Judith MacCallum and Veronica Morcom Murdoch U n iversity

1. From participation to contribution: Learning, teaching and researching in a collaborative classroom Judith MacCallum and Veronica Morcom Murdoch University EARLI Conference Limassol 25-29 August 2015

2. Overview • Context of the study – year 3 classroom • Sociocultural perspective • Classroom participation research • Brief methodology and data sources • Participation and communication patterns over a school year • Changing participatory roles • Discussion

3. Research context - Year 3 classroom • Democratic classroom with students participating in decisions for action, with direction offered by cultural and social values • Teacher’s practice not privileged in the school • School is situated in middle class urban area • Social practices included • class agreements • daily social circle • Y charts – looks like, sounds like, feels like • weekly class meetings • Tribes with child selected leaders and vice leaders

4. Daily social circle

5. Sociocultural perspective • The learner is constituted by cultural and historical processes, embedded within cultural activities in communities which provide the tools for making sense of the world • It is usually understood that these tools are appropriated in social interactions, providing the means to maintain and transform those communities (Rogoff, 2003) • Teacher channels a student’s activities in certain ways so that development is organised in a particular direction–canalization (Valsiner, 1997)

6. Aim of this study • To examine student participatory roles in class meetings over a school year • To examine ways in which students change their participatory roles, what supports and constraints these roles

7. Participation in communities • Legitimate peripheral participation to mature participation – individuals (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003) • Social construction of participatory roles in primary school classroom (Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007) – identified different and relatively stable modes of student participation with differing teacher participation • Vocal participants • Responsive participants • Bilateral participants • Silent participants

8. Different participatory roles Based on • Amount of participation – number of coded interaction pieces • Discourse moves – initiating responding, follow-up, responding • Interaction sequences – SIM, SIM/T, TIM, TIB • Communicative functions – EVI, INFO, VIEW, EVA, CON, ORC, DEF, NEU • Nature of teacher participation – providing structural support, analytic support, social support, encouraging

9. Communication and interaction patterns (Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007) Interaction sequences (8) – e.g. teacher TI or student initiated SI, bilateral TIB/SIB or multilateral TIM/SIM, with (SIM/T) or without teacher participation Communicative functions (10) –e.g. asking for and providing evidence, reasons (EVI); asking for and sharing experiences, feelings (EXP); orchestrating the discussion (ORC); elaborations (DEF); views, opinions, perspectives (VIEW); confirm, acknowledge (CON); non-verbal (N-VERB); evaluate, correct (EVA)

10. Method and data sources • Year long ethnographic study in Year 3 classroom with teacher/researcher and 24/25 students aged 9 • Researcher spent about 1 day per week in the classroom • Multiple data sources, including observation, videoing class meetings and other activities, reflection logs (teacher/researcher, researcher, students), sociometric surveys, interviews with students and parents (with photo stimulated recall)

11. Range of participatory opportunities Our research focus - more about social practices than academic subject concepts • Social circle – student solo initiation SI • Class meeting – TIM, TIB, SIM/T, SIB/T, SIM, SIB • Tribes leader and Vice leader – SIM, SIB • Tribes members – SIM, SIB • Philosophy lesson – TIM, TIB, SIM/T, SIB/T, SIM, SIB • Think Pair Share – SIB, SIB/T

12. Data for this analysis • Video of class meetings over the school year (23) – approximately 30 minutes each. Students could ‘put up’ an item they wished class to discuss • More detailed analysis of four class meetings – beginning term 1, early term 3, term 4 and end term 4 • Teacher reflections log, student reflections, and researcher field notes

13. Analysis • Class meeting student items over the year – number of individual and pair items • Number, and which students initiate items • Interaction sequences and communicative functions • Patterns of interaction sequences and participatory roles of students • Support roles by teacher and students • Changes in patterns and roles over the year

14. Number of student items over year

15. Number of students with item

16. First class meeting

17. Communication patterns • Class meeting, first week of term 1, 2/02/2007 • Three teacher items – addressed first, with teacher encouraging participation from class and individuals - TIM, TIB sequences • Three student items – in order of placement on the whiteboard. These three students participated as vocal participants SIB/T, SIM/T • Other students participated in mainly bilateral interactions initiated by the three students or the teacher • Teacher provides structural, analytic, social support • Participatory roles similar to (Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2007)

18. Teacher Item TIM Teacher Initiated sequence at beginning to all Ss TI First of all I want to talk about instructions INFO [Talks about something that EXP happened at end of previous day] INFO TF What do you think that means for your desk? VIEW SR [Hands go up] N-VERB SIB/T Student Initiated sequence with T S1I [Hand up ready to provide explanation] N-VERB TR What do you think S1? VIEW S1R [explains ] INFO TF Mm CON

