open: fact _(O:Q:O:fact) demand factual _information wh-interrogative; no modality; no _appraisal

7

8 Question: open: opinion _{(O: Q: O: O)} demand opinion _information wh-interrogative; modality/ _appraisal

(36)

42

Moreover, the sustaining move is used to maintain negotiation. There are two categories of the sustaining move. The first is continuing and the second is reacting. The continuing is used by the participants who have been talking to re-initiate or clarify their previous move. The continuing comprises into monitoring, prolonging and appending. The monitoring is used to check the engagement of participants. This function is usually in the form of elliptical interrogative or minor clause.

The other continuing functions are prolonging and appending. In the prolonging, the participants add to their contribution by providing further information. However, in appending move, the participants add the information after other participants have interrupted. Both are categorized based on the expansion system i.e. elaboration, extension and enhancement.

In elaborating, the participants clarify, exemplify or restate the information using full declarative using for example, I mean and like. In extension, the participants offer additional or constructing information using full declarative that is linked with and, but, except and on the other hand. In enhancement, the participants qualify previous move by giving details of time, place, cause and condition using full declarative that is linked with then, so and because. The further information of the continuing moves is summarized in the table 2.

Table 3.2: Speech Function Label for Continuing Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997:201)

No.

Speech function and its abbreviation

Discourse purposes Grammatical realization

(37)

43

2 prolong: elaborate _(C:Pro:ela) clarify, exemplify or restate full declarative, linked (or linkable) _{by: for example, I mean, like}

3 by: and, but, except, on the other hand confronting. The supporting move consists of developing, accepting, complying, agreeing, answering and acknowledging. The confronting includes affirming, declining, disagreeing, withholding, disavowing and contradicting. The summary of the responding move is shown in table 3.

Table 3.3: Speech Function Label for Responding Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997)

No or exemplifying what has been said

full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: for example, I mean, like

2

develop: extend (Res: Dev: ext)

expands on a prior speaker's move by adding further supporting or contrasting details

full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: and, but, except, on the other hand

3

develop: enhance (Res: Dev: enh)

enhance on a prior speaker's move by providing a temporal, causal or conditional qualification

full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: then, so, because

(38)

44

5

Register (Res: reg)

display attention to the speaker repetition of speaker's word(s);

paralinguistic expression such as Mmm, Uh huh; ritual exclamations; minor clause

6 Comply (Res:

comp)

to carry out demand for goods and services

non-verbal; expressions of undertaking (e.g. OK)

7 Accept (Res: _acc) to accept proffered goods and _services non-verbal; expressions of thanking

8 Agree (Res:

agr)

to indicate support of information given

yes; positively polarity

9 Acknowledge _{(Res: ack)} to indicate knowledge of _{information given} expression of knowing

10 Answer (Res:

ans)

to provide information demanded complete missing structural elements

11 Affirm _{(Res: aff)} to provide positive response to _question yes; positively polarity

12 Disagree

to indicate inability to comply with prior command

non-verbal; no expression of undertaking; negation of verbal command

14 Withhold _{(Res: with)} to indicate inability to provide _{demanded information} negative elliptical declarative

15 Disavow _{(Res: Dis)} to deny acknowledgment of _information expression of disclaiming knowledge

16 Contradict

(Res: Cont)

to negate prior information No; switched polarity

The other reacting move is rejoinder. In this move, the participants give feedback to the previous response. The rejoinder includes the demanding of further details or offering alternative explanation. The further information of the rejoinder is shown in the table 4.

Table 3.4: Speech Function Label for Rejoinder Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997: 213).

