Saturate, situate, synthesize: Fostering preservice teachers’ conceptual and practical knowledge for learning to lead class discussion

Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Saturate, situate, synthesize: Fostering preservice teachers’ conceptual and practical knowledge for learning to lead class discussion Steven Z. Athanases*, Sergio L. Sanchez, Lee M. Martin School of Education, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616 USA

h i g h l i g h t s
Inquiry situated in K-12, supported by education course saturated with diverse resources, fostered teacher learning.
Teacher inquiry tools fostered rigorous engagement with K-12 students’ interactions and learning.
Diverse PST group’s figure-making synthesized and displayed developing conceptions of discussion as student-mediated.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 16 May 2018 Received in revised form 23 October 2019 Accepted 6 November 2019 Available online xxx

To develop preservice teachers’ (PSTs’) knowledge and practice for complex teaching, a pedagogical innovation featured a design of saturate, situate, and synthesize. Small-group inquiry into English teaching challenges was guided by a course saturated with diverse resources, situated in K-12 classrooms, and supported by visualization tools and reflection for synthesis. A case of one diverse group analyzes how they developed knowledge and practice for facilitating discussion to support critical response to text. Supported by diverse resources and synthesizing tools, discourse analysis into their culturally and linguistically diverse students’ interactions, social dynamics, and perspectives shaped PSTs’ conceptions of students co-constructing discussion. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preservice teachers Teacher learning Dialogic instruction Teacher inquiry English teaching Figure-making

Teacher education (TE) methods courses often struggle to provide in-depth treatment of the plethora of challenges in any curricular domain. The problem stems partially from the need for TE to comply with many standards, expectations, and teacher assessments. Accountability regimens often assume teaching is a fixed set of procedures a teacher adopts for practice in a unidirectional manner to achieve outcomes (Strom, 2015; Viesca et al., 2019). In contrast, studies show that exemplary teachers possess complex teaching knowledge in their content areas and are able to adapt instruction to learners’ needs (Parsons et al., 2018). TE needs innovative ways to resist “coverage” approaches and to address such complexity and adaptive teaching. Such pedagogies may need to develop teachers’ conceptual knowledge with extended opportunities to test ideas and gain

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.Z. Athanases), slsanchez@ucdavis. edu (S.L. Sanchez), [email protected] (L.M. Martin). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102970 0742-051X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

feedback from their students, before school demands and testing regimens minimize such opportunities. Preparing problem-solving, adaptive teachers requires engaging the complexity of content-area teaching and providing preservice teachers (PSTs) with tools to learn from, and adapt instruction for, their students. As classrooms worldwide grow more culturally and linguistically diverse, teachers need greater capacity for responsiveness. Teacher inquiry, grounded in intentional, systematic exploration into teaching and learning, holds promise for such work and has been used in many TE programs internationally (Borko, Whitcomb, & Byrnes, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). However, inquiry methods for both veteran and preservice teachers often need more systematic work, sustained engagement, and effective models (Foster, 1999; Freedman, Simons, Kalnin, Casareno, & The M-CLASS Teams, 1999). Also, little work has treated knowledge constructed in teacher inquiry as warranting analysis or useful to inform models of teaching (Zeichner, 2009). Reports on inquiry have tended to document tangible course designs and products instead of

2

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

analyzing the inquiry process as it develops (Price, 2001; Valli et al., 2006). For reasons such as these, evidence of values and outcomes of inquiry in TE has been slim (Grossman, 2005), at best exploratory (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The present study responds to these issues, pairing innovative, systematic teacher inquiry in TE with analysis of PSTs’ learning processes. The project begins with an assumption that in-depth work in a single domain can help PSTs develop conceptual knowledge to manage complex teaching and learning in that domain, while developing inquiry capacity. This project features a 10-week, small-group inquiry project focused on a single curricular domain in secondary English language arts (ELA). We explored a “3S” design. First, to foster depth and embrace complexity, the project saturated the space with a rich array of knowledge sources to explore. Second, working with and studying K-12 students, PSTs situated resources and their developing knowledge and practice in the context of their diverse classrooms. Third, with many resources and tools, the project guided PSTs to synthesize knowledge gleaned across resources, using figure-making and reflective writing to explore conceptions of a curricular domain and areas needed for future inquiry. From this larger project, the present study examined inquiry processes of a focal group of four PSTs developing knowledge and practice for class discussion, as they student-taught in diverse classes.

1. Teacher inquiry and preservice teacher learning Teacher inquiry typically includes activities that position practitioners as researchers rather than objects of study, collaborating to systematically gather and analyze data, while developing an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Goswami, Lewis, Rutherford, & Waff, 2009). Such work is steeped in reflective € n, 1983), often considering social justice and critical practice (Scho perspectives (Fecho & Allen, 2003; Scherff, 2012). Experienced educators across subject areas have used inquiry to revise their practice (Manfra, 2019). In ELA, reports document ways inquiry helped teachers learn about children’s narrative understanding (Gallas, 2003), complexities of language and power (Fecho, 2004), and ways to transform teaching for bilingual learners (NevarezLaTorre, 2010). Focused on multicultural literacies in several U.S. urban contexts, 24 teachers conducted mentored inquiry, with cross-case work analyzing teachers’ learning (Freedman et al., 1999) through, for example, tracking an emergent bilingual’s (EB’s) writing development (Lew, 1999) and discovering ways Black males felt their knowledge was dismissed in school, with White teachers coddling them with low expectations (Shakespear, 1999). Although TE is a difficult context for developing inquiry practices, due to competing demands on PSTs’ time and attention, this may nonetheless be the best time within a teacher’s career-span to develop tools and dispositions to study teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Focusing on diverse K-12 students’ curricular engagements can aid PST learning through inquiry. Four PSTs in one study learned diverse ways children used journal writing and reflected on future inquiry to uncover learning trends (Radencich, Eckhardt, Rasch, Uhr, & Pisaneschi, 1998). A study of 96 PST inquiries collected over seven years found PSTs used inquiry data to analyze problematic patterns in high school students’ literacy engagements; they adapted routines, materials, strategies, or actions to help students meet literacy objectives (Athanases, Bennett, & Wahleithner, 2015). Inquiry has helped PSTs understand their EB students’ developing linguistic and academic assets and needs (Athanases, Wahleithner, & Bennett, 2013; Dresser, 2007; Sowa, 2009) and uncover how tools, peers, and mentors can support literacy

development (Merino & Ambrose, 2009). In one study, a PST studied how an EB student’s interpersonal skills and peer interactions served as writing resources (Dana, Yendol-Hoppey, & Snow-Gerono, 2006). PSTs also have explored intellectual and cultural dimensions of students’ learning, growing in understanding teaching in relation to children’s lives (Price, 2001). A project exploring 80 PSTs’ inquiries across six years found inquiry promoted attention to diverse learners and their learning through researching contexts and histories; examining performance at fullclass, subgroup, and individual levels; and asking and listening beneath the surface of activity to students’ reasoning, attitudes, and beliefs (Athanases, Wahleithner, & Bennett, 2012). At an organizational level, Cochran-Smith, Barnatt, Friedman, and Pine (2009) explored what happened when a program shifted from openended inquiry to inquiry focused on student learning outcomes; inquiry quality depended upon questions PSTs asked, their views of assessment and learning, and understanding inquiry as process more than product. These studies document how–with knowledge gained about diverse learners and their engagements with content–PSTs can focus on individual learners and their assets and needs, explore data patterns, and practice adapting instruction to students’ needs. While not extensive, research on PST inquiry demonstrates how an inquiry process that develops over time, focused systematically on K-12 students’ engagement with content, can inform PSTs’ patternfinding and use of classroom data to adapt practice for student learning. More documentation and analysis is needed of these possibilities. In our work, PSTs explore topics in groups through a 10-week inquiry process. Group inquiry generates cumulative knowledge using a multicase study anchored by a quintain, or central unifying topic (Stake, 2006). Collective inquiry can lead to detectable changes in teacher practice (Ermeling, 2010) and increased noticing of students’ sophisticated thinking (Kazemi & Franke, 2004). Making research collaborative helps teachers gain confidence to share even unsuccessful inquiry outcomes and communicate findings so others identify with them (Loughran, 2003). 2. Theoretical framework Our study positions new teachers as knowledge-generating, agentive professionals. 2.1. Conceptual development for teaching knowledge and practice We believe conceptual development is central to teacher learning. Professionals learn through both abstract generalizations and embodied understanding via deep engagements with nuances of particular learning situations (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006)–in activity through which knowledge is not transferred but developed (Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Wubbels, & Lagerwerf, 2001). Teachers need both conceptual tools such as principles, frameworks, and heuristics that organize understanding, and practical tools such as strategies, methods, and practices that support teacher learning through immediate utility (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999). When practical tools dominate in TE coursework, teachers may adopt routines that constrain creativity and minimize responsiveness to student needs (Schultz & Mandzuk, 2005). 2.2. Saturate the TE learning space with diverse resources and tools One means to support conceptual development is to foster PST agency in their pursuit of new knowledges to guide their development. We support this goal by saturating the TE learning space

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

rrez & Vossoughi, with resources and mediational tools (Gutie 2010), in an induction into what we call a democracy of resources. By this we mean relevant knowledges are generated and disseminated by those in diverse contexts through diverse means. Published research is linked with other sources, deepening findings– important since engaging teachers with research literature is difficult due to perceptions that academic research is out of touch with K-12 realities, often vilifying and using language inaccessible to teachers (Freedman et al., 1999; Zeichner, 2009). We view a resource for teaching as “an aid or source of evidence used to help support claims, an available supply that can be drawn upon when needed” (Zuidema & Fredricksen, 2016, p. 15). Resources in our course (Fig. 1) included TE curricular materials; instructors, supervisors, and teachers as human resources; and classroom experience with students’ learning, behavior, and perceptions. Diverse resources help develop knowledge and techniques (Erickson, 2011) and knowledge-informed practices rrez & Rogoff, 2003), aiding conceptual development and (Gutie pattern-finding, seldom a natural process for teachers (Korthagen, 2010).