19. First student item TF: Where’s S2? ORC S2: [moves to front of class] N-VERB TIB TI: S2 you put down a really important item EVA S2, I want you to explain to the class what this means to you EVI TIM TI: I want you to listen very carefully ACT because you might have some really good ideas too EVI SIM/T S2: [explains to class] INFO EVI S2: [looks to teacher] N-VERB TR: [nods] N-VERB S2: [continues speaking] EXP INFO TR: That sounds like a really good idea, S2 EVA TF: Does anyone have any questions that they would like to ask S2? VIEW S2: [points to S3] ORC S3: [asks more about S2’s experience] EXP TF: What kind of activities are they S2? DEF

20. Class meeting 17

21. Class meeting 17, 10/08/2007 • Three teacher items. Four student items (2 individual, 2 pairs) • Students voted as to which items would be discussed first • Teacher wrote down discussion points on another board • SIM, SIB and SIM/T sequences • Students’ communicative functions recounts of experience and feelings (EXP), observations (INFO), views and opinions (VIEW), reasons for view (EVI), clarification (DEF) • Teacher’s communication functions predominately orchestrating (ORC) and acknowledging (CON), later asked ‘are these stories or solutions?’ (EVA), asked for solutions (ACT) - structuring, social support and reflective

22. Class meeting 22, 2/11/2007 • No teacher items. 4 student items (2 individual, 3 pairs, 1 trio) • Students voted as to which items would be discussed first • Teacher wrote down discussion points on another board • SIM, SIB mainly, and few SIM/T sequences • Students’ communicative functions recounts of experience and feelings (EXP), observations (INFO), views and opinions (VIEW), reasons for view (EVI), recounts of action, requests for solutions (ACT), evaluation (EVA), some orchestration (ORC) • Teacher’s communicative functions predominately orchestrating (ORC) and acknowledging (CON) • Some students taking supportive role of teacher

23. Last class meeting

24. Class meeting 23 6/12/2007 • No teacher items and five student items (3 individual, 2 pairs) • Teacher asks if anyone wants to take teacher role – almost all hands go up, and negotiation with class as to how to decide. Several students without an item on board took turns as Teacher. None were initially Vocal participants • Teacher takes a position at the blackboard out of mat area, but intervenes to remind students to be respectful then, ‘Let’s try again’ (ORC) – mainly social support to group rather than individuals • SIM and SIB sequences • Student T support participation (ORC) and provide ideas (INFO), rather than to ask for ideas (INFO) opinions (VIEW)

25. Changing participatory roles • A was Vocal participant, put up 6 individual items and 6 pair items over year, was Leader (Tr 2) Vice Leader (Tr 4 & 5), observed as an encourager and supportive of other students’ participation over the year (social mainly) • E was initially a Silent participant, waited to be asked to participate, put up individual item in term 2 when Leader (Tr 2), pair item in term 3 with A, SIM sequences in Tr, more like Responsive/Bilateral participant in class meetings • C was initially a Bilateral participant, initiated bilateral communication, put up 1 individual item in term 1, 2 pair items term 2 & 3, Vice Leader with A (Tr 2), Leader (Tr 4), acted as Student T in last class meeting, beginning to initiate and support multilateral communications

26. Reflective activity 3/12/2007 Roles people play in groups • A (vice leader at the time) Vocal participant I’m an encourager and give ideas. I am a kind person and an organiser person. I am willing to try out to be a helper. • E Silent to Bilateral ?I’m an encourager and I help people that are lost on what to do. I am willing to try out to be an ideas person for my group. • CBilateral to ? I am the idea and peacekeeper. I would like to play an encourager or an organiser. I am willing to try a new role if I don’t get in trouble from it.

27. Summary • Over the year the classroom practices provided opportunities for students to engage in a range of communicative sequences • Class meetings provided the teacher with the opportunity to model a range of communicative functions (asking for, and sharing), nature of support changed over year, included social, analytic and reflective • Students mainly orchestrated discussion (ORC), shared ideas (INFO), opinions (VIEW), feelings and experiences (EXP), offered evidence (EVI) or clarification (DEF) and evaluated feedback (EVA). Later in the year students offered solutions or solutions they had tried. A smaller number of students asked for other students’ opinions, experiences or solutions, whether in bilateral or multilateral sequences • Needed ACT for request action or offer solution, also a reflective level of thinking introduced

28. Changing participatory roles • Some students changed participatory roles • Class meetings provided opportunity for students to initiate multilateral sequences • Items with student pairs offered opportunity for a different range of participatory roles • Tribes provided further opportunity for students to initiate multilateral sequences and support each other • Another kind of participant role emerged – Responsive/Bilateral - transitioning to Vocal?

29. Conclusion • Stetsenko (2008) argues that learning is “contributing to collaborative practices” – not just participation • If students are to change participatory roles over a year they need opportunities to contribute rather than participate

30. References • Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2007). The social construction of participation in an elementary classroom community. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 141-158. • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. • Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3, 471-491. • Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A theory of human development (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

31. Thank you Comments? Questions? jamac@murdoch.edu.au Veronica.morcom@education.wa.edu.au