No. Speech function and

its abbreviation Discourse purposes Grammatical realization

1 Check (Rej: chk) to elicit repetition of a _{misheard element or move} Elliptical polar interrogative

2 Confirm (Rej: conf) to verify information heard elliptical interrogative; wh/new

element from prior move

3

Clarify (Rej: Cla) to get additional information

needed to understand prior move

(39)

45

4

Probe (Rej: prob) to volunteer further

details/implications for confirmation

full clause, new subject, etc. but in logico-semantic relation with the moves it's tracking or tagged declarative

5 Resolve (Res: res) to provide clarification, _{acquiesce with information} elliptical declarative; mood adjunct _{of polarity or modality}

6 Detach (Res: det) to terminate the interaction silence; expression of termination

7

Rebound (Res: reb) to question relevance,

legitimacy, veracity of prior knowledge

wh-interrogative, elliptical

8 Counter (Res: cou) to dismiss addressee's right to

his/her position

non-elliptical declarative; negation of understanding/

9 Refute (Res: ref) to contradict import of

challenge

elliptical declarative; negation

10 re-challenge (Res:

re-ch)

to offer alternative position elliptical interrogative

After the process of transcription, data is analyzed in conjunction with the discourse strategies employed by the teacher and the expansion system that is developed by the students in responding moves. The analysis of discourse strategies consists of the analysis of the good rapport, the use of referential question, the extended wait time and the use of uptake in feedback. Moreover, the analysis of expansion system includes the analysis of elaboration, extension and enhancement.

Rapport is indicated by the use of name or proper noun. The proper noun is placed in bracket [ ]. This strategy also is shown in the way the teacher responds to the students’ questions and statements. The example of this strategy is shown in

the italic form in the following excerpt.

Moves Turn Ptcpn Talk Strategies

(40)

46

This question is also signified by the use of wh-interrogative. The use of this strategy is shown in the following example.

Moves Turn Prtcpn Talk Strategies bracket [ ]. This strategy is shown in the following example.

Moves Turn Prtcpn Talk Strategies

(41)

47

Turn Prtcpn Moves Talk Strategies

The analysis of extension involves the way the students add or contrast the previous turns in continuing and developing moves. The extension is signaled with the use of implicit and explicit conjunctions that represents the extension as

or, and, also, too and but.

The analysis of enhancement encompasses the way the students qualify the information in previous moves. The enhancement is marked by the use of implicit and explicit conjunctions that shows the enhancement as because and so.

(42)

87

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In this chapter, the conclusion of the research is drawn. It focuses on three issues that underpin this study. In the end of this chapter, the recommendation in conjunction with the further research in the area of expanding classroom discourse is presented.

5.1 Conclusion

This present study examines three research problems, i.e. the strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse, the linguistics features of the expanded discourse, and the extent to which the teacher applies the principles of expanded classroom discourse. It is firstly found that the strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse include good rapport with the students, referential questions in initiation moves, extended wait time and uptake strategy in feedback.

The teacher creates good rapport by using the students’ name, the

discourse marker ‘please’, and direct and indirect responses. The teacher uses

referential question in the form of closed interrogative and open interrogative with

question marker ’what’ and ‘who’. The teacher also provides more than two

(43)

88

It is secondly discovered that the strategies adopted by the teacher have expanded the classroom discourse by the way the students elaborate, extend and enhance the information. The linguistic features of elaboration are the implicit

conjunction ‘I mean’ and the use of Indonesian language. The extension is

signaled by the use of explicit conjunctions ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘too’ and implicit

conjunction ‘but’. The enhancement is featured by the use of explicit conjunctions

‘because’, ‘so’ and implicit ‘therefore’.

It is thirdly found that for some extent the teacher applies the two principles of expanded classroom discourse, i.e. reflecting classroom as social

interaction and developing the students’ thinking. The application of the first

principle is seen from the use of the discourse strategies in the classroom. Furthermore, the application of the second principle is shown from the expansion and the use of referential question by the students.

Based on the findings above, it can be said that the way the teacher communicates to his students, i.e. the way they use discourse strategies influence

the classroom’s situation especially the students’ involvement in the classroom

discussion. This can be identified that the application of the discourse strategies

has changed the students’ self esteem and curiosity. The rapport and wait time

have developed the students’ self esteem whereas the referential question and

uptake have developed the students’ curiosity.