2.3. Situate concept development in activity with K-12 learners Despite benefits of diverse resources, focusing exclusively on building repertoires of knowledge typically fails to influence practice (Bransford, Dery, Berliner, & Hammerness, 2005). This problem of enactment often arises from a paucity of opportunities to rehearse practices and to explore perceptual processing where PSTs may notice and work within conditions of applicability. Providing PSTs with more practice opportunities would be insufficient, however, as merely learning and applying routines does not enable teachers to respond to diverse learners’ evolving strengths and needs or to solve emerging problems (Hammerness et al., 2005). Instead, a democracy of resources must be complemented by opportunities to engage with diverse teacher inquiry processes and tools, with K-12 students as key informants. We extend

3

Pennycook’s (2010) notion of language as local practice to include teaching language and literacy as always context-specific. As such, PSTs should engage in localized inquiry (Athanases & Wong, 2018), testing ideas and practices, critically reflecting on patterns and on what a practice/inquiry tool yields. Teaching excellence requires flexibility and adaptive expertise– the ability to adapt to changing classroom conditions and learn new things as needed (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), instead of adopting materials in uncritical ways (Grossman & Thompson, 2008). Inquiry can support adaptive expertise, which includes procedural knowledge (e.g., how to enact classroom routines such as Socratic seminar or jigsaw) paired with rich conceptual knowledge (e.g., why certain interaction patterns silence students, how spoken and written communication interact). While efficiency gained from practice is important, conceptual knowledge is essential for adaptive teaching (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). When learners experiment with and explore data and models and reflect on their understanding, they are inefficient short-term, but gain deeper and broader conceptual understanding over time (Martin & Schwartz, 2009; Hatano & Oura, 2003; Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005). As Bransford et al. (2005) note: “A major way to prepare teachers for innovation is to help them develop inquiry skills that support ways to look at student learning and adapt accordingly” (p. 77). As teachers-as-learners explore practices and collect data on their students’ engagement and learning, assimilating research, theories, and practice, they develop subjective educational theories that become part of personal frameworks for interpreting instructional challenges (Kelchtermans, 2009). 2.4. Synthesize developing conceptions of a problem of practice Diverse resources and inquiry tools can be overwhelming without synthesis to build cohesive understandings. One synthesizing technique, figure-making, is a creative process akin to mapmaking, where people select and connect components to see interrelationships (Martin & Schwartz, 2014). Figure-making can disrupt routinized beliefs preventing teachers from seeing and

Fig. 1. A democracy of resources that may inform and guide development of knowledge and practice of preservice teachers.

4

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

being receptive to new ideas (Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005), and help learners move beyond focus on immediate tasks to develop generalizable knowledge (Martin & Schwartz, 2009). Figures do not merely reflect learners’ thinking, but “talk back” to their creators, allowing PSTs to manage complexity, sharpen learning targets, redirect instruction, and develop both practical and abstract knowledge. Such “reflective-synthetic knowledge” may help teachers perform in “more informed, practical, ethical, democratic, politically just, self-aware, and purposeful ways” (Kincheloe, 2004, p. 62). Drawing on our 3S framework, we asked: In what ways and to what degree did PSTs use diverse resources to advance their understanding of a focal area of ELA teaching? In what ways did PSTs use inquiry tools, particularly to notice patterns in teaching and learning? In what ways did PSTs synthesize discoveries from resources and tools through reflections and figure-making? 3. Method

placement class. Over 10 weeks, PSTs formed six groups (three-to-six members each) to explore problems of ELA practice. Group-selected topics included: discussion and critical thinking, character in literature study, discussion-writing links, writing organization, comprehending Shakespeare, and Shakespeare’s language. The inquiry model featured responsiveness to content, context, and professional community (Athanases et al., 2012). Inquiry targeted ELA content and responded to contexts of K-12 students’ cultures, languages, and communities; documenting patterns in student engagement, performances, and perceptions; and guiding PSTs to tap youth culture and languages as resources. The inquiry course included group collaboration for mutual support, feedback on emerging foci, and critical scrutiny of data-based claims. This inquiry model encouraged PSTs to enter a professional community of researchers, collapsing hierarchical structures of knowledge generation and supporting teacher flexibility to adapt practices, central to effective teaching.

3.1. Context

3.2. PSTs’ activities with diverse resources and inquiry tools

The study took place in a university-based, 10-month, postBaccalaureate program which credentials 150 þ California teachers annually and fosters advocacy for equity for diverse students, with particular attention to EBs (Athanases & Martin, 2006; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007). PSTs held B.A.s in English or a related field. Concurrent with TE coursework, PSTs taught in two secondary ELA classes in culturally and linguistically diverse, mostly high-poverty contexts. Beyond foundations and methods, English PSTs took two inquiry courses–one featuring inquiry tools (questionnaire, survey, fieldnotes, coding, scoring rubrics), another (focus of the present study) featuring use of these tools in a field

To foster knowledge of how diverse learners engaged content, each PST examined learning of four focal students at their teaching placements (including two EBs of varying English proficiency levels). PSTs linked data from focal students to other resources, including interviews with teachers known for expertise in a focal area, relevant research articles, standards documents, and online resources. Table 1 shows PSTs’ systematic, rigorous work with data. For example, in clustered rows of “more expert” knowledge sources, row 3 identifies published research studies. PSTs completed memos on chosen articles, gleaning details about framework, concepts, and findings, and responding to prompts for reflection.

Table 1 Preservice teachers’ systematic work with diverse resources and inquiry tools: Researching multiple knowledge sources in a content area domain. Type of knowledge

Source of knowledge and information

Preservice teachers’ data collection action

“More-expert” knowledge sources

Teacher interviews: Local educators with reputations for effective teaching in the focal subject area domain

Interview two teachers about their knowledge and practice in
Transcribe interviews the focal domain
Code for themes
Reflect and write memo on emerging themes
Recognize patterns across teacher interviews in a group
Thematically organize patterns of ideas and elements Review documents for relevant information and guidelines
Distill key ideas
Analyze similarities, differences, trajectories across grade levels, if relevant Cull from research studies what is relevant to teaching a
Critically read and examine research particular subject area domain or topic articles
Raise questions about the research studies
Articulate ways research ideas and findings do and do not relate to one’s teaching context & domain of inquiry Search print and online professional resources for relevant
Highlight particularly relevant and teacher practices, lessons, artifacts, tools promising resources
Connect practical field-tested practices to other parts of a developing knowledge base Student work samples, plus three audiotaped class discussion
Code and analyze one’s own audiotaped tryouts discussions
Share transcribed episodes with group for feedback
Participate in group feedback sessions on peers’ discussion transcripts
Count numerical data and display with Surveys with Likert scale items; open-ended questionnaire tables & figures items; scenario-based prompts; short-answer reflections on
Coding classroom activity Student work samples
Conduct in-depth analyses of writing Interviews
Code of interviews

