Balancing voices and views in socratic circle seminars: A self-study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: Object of study. My research revolves around Socratic Circle Seminars (SCSs) which are intellectual conversations and democratic discussions carried out between students and centered on exploring and interpreting common texts (Adler, 1982; Lambright, 1995; Copeland, 2005). This form of qualitative research and practitioner inquiry (Samaras, 2015) draws upon my 15 years of experience in implementing SCSs in Enriched English as a Second-Language (EESL) classrooms at the Académie Ste-Thérèse in Québec (2001-2017). Specifically, this Self-Study focuses on how I conducted three SCSs in my EESL classes in Secondary 5 (94 learners) in June 2017. Problem. Despite all my classroom experience with SCSs, my recalibration of practice, my production of resources as well as my outreach to the teaching and research community (Nelson, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2015a, 2015b), I still face the recurrent problem of uneven student participation as well as the unbalanced expression of viewpoints. This situation is explored from the vantage point of “living educational theory” (McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 2003; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; Samaras, 2011) by framing and reframing typical problems as disjunctions or discrepancies between practice and belief. General and Specific Research Objectives & Hypothesis. Generally, I seek to identify what needs to be done to get all learners to participate more actively in Socratic Circle Seminars so that the process of meaningful and democratic dialogue includes more voices and balances more views. Specifically, I will be looking to better align my practice with my belief by identifying “avoidable obstacles” through more strategic teaching. Research Design and Methodology. This research corresponds to “Reflexive Analysis of One’s Professional Practice” (Paillé, 2007). In terms of underlying methodological guidelines, I am applying the “Five Foci” framework of Self-Study Teacher Research (Samaras, 2011, p.94): 1) personal situated inquiry; 2) critical collaborative inquiry; 3) improved learning; 4) transparent and systemic research process; 5) knowledge generation and presentation. Data Analysis, Interpretation & Assessment. I collected and catalogued three types of data (Hendricks, 2006) from a variety of sources and in a variety of formats: 1) teacher-produced artefacts; 2) observational data; and 3) inquiry data. I employed “constant comparative method” (Creswell, 2007), presented the evidence into emerging and converging themes and later conducted a categorical analysis of the evidence. The data analysis and interpretation as well as my methodology was assessed by my Critical Friend Team to increase validity, ensure transparency and secure trustworthiness of findings. Summary conclusions. My findings show that I had been unintentionally short-circuiting my own better intentions about using SCSs to implement student-centered learning and participation. The most significant finding of my research shows the necessity of adopting a more pro-active coaching role as a teacher and developing very flexible and differentiated coaching skills. Originality of contribution. Beyond this specific educational context of second-cycle high-school EESL teaching in Québec, this study would be of special interest for those who wish to implement SCSs in their own classrooms in a more systematic way. Novice and seasoned teachers alike who read this study would be better prepared to understand tested practices that shape stronger participation in student-centered, democratic and academic conversations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».