(44)

89

5.2 Recommendation

The present study offers some methodologies and practical suggestions.

The methodologies’ recommendations are based on the aspects of the present

study that can be explored in further research. The practical suggestions are based on the findings of the present study that can be applied in the classroom.

This research uses descriptive qualitative design to analyze some strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse. Further research on this area is suggested to equip with quantification to analyze the students’ arguments

and the proportion of teacher’s domination. Moreover, this research found that the

teacher’s language influences the students’ self esteem and curiosity. Therefore,

for further research, it is recommended to analyze the influence of the teacher’s discourse strategies to these two aspects.

Furthermore, some practical suggestions are offered to teacher and school principles. First, this research recommends teachers to carefully use their language in communication with their students because their choice of language will construct or obstruct their learning potential. Moreover, their discourse strategies may also develop or lessen the students’ involvement. Therefore, having self-aware of the language use is important for teachers.

(45)

90

determine the successful of teaching and learning. Moreover, the teacher’s choice

(46)

x

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press.

Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. R., & Nystrand, M. (Oct 2008;). Creating Dialogic Spaces to Support Teachers' Discussion Practices: An Introduction. English Education; 41, 1; Academic Research Library , 4-12.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystard, M., & Gamora, A. (Fall 2003). Discussion-Based Approacher to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English.

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3 , 685-730.

Arnone, M. P. (2003). Using Instructional Design Strategies to Foster Curiosity. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology: http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-3/foster.html

Aukrust, V. G. (2004). Explanatory Discourse in Young Second Language Learners' Peer Play. Discourse Studies , 6 (3), 393-412.

Aziz, A. E. (2000). Refusing in Indonesian; Strategies and Politness Implication. Monash: Unpublished Disertation.

Berry, R. A. (2006). Inclusion, Power, and Community:Teachers and Students Interpret the Language of Community in an Inclusion Classroom.

American Educational Research Journal Vol. 43, No. 3 , 489–529.

Berry, R. A., & Englert, C. S. (200S). Designing Conversation: Book Discussion in a Primary Inclusion Classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 28 , 35-58.

Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic Discussion and the Paideia Seminar.

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, , 907–941.

Bishop, P. E. (November 1991). Resources for "Asking the Right Questions: Teacher Talk and Critical Thinking. ERIC Digest .

Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Introduction the Potential of Peer Talk.

(47)

xi

Blum-Kulka, S., Huck-Taglicht, D., & Avni, H. (2004). The Social and Discursive Spectrum of Peer Talk. Discourse Studies Vol. 6. No. 3 , 307-328.

Bolgatz, J. (2006). Revolutionary Talk: Elementary Teacher and Students Discuss Race in a Social Studies Class. The Social Studies , 259-264.

Bolitho, R. (2008). Teacher Talk and Learner Talk. European centre for Modern

Language .

Bourne, J., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Orchestrating Debate: A Multimodal Analysis of Classroom Interaction. UKLA , 64-72.

Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2007). Double Talk: Synthesizing Everyday and Science Language in the Classroom. Culture and Comparative Studies

Wiley Periodicals, Inc. , 708 – 732.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Developing an Understanding of the Mediating

Role of Talk in the Elementary Mathematics Classroom. Journal of

Classroom Interaction, Vol. 41.2 .

Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (March 2004). Interactive or Inactive? A Consideration of the Nature of Interaction in Whole Class Teaching. Cambridge Journal of

Education, Vol. 34. No. 31 , 35-49.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Learning and

Teaching. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Chaffee, J. (2000). Thinking Critically. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Chaffee, J., McMahon, C., & Stout, B. (2002). Critical Thinking, Thoughtful

Writing. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classroom: Research on Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chavez, M. (2006). Classroom-language Use in Teacher-led Instruction and

Teachers’ Self-Perceived Roles. IRAL 44 , 49–102.

Chavez, M. M. (2007). The Orientation of Learner Language Use in Peer Work: Teacher Role, Learner Role and Individual Identity. Language Teaching

(48)

xii

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science:Teacher Questioning and

Feedback to Students’ Responses. International Journal of Science

Education, Vol. 28, No. 11 , 1315–1346.