Regional or national standards documents Published, relevant research studies

Professional print and online teaching resources

Grades 7e12 students as informants; Group inquiry peers as informants

Grades 7e12 students and their patterns of engagement

Grades 7e12 students’ reflections on their learning Grades 7e12 focal students

Preservice teachers’ analytic actions

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Prompts inquired about links to other research, readings, and experiences; implications for and explanations of practice; ideas for follow-on studies; links to one’s own teaching and inquiry; and what in the study warrants critique. Demonstrations and workshops guided PSTs’ qualitative data coding, pattern-finding, and discourse analysis (Table 1, Grades 7e12 students as informants, first row, last column). PSTs worked with “uncoded” transcripts from research studies as raw data, learning how to code and tally discourse moves, including teacher and student authentic/inauthentic questions and navigation of ideas. In coding their own audiotaped discussions, PSTs used selective themes and codes from research literature (e.g., uptake of others’ ideas and probes for elaboration) and developed themes. With a handout, the instructor illustrated how a PST from a prior cohort scripted discourse, color-coded discourse moves, and used reflection/analysis to specify “references to what student 1 or 2 or 8 says and what a specific student remark does to shape the classroom discourse.” The instructor added: “Make the trail from student work/talk/reflections to your claims or comments about them absolutely explicit!” PSTs learned to generate questions to guide pattern-finding in their students’ work and their own reflections, and to speculate about themes, how patterns might inform nextsteps instruction, and additional inquiry methods needed to learn more about students’ engagements with focal content. Assignments also required connections across resources, linking local educators’ insights with online and print publications (Athanases, 2014). For focal student insights (Table 1, bottom row), instructions guided attention to student writing and oral discourse: Think about how what a student does relates to what s/he tells you, and how this relates to or differs from input from another student. Think of how these things relate to what you have learned from the professional resources you have reviewed. This synthesizing and integrating is what makes inquiry into an N of 4 compelling. Additionally, the course guided inquiry into focal students’ assets and improvement opportunities with questions about which students know and understand what in the ELA focus; what students need to understand more fully and how to accomplish that; and how to move past deficit perspectives to “document achievement that is there in order to build on it.” The inquiry course explored visual techniques to synthesize and develop understandings. PSTs completed a primer guiding them through construction of five visuals (matrix, hierarchical tree, Venn diagram, two-dimensional plane, and concept map). Over the

course of the inquiry, groups selected from among these and other visuals to map developing knowledge, relations among concepts, and sources informing choices. Each group constructed a visual at three points: after identification of a focal content domain; after group explorations into multiple professional resources; and after synthesizing learning from 4 to 6 classroom inquiries per group, each featuring 4 focal students. Table 2 shows a 10-week progression of figure-making–five figures total (accompanied by written reflections). Groups co-constructed figures, with surrounding talk informing figure-making and meanings group members derived from figures. Individuals wrote reflections on how figure-making advanced, refined, or truncated thinking and planning. Table 1 (right column) shows analyses PSTs conducted. Products included analyses of teacher interviews; memos on research articles; and data analysis memos including data trends (with colorcoded examples and tallied students’ interactions), discoveries about ELA issues, and reflections on dilemmas and needed adaptations. Groups delivered 20-min slideshows with visuals and themes distilled from more-expert resources. Each PST then gave a 20-min presentation of solo inquiry featuring their focal students, including community, school, and class contexts; research questions; action plans; data-based focal student profiles; data collection and analysis methods; results and reflections; synthesis of learning from inquiry; and follow-up plans. 3.3. Data collection for the research team After review of inquiry data across groups, we selected one group for detailed analysis. Fig. 2 shows four PSTs in this group and how each selected four focal students for close study. At individual level, data included PST reports from interviews with regional educators, their reports on research, ideas gleaned from standards, inquiry reflections, three field-based memos reporting processes and findings from data analysis, and summary slideshow presentations. At group level, data included figures, notes, a group slideshow presentation of synthesized and developing knowledge, and audiotaped discussions. We selected this group for three reasons. First, their topic, class discussion, has gained attention as a means to foster academic talk, socialize intelligence, and foster meaning-making (Juzwik, Borsheim-Black, Caughlan, & Heintz, 2013; Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke, 2015)–a high-leverage practice across subjects and grades (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Forzani, 2014; Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017). Researchers have uncovered dialogic affordances and challenges across many nations, including Mexico (Candela, 1998), Norway (Pastoor, 2004), Canada (Peterson &

Table 2 Sequence of Figure-Making tasks and related reflective writing over ten weeks. Session Group Figure-Making Task # 1

1 2

3 4

5

Solo Reflective Writing Prompts

Pairs work through a primer on basic visual structures, including a Venn Current knowledge of focal ELA area (e.g., class discussion of text), how you diagram, a 2 dimensional plane, a hierarchical tree, a concept map, and a matrix. know it, its components, what students know about the area, what you need to know Groups focused on common ELA challenge area co-create two figures to Most important subcomponents of focal topic and how they interrelate? represent focal ELA area. The two figures should be of different types. Anything about figure-making that moved your thinking forward? Pre-figure-making: Create two figures to represent focal ELA area. The two figures should be of Evolution of your knowledge of focal area; components of focal area different types. Figures should indicate the source of ideas (e.g., standards, Post-figure-making: research literature, regional educators, etc.) Components of focal area; anything from figure-making process that moved your thinking forward today or since recent work? Create a final figure (new, or a revision of prior figures) to represent focal ELA Discoveries about focal area (especially from students); what does visual area. capture well and not yet capture well? Review all figures Evolution of visuals over time; links and interactions across knowledge sources; new learning about students’ learning; what will you take with you from this project?

6

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Fig. 2. PST focal group, focused on the ELA curricular topic of discussion and critical thinking with diverse focal students. Figure shows six circles denoting 6 topic groups, each comprised of 3e6 PSTs. Figure highlights Group 1, the study focal group (Tess, Nina, Ying, & Zia). Using group 1 as example, the Figure illustrates how the inquiry model guided each PST in each topical group to select four culturally and linguistically diverse focal students (FS1, FS2, etc.) for close study. Individual PST data analyses of their own focal students’ work also informed group sharing, reflections, and evolving conceptions.

Calovini, 2004), Czech Republic (Sedova, 2017), and Chile (Meneses, Hugo, García, & Müller, 2018). Despite its importance, little is known about how novice teachers learn to enact discussion and how TE supports such learning (Williamson, 2013), especially for teaching in very diverse classes. Second, the focal group made extensive use of audiotaped discourse, a valuable tool for noticing assets and challenges of linguistically diverse students’ talk (Athanases et al., 2013; Athanases & Wong, 2018). Discourse analysis aids noticing details and navigation of ideas and aids discovery of patterns in communicative repertoires and diverse language forms in context (Rymes, 2010; 2016), and in teacher inquiry has uncovered children’s meaning-making patterns (Gallas, 2003). Discourse analysis includes learning to read for power dynamics when clashes occur

among students (and between students and teacher) related to race and other identity issues (Rex & Schiller, 2009). Third, focal group sites for inquiry were culturally and linguistically diverse large classrooms in low-SES contexts. This provided needed explorations into developing dialogic instruction in contexts where challenging curricula are uncommon, often reserved exclusively for “honors” classes and high-SES schools. Focal group members identified as Asian/Asian American women of diverse ethnicity (Table 3). Their supervised teaching included a semester (16e18 weeks) in schools serving 55e97% students of color and many EBs from homes with mostly Spanish, Vietnamese, Hmong, Russian, or Mandarin as primary language. Schools were in urban and diverse suburban contexts, with 69e83% of students classified as economically disadvantaged, and 85e100% qualified for free/

Table 3 Focal group, public school teaching contexts. Descriptors

Yinga

Zia

Nina

Tess

Teacher self-reported ethnicity

Hmong

Vietnamese

Community

Suburban, predominantly Latinx

Korean American/ Korean Diverse middle-class suburb

School

Grades 6e8, 85% free/ reduced lunch; 30% ELsb

Chinese American/ Chinese Urban, low-SES, mostly Latinx, Hmong, African American Grades 7e8, 875 Ss, 26% ELs, 83% economically disadvantaged; 100% eligible free lunch

8 “Regular” 32 2 several

7 “Regular” 32 7 2

Focal class

a b

Grade level Academic level # of Ss # EBs Redesignated EBs

7 “Regular” 36 4 14

Pseudonyms used for all PSTs and K-12 students. ”ELs” (English learners) used here as term PSTs had as classifiers at time of study.

