DIALOGIC INSTRUCTION IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPOSITION

CLASSROOM: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

by

Mark K. Cuthbertson

CARMEN MYERS, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

GAIL HUGHES, PhD, Committee Member

BARBARA SCHNEIDER, PhD, Committee Member

Feranda Williamson, EdD, Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

December 2013

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3609423Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3609423

©Mark Cuthbertson, 2014

Abstract

Research has shown that dialogic instruction is a desirable method of curriculum

delivery. Dialogic instruction encourages students to integrate cognitive and behavioral

processes, thus leading to a broader transferable skill set. This study presented an

overview of dialogic instruction related to various accepted learning theories, an

examination of constructivism as the theoretical framework of dialogism, and a review of

the literature on the nature of college writing instruction. This descriptive study examined

the perceptions of students and teachers of dialogic instruction in community college

writing classes. Also studied was the alignment of student perception and teacher intent.

An intact questionnaire instrument, the College Course Activities Questionnaire (CCAQ),

created and revised by Steele (1969, 1981), was used to assess and quantify student and

teacher perceptions. The roles of age and gender also were examined. Data included

demographic information and scores from the CCAQ. Data were collected from a

convenience sample of 83 students and 5 instructors at a 2-year community college

located in the Midwestern United States. It was concluded that students and teachers had

a favorable perception of the dialogic instructional methods used in the English

composition classroom. Data indicated that the students preferred dialogic writing

instruction to the traditional monologic lecture style that they had experienced in previous

classes. The researcher concluded that an alignment did exist between actual classroom

conditions (students’ perceived real) and teachers’ intended conditions (teacher’s ideal).

Age and gender played no significant role in students’ perceptions; however, because of

the small subgroup size, the results should be interpreted with caution.

iii

Dedication

In the journey through my doctoral coursework and dissertation, several people

offered steady and continuous encouragement and inspiration. I thank God for placing

these incredible people in my life, and words cannot express my gratitude for their

faithful support.

My mentor, Dr. Carmen Myers, directed, prodded, and assisted me, providing me

not only with the tools necessary to succeed in this endeavor, but also those intangibles I

needed to grow as a thinker/writer/scholar.

My committee members, Dr. Hughes and Dr. Schneider, offered me their wisdom,

guidance, and patience. I am grateful for their time and effort.

My wife, Rebecca, was truly my guiding force, my angel, and the source of my

zeal as an educator. She is a shining example of what a teacher should be. Without her

undying support and encouragement, I could never have taken this educational journey. I

am sincerely grateful for her willingness to listen, make suggestions, and provide

feedback. I will forever appreciate her love and support.

My children and grandchildren gave me endless encouragement, and I hope that I

have made them proud and have shown them what is possible with determination and

perseverance.

My community college students were the inspiration for this study, repeatedly

telling me that the instructional approach I used was something special that they wished

other teachers would try.

iv

My coworkers and colleagues often asked how my dissertation was progressing

and encouraged me when I needed it the most. Without all these people, my doctoral

journey would not have been as full, productive, or rewarding.

To thank all of these individuals, I dedicate this work to them.

v

Acknowledgments

Although I have already referred to Dr. Myers, it is not only suitable but also

proper to acknowledge her here. As a mentor, she encouraged, directed, and supported

me. Dr. Myers could see the passion that I have for my topic, and she helped me to

harness that fervor. Dr. Myers championed my work and was instrumental in my

completing this dissertation process. I could not have asked for a better mentor.

vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 10

Purpose of the Study 13

Rationale 13

Research Questions 13

Significance of the Study 14

Theoretical Framework 16

Data Collection 18

Data Analysis 19

Ethical Concerns 20

Validity 20

Definitions of Terms 21

Assumptions and Limitations 24

Nature of the Study 25

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 26

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 28

Introduction 28

Dialogue 29

vii

Monoligism 34

Dialogism 36

Passive Learning 37

Active Learning 38

Transformative Learning 39

Learning Environment 46

Theoretical Framework 49

Cognitivism 55

Summary 56

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 59

Introduction 59

Research Questions 59

Methodology and Rationale 60

Research Design 62

Instrument 64

Validity and Reliability 65

Data Collection 66

Data Analysis 67

Sample Size 73

Limitations of the Study 74

Expected Findings 74

Ethical Issues 75

Conclusion 76

viii

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 77

Introduction 77

Research Questions 77

Summary of the Research Instrument 78

Design of the CCAQ 79

Identification of the Sample 82

Descriptive Analysis 84

Cognitive Domain 85

Behavioral Domain 89

Affective Domain 92

Student and Teacher Opinions 95

Scoring Procedures 96

Additional Research Questions 98

Summary 105

Conclusion 106

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107

Introduction 107

Demographic Information 107

Summary of Results 108

Discussion of Results 111

Findings and Conclusions 114

Relationship of Results to Literature 116

Implications for Instruction 117

ix

Implications for Practice 118

Implications for the Field 119

Recommendations for Further Research 119

Conclusion 122

REFERENCES 124

APPENDIX A. CCAQ 142

APPENDIX B. CAQ/CCAQ RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 144

APPENDIX D. INTERPRETING CCAQ 146

APPENDIX E. ANALYSIS OF STUDENT COMMENTS: CATEGORY

DEFINITIONS 147

APPENDIX F. TAXONOMY OF INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES 149