Christen, A. (Jan 2009). Transforming the Classroom for Collaborative Learning in the 21st Century. Techniques; 84, 1; Academic Research Library , 28-31.

Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in the Primary Years. Sydney: UNSW Press Book.

Connole, H., Smith, B., & Wiseman, R. (1993). Research Methodology 1: Issues

and Method in Research. Victoria: Deakin University.

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking skills: Developing Effective Analysis and

Argument. Hamsphire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cullen, R. (April 2002). Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F-Move.

ELT Journal, Vol. 56. No. 2 in ProQuest Educational Journal , 117-127.

Cullican, S. J. (2005). Troubling Teacher Talk: The Challange of Changing

Classroom Discourse Pattern. Melbourne: Deakin University.

Dashwood, A. (December 2005). Alternative Questioning: Teacher Role in Classroom Discussion. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 7, Issue. 4 .

Dixon, C. N., & Green, J. (Mar 2009). How a Community of Inquiry Shapes and is shaped by the Policies: The Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group Experinces as a Telling Case. Language Arts; 86, 4; Academic Research

Library , 280-289.

Doddington, C. (2007). Critical Thinking as a Source of Respect for Persons: A Critique. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 449-459.

Duell, O. K., Lynch, D. J., Ellsworth, R., & Moore, C. A. (1992). Wait-time in College Classes Taken by Education Majors. Research in Higher

education, Vol.33, No.4 , 483-495.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics 2nd edition. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell. Ellis, R. (1996). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

(49)

xiii

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic

Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Melbourne: Unpublished

Thesis.

Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta. Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung:

Rizqi Press.

Emmitt, M., & Pollock, J. (1991). Language and Learning. Melbourne: Oxford Univerity Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fauziah, A. (2009). A Potrait of Teacher Talk in EFL Classroom Interaction (A

Case Study at the First Grade of a Senior High School in Pekanbaru.

Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.

Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The Effect of Peer Collaboration on

Children’s Problem-solving Ability. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, Vol. 75 , 157–169.

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Franke, M. L., Weeb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Freud, M. I., & battey, D. (2009). Teacher's questioning to Elicit Students' Mathematical Thinking in Elementaray School Classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 60 , 380-392.

Gebhard, J. G. (2009). Teaching English as a Foreigner or Second Language:

Self-Development and Methodology Guide. Michigan: The University of

Michigan Press.

Gibbonns, P. (1991). Learning to Learn in a Second Language. Newtown: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

(50)

xiv

Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L., & Wolf, P. D. (2004). Oral Discourse in the Preschool Years and Later Literacy Skill. First Language, Vol. 24, No.

2 , 123–147.

Groenke, S. L., & Paulus, T. (2007). The Role of Teacher Questioning in Promoting Dialogic literary Inquiry in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of research on Teachnology in education, Vol.

40. No. 2 , 141-164.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(Third Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hancock, B. (1998). Trent Focus for Research and Development in Primary

Health care: an Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus.

Hanrahan, M. U. (2005). Highlighting Hybridity: A Critical Doscourse Analysis of Teacher Talk in Science Classroom. Science Education , -.

Hansen, C. C. (Wintter 2004). Teacher Talk: Promoting Literacy Development Through Response to Story. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,

Vol. 19. Iss. 2 , 130.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Hayes, R., & Matusov, E. (2005). Designing for Dialogue in Place of Teacher Talk and Student Silence. Culture Psychology; Vol. 11(3) , 339–357. Hellermann, J. (2003). The Interactive Work of Prosody in the IRF Exchange:

Teacher Repetition in Feedback Moves. Language in Society, Vol. 32 , 79-104.

Henning, J. E., Nielsen, L. E., Henning, M. C., & Schluz, E. U. (may/June 2008). Disgining Discussion: Four Ways to Open Up a Dialogue. The Social

Studies , 123-126.