Urban, low-SES, mostly Latinx, Hmong, African American Grades 7e8, 875 Ss, 26% ELs, 83% economically disadvantaged; 100% eligible free lunch

1770 Ss, 69% SES disadvantaged, 24% EL, 16% Ss w/disabilities; 45% White (many EastEur immigrant) 24% Latinx, 16% Black/AA, 8% Asian, 4% Filipina/o, 1% AmInd 12 English 4, “Regular” 34 A few A few

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

reduced lunch. The four PSTs’ focal classes (“regular”/non-Honors) had demographics representative of their schools. Classes were large (32e36 students) and diverse (e.g., Ying’s students were 47% Latinx, 34% Asian American, 16% African American, 3% White), challenging PSTs to manage many groups during small-group talk and to facilitate large-class discussions. Focal classes had 2-7 EBs and a number of students “redesignated” as English language proficient. Such linguistic diversity required PSTs to consider ways to leverage communicative repertoires of students currently or recently developing English language proficiency during academic content learning. 3.4. Research team data analysis We compiled roughly 30-page “profiles” per PST (N ¼ 4; 120 pages total), including PSTs’ notes on research articles, data analysis memos (with Tables and transcripts), and final reflections. 3.4.1. Saturation: resource use To answer our question on resource use, Table 4 shows our coding and analytic process, using data from one PST. We examined profiles for what resources, among many, PSTs selected for reflection and analysis (Table 4, column 1); what concepts related to class discussion they gleaned from these resources (column 2) and reflected in the Table as concise language from PSTs’ reports; and how they connected such concepts and understandings to their

developing knowledge and practice (column 3). For example, the next-to-last row identifies the knowledge source of “teaching practices literature” (specifically, Costa, 1991), Nina’s focus on the concept of “Levels of Questioning,” and how she used this information to reflect on her own attempts to ask questions “that aimed to help students elaborate or clarify their points.” We use this detailed display (Table 4) to elaborate our results later. 3.4.2. Situated: inquiry tool use To answer our second question on use of inquiry tools within the situated nature of inquiry, we reviewed PSTs’ uses of tools, especially their data analysis memos, for patterns and emerging themes. Given the centrality of focal student work and reflections as a key resource for inquiry, we reviewed PSTs’ data analysis memos and individual slide-decks to learn about what PSTs gleaned from inquiry into their “N of 4.” This effort was informed by PSTs’ accounts of school demographics and descriptions of their focal students, supported by work samples. Because audio-taped classroom discourse and discourse analyses were so central to inquiry conducted by this focal group, we particularly attended to ways they reviewed and gleaned meaningful information from their transcript analyses. We reviewed their transcripts, codes they used (e.g., authentic/inauthentic question, uptake), and their reflections and analyses. We identified four overarching themes (Table 5). We then used class discussion research literature to code for PSTs’ references (within these broad themes) to specific dialogic instruction elements. For example,

Table 4 Nina deepens conceptual understanding of class discussions from diverse resources. Knowledge source

Concepts gleaned from resources

Reflections/connections/questions/challenges

Research Article: Christoph and Nystrand (2001)

Scaffolding does not always lead to positive student outcomes Uptake: “when students actually built on comments previously made, creating continuity in discussions” (Memo 2, 5.9)

“The researchers in 2001 study stated that Kathy's scaffolding moves did not necessarily lead to a successful discussion” (Going Deep Notes, 4.25) Nina uses concept of uptake but finds variation in student discourse and coins a term: “Pseudo-uptake: Use of phrases to show agreement/disagreement: there is superficial elaboration on previous response; or presents new idea” (Memo 2, 5.9)

Research article: Moving away from simple recall Qs during text-based Jadallah et al. (2010) class discussions and to delve into deeper meanings of text Breaking the mold of eliciting “right” answers during teacher-student discussions

Wisdom of practice Teacher 1 interview report (3.25)

Safe environment essential Peer-collaboration among students during discussions

7

“This piece of research relates to something that my current master teacher always emphasizes … Although I have seen models where teachers at the secondary level accept multiple interpretations and ideas, I have not seen how teachers ask students to truly expand and substantiate their opinions.” (Going Deep Notes, 4.25) “This research explains how ingrained the idea of identifying ‘answers’ and what is ‘right and wrong’ is in our educational system. Teachers need to break out of this mold and challenge students to think, accept multiple interpretations, and learn to defend and explain their thinking.” (Going Deep Notes, 4.25) Crucial to have “conversations with the class, stating that it is okay to make mistakes. Also, it's good to give students oral rehearsal and allow them to talk to a partner.” “I can see how she finds discussion as a way to engage students in different modes and types of discussion. Her answer demonstrates the importance of collaboration with peers” (Interview report, 3.25)

Wisdom of practice Teacher 2 interview report (3.25)

Scaffolding diverse students' engagements with sentence “Although I do not know the effectiveness of asking students questions, the sentence starters or paragraph starters starters are great to help students who struggle with speaking and writing in English” (Interview report, 3.25) “The usage of these key phrases [such as ‘I agree… or I disagree’] informs me that students are aware that these serve as sentence starters for participating in discussion. What they do not understand is how to truly “build on” or directly contradict each other's comments.” (Memo 1, 5.2)

Teaching practices literature: Costa (1991)

Levels of Questioning

Reflects on her use of challenging Qs, asking Qs “that aimed to help students elaborate or clarify their points,” idea referenced in Costa

Cohort of group peers

Classroom Social Dynamics

“After hearing how successful Zia's Socratic Seminar was and how she implemented the roles of pilots and copilots, I decided to organize my Socratic Seminar in the same way. It was a greater success than the whole group discussion, for this discussion supported students' listening and speaking skills–and this encouraged students to engage in uptake.” (Final Reflection, 6.10)

8

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Table 5 Research team coding guide for review of PSTs’ discussion transcript analyses. Theme culled from review of PST transcript coding

Dialogic instruction element (from research literature)

Data sample from PSTs’ profiles

“[I want students] … to explain themselves without teacher prompting” “It felt like they were having a conversation with me rather than with each other” Multi-party talk “Socratic Seminar was effective getting more students to participate and respond to each other” Social engagement, peer Student uptake (building on each “Angel uses academic language during his response (“I agree”) to signal his agreement with a interactions in discussion other’s contributions for cohesive talk) classmate; he also includes some of his group member’s opinions which gives silent partners the chance to have their voices heard as well.” Students inviting peers to speak up “many … asked for other Ss to share their opinions” Content & quality of student talk: Elaboration in student talk “I want … students to give thorough explanations of their claim inferences by drawing meaning making & interpretation evidence from the text” Discussion as a whole, what it yields Navigation of ideas; teacher impact on “If I had not given them [specific examples], would they have started to think of [the related to learning what gets explored character] this way or would they have focused more on the surface level?” Fostering oral language

Transfer of control

uptake is foundational in discussion research (Nystrand, 1997)– ways a teacher or student extends or refutes contributions, aiding cohesive discourse–and PSTs coded for this in transcript analyses. Table 5 displays a sampling of these codes. Row 1 (fostering oral language) illustrates how themes included more than one dialogic element–illustrated with transfer of control from teacherdominated recitation, to discussion with students building on each other’s contributions and multi-party talk, highlighting how a Socratic Seminar increased participation. For content and quality of talk (Table 5, row 3), one dialogic instruction element was meaning-making and interpretation, particularly salient in ELA discussions (Applebee et al., 2003). After review of individual PSTs’ transcript analyses, we used the constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998) to contrast uses of this inquiry tool. This included tracking the range of dialogic instruction elements identified (e.g., academic language, discussion norms, responses to questioning) and the language of reflective writings to discern patterns and contrasts in ways PSTs used what they observed (e.g., raising questions, using results for planning next-steps instruction). 3.4.3. Synthesis: integrating knowledges Our third question asked how PSTs synthesized discoveries from resources and tools through reflections and figure-making. We reviewed individual reflections, as well as group figures, notes, their slideshow presentation, reflective commentaries, and an audio conversation. We examined synthesis processes and evolution of thinking, kinds of linkages PSTs made, themes in individual and group reflections, and discoveries and revisions to thinking. We paid particular attention to ways PSTs synthesized ideas and information from two or more resources, data-analysis events, and dialogues within their group. To understand ways figures displayed synthesized and evolving understandings, we reviewed figures, PSTs’ claims about them, and reports of values of figure-making. This involved two researchers examining successive figures for what PSTs added, subtracted, and changed. Our analyses attended especially to ways figures increased in nuance or complexity with numbers of concepts included, interrelations among visual components, and uses of labels and commentary to elucidate what Figures revealed. This analysis was informed by PST reflections on figures as representing the group’s evolving conceptions and practices in their focal topic of class discussion. This was important, as links between image and reflection support and reveal learning and knowledge integration (Gellevij, Van Der Meij, De Jong, & Pieters, 2002; Mayer, 2001).

instructor and two more-junior researchers) and a learning sciences scholar. Two team members are White males, one a male Latin American native Spanish speaker, one a biracial (Asian/White) female. Affordances and challenges attended the instructor as researcher/author. Insider status eases archiving of project data, enabling uncovering of relational aspects of the work (Lampert, 2000). However, when instructor and researcher are the same, context and student voices are needed (which we provide with descriptions of the innovation and PST voices forming the core dataset), as well as critical review of student work by outsiders to challenge potential self-fulfilling findings (Clift & Brady, 2005). Following this latter principle, team members not part of the project design or instruction conducted some analyses independent of the instructor. 4. Results 4.1. Inquiry baseline: focus on discussion formats As they began their inquiry, the PST group generated elements of ELA class discussion mapped on to three formats: teacher-led, small-group, and Socratic seminar. Here they drew upon general knowledge of and exposure to these formats from teaching observations and schooling experience. The group started with a concept map that one member identified as showing “overlap between certain strategy advantages and disadvantages, but we realized that the overlaps ended up being too linear.” The group moved instead to a Venn diagram (Fig. 3) and reported: “After a lot of discussion and experimentation with the different formats, we felt that the emphasis on the numerous overlap between the three types of discussion made a Venn diagram most suitable.” Using discussion formats/structures to organize discussion features, the Figure shows that the group had collected elements related to, for example, who initiates talk (teacher-initiated versus student-led), preparation (teacher versus student), and discussion thread (single in teacher-led and small-groups, versus divergent content and multiple threads in Socratic seminar). Of particular interest to our study is that the group–at this baseline point–had characterized teacher-led discussion as shaped and highly controlled by the teacher: teacher-initiated, specific focus, single thread. The group had not yet explored the democracy of resources and diverse inquiry tools to trouble these conceptions and expand their notions of teacher-led discussion. 4.2. Saturation in diverse resources: complexity, usefulness, and critical reflection

3.5. Researcher positionalities The research team included experienced K-12 educators (course

As they engaged with diverse resources, the group’s conceptions of discussion gained complexity and nuance. PSTs engaged

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Fig. 3. Focal group’s first visual, mapping their knowledge of the topical area of “Scaffolding discussion for higher-order thinking.” The Venn diagram uses three “formats” (teacher-led, small-group, and Socratic Seminar) as the group maps discussion features, highlighting numerous discussion features shared across formats.

resources in a nonhierarchical fashion, raising questions, comparing and contrasting resources, highlighting their available information and insight. 4.2.1. One PST’s resource use for nuanced conceptions of discussion To illustrate resource use, Table 4 shows how one group member, Nina, gleaned ideas from resources to expand her conceptions of discussion processes and challenges. The Table shows (column 1) diverse resources Nina tapped, including research articles, interviews with teachers, teaching practices literature, and her PST inquiry group peers. Column 2 shows a rich array of ideas gleaned from these resources; column 3 collects language from Nina’s work and reflections. Nina valued learning from interviewing two teachers. She asked six questions about their discussion practices and challenges, transcribed her taped interviews, and analyzed patterns. In her analysis, Nina highlighted interviewees’ agreement on discussion value: “to support students’ understanding.” Both interviewees also agreed on expectations regarding students’ oral participation in class, but their methods to encourage student participation differed. Nina noted (Table 4) that one teacher highlighted creating a safe environment and community to foster talk. The other was “practical-minded,” highlighting accountability: “Students should be forewarned that they would be called on. This gives them some time to formulate their answer.” Besides comparing these teachers’ strategies to promote discourse and accountability, Nina similarly analyzed teachers’ techniques to promote EBs’ engagement in discussion. Nina also compared research articles (Table 4), noting that where Jadallah et al. (2010) found scaffolding of student-led smallgroup discussions led to powerful outcomes, scaffolding in Christoph and Nystrand (2001) did not ensure successful discussion. In this way, with both interviews and research articles, Nina reflected critically, aligned with the inquiry model. She also forged links across different kinds of resources: moving away from simple recall questions, linking research by Jadallah et al. (2010) with “something that my master teacher always emphasizes” (Table 4,

9

row 3). Here, too, Nina reflected critically, noting she had not seen “how teachers ask students to truly expand and substantiate their opinions.” Resources helped Nina develop fuller conceptual understanding but also proved useful in practice and helpful in framing what she was noticing. She took an idea from a teacher interview (Table 4, Safe Environment, column 3) and immediately tested it, creating opportunities for students to talk in pairs preceding large-group talk, what the interviewed teacher called “oral rehearsal.” Resources helped Nina notice patterns and reflect on what her data meant for discussion and student learning. Nina used resources in interactive, nonhierarchical ways, reporting value in each as she reflected on her developing repertoire of knowledge and practice for discussion-leading. As her analytic memos developed over ten weeks, Nina took up terminology from researchers and teachers and, informed by Nystrand (1997) especially, began to use the term “dialogically-centered classroom” as her goal. This interface of resources supported her group’s work, as they collectively synthesized their developing knowledge and practice. Nina also reflected on how discussions need to move beyond teacher legislating right and wrong answers, a reductive approach she recalled from her own schooling. Analyzing Jadallah et al. (2010), Nina gained perspective: “This research explains how ingrained the idea of identifying ‘answers’ and what is ‘right and wrong’ is in our educational system.” Nina gained clarity about a need to “break out of [the] mold” of teachers as knowledge holders–“sole gatekeepers of information and correct answers”– and to accept different interpretations to texts and teach students to think, defend, and explain opinions (Table 4, rows 3 and 4). She also reflected on supports: “I have realized that too much scaffolding of discussion can be stifling as well as counterproductive.” She added that frames can support use of complete sentences, but over-use might constrain thinking and responses and needed attention to interaction in discussion. Through reflections prompted by resources and her practice, Nina sharpened her position on students as developing interpreters, suggesting a need to monitor nuanced ways teachers lead students to agreement/compliance with teacher positions. 4.2.2. Resources informing group-level conceptualizing of class discussion Forging links across resources appeared especially valuable in adding texture to developing repertoires of knowledge and practice. For example, one PST connected an ELA grades 7e8 standard “build on other’s ideas and express their own” to the concept of uptake (Nystrand, 1997). These links surfaced in the group’s figuremaking. Resources became foci in the group’s second figuremaking event (Fig. 4). The group discussed various visuals to represent what they were learning, landing on a matrix table: While developing the Venn diagram, we noticed that we began to come up with characteristics that correlated with each other … [so] we came up with a matrix to identify them and sort the information in a more logical and structured way. In the Fig. 4 matrix, they color-highlighted resources to emphasize importance in their understanding of discussion facilitation. Discussion formats (teacher-led, small group, Socratic Seminar) still organized the display, but now Table cells included far more content, ideas, and practices. Insights from resources (Fig. 4) included importance of student oral rehearsals with partner (teacher interview), textual evidence (standards), and probing and prompting (online resource). A particularly important concept for the group now was transfer of control (gleaned from learning theories) because “our ultimate goal in this discussion setting is to

10

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Fig. 4. Updated visual representations of focal ELA area of facilitating class discussion. The figure created by the group did not present Resource Key. Instead, PSTs used different colors to highlight ideas in the Table. Due to practical printing reasons, we reconstructed the Table, with all language intact, but bolded and underlined items color-coded in the original and added a Key for clarification.

have students take on more responsibility of the discussion.” Important in this new visualization was an “interaction” column. The group had mapped a preliminary matrix, then elaborated this column. They had reported and reflected in meetings on students’ discussion engagements and learning from focal students’ reflections and interviews. This led the group to highlight students and the social dynamics and discussion goals from a student perspective. Collectively, group members reflected on how discussions are contingent upon classroom culture and student community, personality, and social dynamics (Ghousseini, 2015). In a recorded discussion of work on this visual, one PST said the interaction column should include “Ability to build on ideas and not just spew their own opinions.” Another said, “Let’s add that.” Later in discussion, Nina reminded the group of the term “uptake” to capture this goal. The interaction column (Fig. 4) changed to include this term across discussion formats. The group coded this as “RL” (research literature). The group noted this discovery in their culminating slideshow notes: “In this improved version of our original matrix, we included and specified the students’ roles during these different discussion formats.” Use of resources and the figure-making synthesizing tool marked movement in the group’s

displays of understanding: a larger number of concepts involved in discussion than previously articulated; nuanced reflections on values and tensions related to discussion dimensions; and links across resources, at times examined critically. 4.3. Situate: inquiry tools aided noticing how student dynamics mediate discussion The use of inquiry tools marked a shift in PSTs’ awareness and conceptions of class discussion. Working with taped, transcribed, and analyzed discourse samples took PSTs from thinking about and learning about discussion to examining what occurred in talk, in the language of their students and themselves. All four focal PSTs used audiotaped talk, with student writing as a secondary data source to investigate ways they and their students enacted discussion. Their work included common educational research processes: tape the discourse, transcribe it, repeatedly read it, code the talk, analyze, and report patterns. As with veteran educational researchers, the group used both a priori and emergent codes. Diverse resources PSTs had explored aided selection of a priori codes for analysis. This included substantive student engagement features they gleaned

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

from Nystrand and Gamoran (1991): authentic questions, uptake, and high-quality evaluation of turns at talk (Fig. 4) with items coded by PSTs by resource type (e.g. RL ¼ research literature). PSTs used digitized color-coding to identify discourse moves in their transcripts. In analytic memos, following their coded transcripts, the PSTs counted features (kinds of questions asked–authentic vs. nonauthentic, number of students who spoke, number of instances of uptake) and collected language samples to distill discourse patterns. Each PST transcribed three separate discussions over several weeks, used a coding process supported by research and inquiry workshops, discussed findings, and produced memos on their individual analyses. All memos used display of pieces of transcribed discourse, some with tabular representation of patterns and themes. Analyses of coded classroom discourse data led PSTs to notice what students were doing in the talk, what they themselves were doing, and interactions between students and themselves. 4.3.1. Two PSTs’ use of inquiry tools to uncover student dynamics To analyze what discourse analysis yielded for PST discoveries, we coded for dialogic instruction elements–what PSTs noticed and featured in codes, analyses, and reflections, whether stated explicitly or implicitly. This involved our team’s analysis of PSTs’

11

analyses; our process was to glean patterns across analyses conducted by the four PSTs, in order to uncover nuances in cross-PST patterns. We illustrate with what two of the PSTs reported discovering through their use of discourse analysis as inquiry tool. Table 6 shows Ying’s and Zia’s data analyses focused on what we distilled as four themes of students’ discussion engagements. First, as they focused on their first-drafts as discussion leaders, these PSTs explored the foundational nature of discussion as oral language production and issues of adolescents entering classroom discourse. Table 6 shows these concerns included making interactions happen, fostering self-expression in discussion, considerations of who does/does not enter discussion, being mindful of who has the floor, and the academic language needed at times to produce language for classroom talk. Also included were concerns with lack of language production–silence among students and what that means, and how time and processing of information may contribute to language production. The second dialogic theme (Table 6) relates to social interactions and engagements among peers. The PSTs began to notice and raise questions about such interactions once discussion began, how students grouped during small-group discussions and impacts of those groupings, and considerations of equitable participation. Zia

Table 6 Noticing students’ engagements in discussion, through transcript analysis as a key inquiry tool. Theme

Dialogic instruction elements

Zia: Raises Qs from data

Oral language production

Balance of T-S talk; impact of T prompts Multi-party talk

“it felt like they were having a conversation with me rather “I need to consider the amount of information I feed to than with each other” my students.”a

Social engagement, peer interactions in discussion

Content & quality of S talk: meaning making. Orchestrating the making of meaning & building interpretation (specific to ELA)

Discussion as a whole, what it yields related to learning

“Socratic Seminar was effective getting more Ss to participate and respond to each other” Academic “Angel uses academic language during his response (“I language agree”) to signal his agreement” Time and silence “For those who did not talk, were they also engaged and benefiting from the conversation?” “there may not have been re. engagement, enough wait time” processing Discussion norms “Often, I had to remind students about following … guidelines” Peer uptake “[Focal S] also includes some of his group member’s opinions which gives silent partners the chance to have their voices heard as well.” Ss inviting peers to speak up “Participation was broken down into … voluntary, teacherSocial drama prompting, peer-questioning.” groups & its impact “none of the Hmong Ss spoke up … They did express their Equity: race/ opinion … within their small groups but how much more ethnicity, dominance of talk important would it have been for them to talk to the class?” “Were they very stuck on what they believed in rather than Knowledge and evidence used for what the evidence from the book was leading them to believe?” interpretation Elaboration of S “Would they have been able to do that without my talk prompting? Would it have been more beneficial for them to just talk to each other without me?” Responses to “effective participation was lower than the Socratic Seminar questioning … Many Ss needed to be called on and prompted to share their ideas and reasons behind their opinions” “if I had not given them [specific examples], would they have Navigation of ideas; T impact on started to think about Bilbo this way or would they have focused more on the surface level?”b what gets explored Ss’ resistance to “Most Ss agreed with the quote and only a few changed their changing ideas mind after the discussion … many Ss believed in their agreement or disagreement but were unable to explain why.”

Ying: Uses data to drive planning

“[the transcription] gives me an idea of how the type of questions I ask correlate with the time it takes for a student to respond”

“I need to work with Ss [on] teaching them to respond, agree, and disagree respectfully.” “many … asked for other Ss to share their opinions”

“one thing I can do for next time is encourage Ss to make the connections on their own, without my help.” “I want … Ss to give thorough explanations of their claims inferences by drawing evidence from the text, … to explain themselves without teacher prompting” “I am considering teaching my students how to answer a question; … how to look at a question and figure out what it is asking for them to do.”

a Bolded and italicized remarks indicate patterns in PSTs’ use of the inquiry tool of transcription and discourse analysis to notice and reflect, and provide contrast: Zia’s use of question-posing, Ying’s language of next-steps planning. b Reference to character in The Hobbit.

12

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

noted that, although her Hmong students had “the same or slightly higher grades than the rest of their classmates,” they were “less likely than their Hispanic/African-American counterparts in speaking up” during discussions. Reflecting on such patterns of classroom groupings and who takes the floor, Zia documented patterns in three ways students engaged in talk: “voluntary, teacher-prompting, peer questioning.” The third student-focused theme (Table 6) features talk as more than generic, supporting meaning-making from text in ELA. PSTs considered text comprehension and analysis, including how students used knowledge sources for interpretation and elaboration. In one memo, Zia analyzed a 25-min Socratic Seminar of Flowers for Algernon (Keyes, 1966). The book concerns Charlie Gordon, who has a genetic intellectual disability and undergoes an operation for increased intelligence that works temporarily but eventually fails. From transcribed talk, Zia focused first on discussion processes. She used language of inquiry to identify themes: support, participation levels, race/ethnicity, academic language use, and levels of questions asked. Zia then used two data-based tables to display analyses. The first table tracked question-posing; she noted how her own questions dominated the discourse. In a second table, Zia focused on focal students’ participation. She used a simple rubric to evaluate discussion performance and, as column headers, used “piece of language to demonstrate” and “commentary about what was going on for each.” Her evaluation included students’ use of evidence to support answers to the question: Was it worth it for Charlie to get the operation? In this way, Zia used inquiry tools to analyze transcripts as a means to unlock what occurs in classroom talk related to text interpretation and argumentation. The final theme in what PSTs noticed about students’ discussion engagements (Table 6) relates to what discussion does/does not yield for ideas that get explored. In this theme, PSTs reflected on how ideas navigate through talk, how the teacher may influence student interpretations, and degree to which students appear willing to adjust their interpretations or appear resistant to teacher remarks. For example, Zia wondered if students were “very stuck on what they believed rather than what the evidence from the book was leading them to believe.” 4.3.2. Tool use movement: from noting patterns to raising questions and planning Despite similarities in using transcripts to notice and understand students’ engagements, how PSTs used discoveries from this tool varied. Table 6 (italics) shows different patterns. Zia noticed and reported patterns of engagement, and frequently wondered, hypothesized, questioned: Were they also engaged and benefitting from the conversation? Were they stuck on what they believed in? Would they have been able to do that without my prompting? In this way, Zia demonstrated reflective capacity for future adaptation. A pattern in Ying’s reflections (Table 6) was noticing student engagements, reflecting on challenges, and articulating next steps, evidenced by linguistic markers: I need to consider, I need to work with students on, One thing I can do for next time. Ying used what she noticed, diagnosed needs, and pondered refinements to foster growth: “I am considering teaching students … how to look at a question and figure out what it is asking them to do.” Ying used transcript analysis as a diagnostic tool for scaffolding that is contingent upon actual student performance, a feature widely missing from decontextualized routine supports that masquerade as true scaffolding (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2014; van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). These PSTs carefully coded and analyzed discourse that they audiotaped, transcribed, discussed, reported, and reflected on. Their student-focus contrasts with historical patterns of earlycareer teachers focusing on self-image, only later focusing on

their students (Kagan, 1992). The data also highlight PSTs’ focus on developing knowledge of content and students (here, the “content” of literature discussions), a part of pedagogical content knowledge (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Class discussion content is ephemeral, making it difficult for teachers and students to retrieve interpretations and the navigation of ideas, and the ways talk gets co-constructed. Inquiry tools that made talk transparent and available for analysis, informed by resources, had a clear and important impact on the PSTs’ conceptions of discussion. 4.4. Synthesize: PSTs synthesizing across resources, tool use, and peer discoveries Linking across sources occurred as PSTs reflected on their discussion tryouts, patterns made visible through analysis within and across memos, and their inquiry group’s collaborative discoveries gleaned from sharing resources and data. 4.4.1. Synthesizing across resources and tool use: focusing on student dynamics The group structure provided PSTs an additional set of human resources: Peers analyzing and reflecting on knowledge and practice together toward a topical goal and discussing future practice collectively. For example, Zia reflected on a student being opinionated and “headstrong,” who wrote “I don’t think hearing a discussion helps me write better because my mind is set and my answer is final.” Zia found the student resistant to changed perspectives. Zia also saw a helpful contrast in Tess’s data, writing, “Contrastingly, in Tess’ 12th-grade class, she found that her student with a similar personality was the one who benefited the most out of discussion out of her focal student group.” Zia linked her example to one from a peer, prompting questions about age difference and personalities and how these inform differential engagement in and benefits from discussion. For Tess, whose inquiry stalled slightly from school and credential program demands, the group structure proved invaluable for forging links across data sources and ideas. During work with a matrix (Fig. 4), the group noted a need to scaffold dialogic interaction. Tess took this idea to reflect on how her 12th-grade students struggled to anchor discussion contributions, that “students did not reference the text at all …. What their peers were saying was far more interesting than what the book had.” To address this missing step, Tess planned to include early instruction in providing textual evidence when interacting, as it “is essential for higher-order thinking in all disciplines.” Tess reported that when group members compared discussion-leading experiences of scaffolding participation, this prompted them to incorporate standards language for discussion; this sharpened Tess’ goal of fostering comprehension beyond surface levels. Mapping the group matrix (Fig. 4) prompted Tess to reflect on “transfer of control … for discussion-based learning,” but she and her peers found “letting go” of scaffolds established to support mastery of discussion strategies is not easy, for students or teachers–a feature they hoped to explore further in practice. Tess reflected that their earlier figures highlighted discussion commonalities and major features but “ignored a crucial element that we learned from our classroom experiences, which was the classroom chemistry.” Her comment here connects with a crosscutting theme from this group’s discussions: the centrality of student dynamics. For Tess, this meant that, for example, students with strong personalities “tended to get a lot from the Socratic Seminars and other discussion activities” while others needed more support to find interaction entry points. Through synthetic work of figure-making, the group realized practice can “differ from theory” and that going deep into data helps one visualize patterns

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

that otherwise go unnoticed. Tess reported that using figuremaking and reflection as synthesis tools led her to learn more about her students and “their individual preferences as academic beings.”

4.4.2. Group figure-making to synthesize complex knowledge PSTs displayed developing knowledge and discovered things as the group mapped understandings and reflected in writing. For their final visual (Fig. 5), the group created a three-tier pyramid; the pinnacle indicated their goal: critical response to text. The figure distilled still-developing issues warranting attention. Particularly striking here is that the pyramid’s mid-level boxes highlight contributions of students as resource for teacher learning about leading ELA discussions. In the figure, learners mediate both content and method of inquiry. PSTs clarified (pyramid, left side) that “critical response to text” depends upon students’ use of “outside texts” and “personal experiences.” The PSTs visually placed learners and their meaning-making at the center of critical response. Likewise, the group identified (pyramid, right side) that students mediated method of inquiry as a means to critical response to text. For their synthesis slideshow, the group stated: We addressed the classroom dynamic as an important aspect of a successful classroom discussion–trust between students, between students and teacher, as well as individual students’ influences on the whole. This feeds into what our goal has been all along–for students to critically think and respond to text. In their culminating conception, critical response was contingent upon student dynamics as mediating factors. This was a dramatic departure from the group’s earlier visualization where formats organized their knowledge of discussion-leading. We see this as evidence of substantial growth in PST learning and understanding of inquiry tool affordances. Nina reflected that the group’s final visual (Fig. 5) allowed them to synthesize “everything we’ve learned from our research and implementation,” taking them far beyond “what the discussion format was,” adding:

13

We included our scaffolding moves in the visual, but we also considered classroom dynamic–such as student personalities– and placed that as a crucial element in our visual because of our observations on focal students. Even though this final visual did not depict the three discussion types, we realized that, in the end, those were not our main focus. It was how to help students reach a level of critical thinking through discussion in general. Nina’s reflection highlights how this group shook off inertia of four previous figures and a comparatively simplistic organizational scheme of discussion formats, to attempt a radical revision near the end of their group inquiry. Additionally, this last visual facilitated group understanding of the centrality of students’ personalities and dynamics during class discussion, included as an important element in their last visual. In their culminating slideshow, the group described the project as “a surprisingly organic process.” They reported that they “ended up developing several visuals that work better together than they do separately–a collection of visuals that describe aspects of our inquiry project that can be interpreted independently or together.” This highlighted that their earlier figures were not inferior or incomplete; the matrix, with its specificity and a key providing a trail from relevant resources, was an important complement to the final visual that distilled and conceptualized key ideas, including the centrality, chemistry, and social dynamics of individual students who open possibilities for co-constructed classroom discourse. 4.5. Summary of results: increasing conceptual understanding of discussion leading Across data sources, we found evidence that PSTs’ discussionleading conceptions gained complexity and nuance as they worked with diverse resources and inquiry tools and reflected individually and with others about their first discussion-leading attempts. Although length of written reflections, depth in data analysis in memos, and integration of diverse resources varied across our focal group, all four PSTs used student data as key information in revising and refining their conceptions and practice in learning to lead class discussions. 5. Discussion

Fig. 5. Focal group constructs a three-tier pyramid for final visual, synthesizing their knowledge and practice for facilitating class discussion in English. The pinnacle (highlighted in blue in the original) indicates higher-order goal–first time the core goal appears as more than discussion formats, now highlighting “what our goal has been all alongdfor students to critically think and respond to text.” Mid-level boxes (highlighted bright red in the original) signal key teacher learning about ways diverse students are key actors who co-construct discussion and mediate all opportunities for “critical response to text.”

Our study makes several contributions. First, we provided a working model of pedagogy to engage PSTs in complex knowledge development for teaching, well beyond strictly routines and procedures–an approach to developing flexible adaptation over fixity. The model saturated the TE learning space with a democracy of resources, situated inquiry activity in practice teaching classrooms and on-campus inquiry groups, and engaged PSTs in systematic use of diverse inquiry tools, including synthesis tools of figure-making and reflections. We provide a deep look at what teacher thinking and learning look like in the messy, complex process of learning to teach. Second, we featured one inquiry group developing knowledge and practice for the challenging domain of leading discussions in K-12 classrooms, focused on ELA. In educational contexts still dominated by recitation across grades, subjects, and nations, our account of this inquiry group marks a break from inherited discourses of schooling, signaling the possibility that teachers can develop a repertoire of knowledge and practice for dialogic instruction even at the dawn of their careers. Third, we studied four ethnically diverse Asian-American teachers working in low-SES schools of culturally and linguistically diverse students, highlighting possibilities of fostering

14

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

learning in classrooms where evidence-based discussion of text and cohesive discourse are rare. Diverse K-12 students in the focal classrooms pressed these PSTs to center student perspectives, behaviors, resources, and challenges in a developing model of knowledge and practice needed for facilitating ELA discussions. This is an important finding. Seeing student dynamics as a mediating influence on all dialogic instruction moves, these PSTs marked the importance of noticing student engagements and framing students as resources for developing discussion practices. Learning to notice and engage with students as co-constructors of discussions is particularly challenging. Through discourse analysis of class discussions, PSTs learned to notice specific details they reported, analyzed, and reflected on. Freezing ephemeral discourse enabled PSTs to mine the talk for powerful findings. They began to notice what individual K-12 students were doing in the discourse, and how PSTs themselves shaped the talk. As PSTs analyzed data using inquiry tools, they coded discourse, documented patterns, and used external resources for sense-making of findings. This surfaced a topical area’s promise and challenges, using authentic rumination on what unfolds in classroom discourse. PSTs’ own analyses highlighted various elements involved in making dialogic instruction workable, meaningful, and useful for student learning. There was a candor and authenticity in PSTs’ reflections on their “surprisingly organic process.” TE pedagogy needs to embrace complexity of content knowledge for practice (Florio-Ruane, 2002), rather than merely guiding tasks and routines often repetitive or reductive. To be adaptive to diverse learners, one needs deep knowledge for flexible practices. Curricula embracing complexity challenge PSTs short-term but may serve longer-term understanding. Our study had limitations. First, we featured work of one group of four PSTs and therefore did not pursue a claim of generalizability. We sought instead to capture depth and complexity of PSTs’ learning processes and to examine timely work of learning to facilitate discussion. As a carefully constructed case, the study instantiates the possible (Shulman, 1983). Second, saturating the learning space with diverse resources required inputs and guidance from the inquiry course instructor, raising the question of knowledge needed by teacher educators to guide resource-rich inquiries. In addition, we have found PSTs often must work hard to locate regional educators who model research-informed, forwardthinking practices and who can share relevant wisdom of practice. PSTs also need guidance to choose resources they locate, especially those not vetted by an instructor. Third, the sustained study PSTs developed may seem untenable in the often sped-up world of TE. We can report, however, that PSTs repeatedly indicated satisfaction with the textured learning and practice that such an innovation fostered. A view of teacher as technician, where adopting trumps adapting, has dominated many policy and practice contexts, leaving new teachers with space for little more than strategic uses of content and pedagogy within constrained professionalism (Wills & Sandholtz, 2009). Countering this requires TE pedagogical innovations embracing complexity of learning to teach (CochranSmith et al., 2014). Our focal group provides a case of developing a repertoire of knowledge and practice through incremental layering of complexity and co-constructing knowledge for teaching. To develop teachers prepared to foster equal educational opportunity, TE needs to resist quick-entry procedures and explore ways PSTs can develop as professionals who embrace complexity of curricular domains and learn ways to use resource networks to draw coherence and continually rethink practice. This is particularly important in light of corporate “reforms” stripping TE of its research-based, visionary roles (Zeichner, 2014). As a learning process, teaching is never fixed nor complete, always open to new

tools and resources, with diverse learners in local contexts among the most essential resources to help teachers continually refine their knowledge and practice. Further research might explore TE pedagogical innovations that similarly position PSTs as knowledge-generating, problem-solving professionals. Other topical areas in ELA and all subjects warrant such study, exploring how PSTs develop repertoires of knowledge and practice that embrace complexity, highlighting how procedures are tools but insufficient for the complex process of learning to teach. Studies also might explore complicating factors, tensions as teacher educators work to take up such pedagogy, and how and when PSTs resist such complexity, calling for only quick-procedure solutions. We view the work we reported as an expansive learning opportunity in a multi-level process. PSTs conduct inquiry, learning with and from their students and collectively with PST peers. Our own inquiry deepens our knowledge of pedagogical process, enabling us to rethink, reframe, revise our pedagogy, and to participate in larger conversations about TE pedagogy, PST learning, and teacher learning of dialogic instruction. Acknowledgements The research reported in this article was funded in part by a grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation (USA) 21st Century Science Initiative–Understanding Teacher Change and Teachers as Learners (Grant #220020519; Steven Z. Athanases, PI) and a Conference on English Education Research Initiative Award/Grant from the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), Urbana, IL, USA (Athanases, PI). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at meetings of NCTE and the American Educational Research Association. The authors thank Crys Bronte Gray for assistance on early data review. References Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685e730. Athanases, S. Z. (2014). Mentoring and mediating the interface of multiple knowledges in learning to teach challenging content. In C. J. Craig, & L. Orland-Barak (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Vol. I, pp. 403e426). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Athanases, S. Z., Bennett, L. H., & Wahleithner, J. M. (2015). Adaptive teaching for English language arts: Following the pathway of classroom data in preservice teacher inquiry. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(1), 83e114. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 263e299. Athanases, S. Z., & Martin, K. J. (2006). Learning to advocate for educational equity in a teacher credential program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 627e646. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0742051X06000242. Athanases, S. Z., Wahleithner, J. M., & Bennett, L. H. (2012). Learning to attend to culturally and linguistically diverse learners through teacher inquiry in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1e50. http://www.tcrecord.org/ library/content.asp?contentid¼16470. Athanases, S. Z., Wahleithner, J. M., & Bennett, L. H. (2013). Learning about English learners’ content understandings through teacher inquiry: Focus on writing. The New Educator, 9(4), 304e327. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. 1080/1547688X.2013.841506. Athanases, S. Z., & Wong, J. W. (2018). Learning from analyzing linguistically diverse students’ work: A contribution of preservice teacher inquiry. Educational Forum, 82(2), 191e207. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131725.2018. 1420860. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389e407. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Byrnes, K. (2008). Genres of research in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 1017e1049). NY: Routledge. Bransford, J., Dery, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & with Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 40e87). San

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970 Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Candela, A. (1998). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139e163. Christoph, J. N., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’s transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(2), 249e286. Clift, R. E., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309e424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Friedman, A., & Pine, G. (2009). Inquiry on inquiry: Practitioner research and student learning. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 17e32. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Ludlow, L., Haigh, M., & Hill, M. (2014). When complexity theory meets critical realism: A platform for research on initial teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 105e112. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Costa, A. (1991). Developing minds: Programs for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383e412. Dana, N. F., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2006). Deconstructing inquiry in the professional development school: Exploring the domains and contents of teachers’ questions. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 59e71. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202e215. http:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022487107299978. Dresser, R. (2007). The effects of teacher inquiry in the bilingual language arts classroom. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 53e66. Erickson, F. (2011). Taking advantage of structure to improvise in instruction: Examples from elementary school classrooms. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 113e132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ermeling, B. A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377e388. Fecho, B. (2004). “Is this English?” Race, language, and culture in the classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Fecho, B., & Allen, J. (2003). Teacher inquiry into literacy, social justice, and power. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 232e246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013e1055. Florio-Ruane, S. (2002). More light: An argument for complexity in studies of teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 205e215. Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357e368. Foster, P. (1999). Never mind the quality, feel the impact”: A methodological assessment of teacher research sponsored by the teacher training agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(4), 380e398. Freedman, S. W., Simons, E. R., Kalnin, J. S., Casareno, A., & The M-CLASS Teams. (1999). Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gallas, K. (2003). Imagination and literacy: A teacher’s search for the heart of learning. NY: Teachers College Press. Gellevij, M., Van Der Meij, H., De Jong, T., & Pieters, J. (2002). Multimodal versus unimodal instruction in a complex learning context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 215e239. Ghousseini, H. (2015). Core practices and problems of practice in learning to lead classroom discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 334e357. Goswami, D., Lewis, C., Rutherford, M., & Waff, D. (2009). On teacher inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425e476). Mahwah, NJ: AERA. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1e29. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014e2026. rrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or Gutie repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19e25. rrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: MediGutie ated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1 & 2), 100e117. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., with Berliner, D., CochranSmith, M., & McDonald, M. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358e389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson,

15

H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262e272). New York, NY, USA: Freeman. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26e29. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B., Kim, I., Kuo, L., & Wu, X. (2010). Influence of teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194e230. Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2013). Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129e169. Kavanagh, S. S., & Rainey, E. C. (2017). Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English language arts teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 904e937. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203e235. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Selfunderstanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257e272. Keyes, D. (1966). Flowers for Algernon. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World. Kincheloe, J. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 49e66. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96(1), 98e106. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Wubbels, T., & Lagerwerf, B. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lampert, M. (2000). Knowing teaching: The intersection of research on teaching and qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 86e99. Lew, A., & The M-CLASS teams. (1999). Writing correctness and the secondlanguage student. In S. W. Freedman, E. R. Simons, J. S. Kalnin, & A. Casareno (Eds.), Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms (pp. 165e178). New York: Teachers College Press. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teacher’s adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245e255. Loughran, J. (2003). Exploring the nature of teacher research. In A. Clarke, & G. Erickson (Eds.), Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice (pp. 181e189). NY: Routledge. Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163e196. Martin, L. (2014). A pragmatic perspective on visual representation and creative thinking. Visual Studies, 29(1), 80e93. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Prospective adaptation in the use of external representations. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 370e400. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Meneses, A., Hugo, E., García, M. A., & Müller, M. (2018). Facilitating academic textbased discussions in initial teacher education: Evaluating specialized knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 119e130. Merino, B. J., & Ambrose, R. C. (2009). Beginning teachers’ inquiry in linguistically diverse classrooms: Exploring the power of small learning communities. In C. J. Craig, & L. F. Deretchin (Eds.), Teacher Education Yearbook XVII: Teacher learning in small group settings (pp. 242e260). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Nevarez-LaTorre, A. A. (2010). The power of learning from inquiry: Teacher research as a professional development tool in multilingual schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261e290. Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., et al. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205e242. Pastoor, L. de W. (2004). Discourse and learning in a Norwegian multiethnic classroom: Developing shared understanding through classroom discourse. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 13e27. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Peterson, S., & Calovini, T. (2004). Social ideologies in grade eight students’ conversation and narrative writing. Linguistics and Education, 15(1 & 2), 121e139. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271e296. Price, J. N. (2001). Action research, pedagogy and change: The transformative potential of action research in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 43e74. Radencich, M. C., Eckhardt, K., Rasch, R., Uhr, S. L., & Pisaneschi, D. M. (1998). University course-based practitioner research: Four studies on journal writing contextualize the process. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(1), 79e112. Resnick, L., Asterhan, C., & Clarke, S. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

16

S.Z. Athanases et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 88 (2020) 102970

Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. NY: Routledge. Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. H. Hornberger, & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528e546). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection (2nd ed.). Routledge. Scherff, L. (2012). “This project has personally affected me”: Developing a critical stance in preservice English teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 200e236. €n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New Scho York, NY: Basic Books. Schultz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A 3-year study of teacher candidates’ experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 315e331. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1e51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278e290. Shakespear, E., & the M-CLASS teams. (1999). What I’d tell a White gal: What my Black male students taught me about race and schooling. In S. W. Freedman, E. R. Simons, J. S. Kalnin, & A. Casareno (Eds.), Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms (pp. 77e88). New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remote control of teaching. In L. S. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 484e504).

New York: Longman. Sowa, P. A. (2009). Understanding our learners and developing reflective practice: Conducting action research with English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1026e1032. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. NY: Guilford. Strom, K. J. (2015). Teaching as assemblage: Negotiating learning and practice in the first year of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 321e333. Valli, L., van Zee, E. H., Rennert-Ariev, P., Mikeska, J., Catlett-Muhammad, S., & Roy, P. (2006). Initiating and sustaining a culture of inquiry in a teacher leadership program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 97e114. Viesca, K. M., Strom, K., Hammer, S., Masterson, J., Linzell, C. H., MitchellMcCollough, J., et al. (2019). Developing a complex portrait of content teaching for multilingual learners via nonlinear theoretical understandings. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163e196. Williamson, P. (2013). Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of discussion. English Education, 46(1), 34e67. Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065e1114. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K. M. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 40(5), 551e568. Zuidema, L. A., & Fredricksen, J. E. (2016). Resources preservice teachers use to think about student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 12e36.