APPENDIX H. STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CLASS QUALITIES 150

APPENDIX I. STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CLASS DEFICIENCIES 153

APPENDIX J. STUDENT COMMENTS 155

APPENDIX K. TEACHER RESPONSES TO CCAQ OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

157

x

List of Tables

Table 1. Classification of Student Comments in the CCAQ 66

Table 2. Paired Items for Cognitive Factors of the CCAQ 73

Table 3. Primary Criteria for Inclusion 84

Table 4. Lower Thought Processes: Memory Factor 85

Table 5. Lower Thought Processes: Translation Factor 86

Table 6. Lower Thought Processes: Interpretation Factor 87

Table 7. Higher Thought Processes: Application Factor 87

Table 8. Higher Thought Processes: Analysis Factor 88

Table 9. Higher Thought Processes: Synthesis Factor 89

Table 10. Higher Thought Processes: Evaluation Factor 89

Table 11. Classroom Focus: Discussion Factor 90

Table 12. Classroom Focus: Openness Factor 91

Table 13. Classroom Focus: Dialogue Factor 92

Table 14. Classroom Climate 94

Table 15. Teacher Query 94

Table 16. Classroom Climate: Homework 95

Table 17. Lapan’s Category Scoring System 96

Table 18. Mean Response by Age Group to All CCAQ Questions 101

Table 19. Mean Response by Gender 104

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Dialogic instruction, or instruction based upon dialogue, has the potential to

increase student comprehension, metacognition, critical thinking, and reasoning (Botan,

1997; Porter, 2004; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Solomon, 2007). In addition, as Berlin

(1988) noted, the traditional lecture and essay model of academic writing instruction is

“purely mechanistic” (p. 9), suiting the fancy of an academic community focused on

student emulation of academic discourse. Botan (1997) labeled the predominant model in

use as monological, and Burns (2009) contended that monological educators persistently

strive to impose their truths or programs on others. Larson (2000) agreed with Botan,

adding that the majority of all classroom talk is nothing more than a recitation-style

lecture approach. Solomon (2007) declared that this current-traditional lecture model of

writing instruction fails to acknowledge the socially constructed nature of writing and

contains several deficiencies.

Porter (2004) asserted that the current-traditional model is a behaviorist approach

that renders students passive in the teaching and learning environment. The teacher is the

focus of the classroom through means of lecturing, providing notes, and other avenues for

students to obtain information about the course material. Stewart-Wingfield and Black

(2005) characterized this process as passive learning after Allington (2001) insisted that

the result of the recitation-style (monologic) lecture approach is students who are passive

learners. Johannesen (1996) contended that monologic communication focuses on the

instructor’s message, not on the students’ real needs. Student response is used only to

2

further the teacher’s purpose. An honest response is neither wanted nor invited; passive

and disengaged learners are the expected norm.

Burns (2009) posited that conformity to the mechanical processes of the current-

traditional lecture model fails to motivate disengaged, passive students, who subsequently

are less successful and achieve less than they anticipated. Burns further stated that these

dissatisfied, passive students blame writing instructors, who themselves were simply

attempting to meet the objectives of standardized outcomes. Russell (2002) pointed out

that this narrow current-traditional paradigm actually opposes extant research, which has

contended that rhetoric should be viewed more broadly, thus affording teachers the

opportunity to discover effective new instructional options. Wells (2000) explained that

learning is not merely becoming proficient at a skill or memorizing information and does

not occur solely due to instruction; rather, learning occurs when students are

appropriately positioned in a suitable setting. Rogers (1951) commented that a climate

that is warm and empathetic greatly enhances the conditions for learning. Critical to the

development of the optimal learning atmosphere is the creation of a safe learning

environment (Sappington, 1984).

Almasi, McKeown, and Beck (1996) asserted that the classroom learning

environment is a vital component of academic success. They noted that students share

ideas and comment on others’ reactions openly and willingly when situated in a positive

classroom culture. Nystrand and Gamoran (1993) stated that classroom culture is

important in promoting students’ engagement in learning. After careful examination of

classroom discourse and students’ learning, Nystrand and Gamoran contended that when

instructors cultivate a safe learning environment, students readily participate in classroom

3

dialogue, increasing academic achievement. Aulls (2004) concluded that participation

opportunities affect students’ perceptions about the quality of instruction. Nystrand and

Gamoran concluded that a safe learning environment produces an effective class, as

measured by students’ perceptions and academic achievement. They also revealed that

more students finish assignments, participate in dialogue, and achieve greater success in

what they termed “effective classes” (p. 267).

Background of the Study

Dialogue

According to Schwab (1954), dialogue is an engagement in and a practice of the

activities of thought and communication. Burbules (1993) posited that dialogue is the

best available means for identifying acceptable answers, workable solutions, and

reasonable accommodations. Splitter and Sharp (1995) insisted that meaningful learning

is much more likely to occur when dialogue is present. Content learned through the

dialogic approach has been viewed as enhancing understanding, retention, and the

application of content (Fernandez-Balboa & Marshall, 1994). Empirical and theoretical

research has shown that the quality of classroom talk is closely connected to the quality

of student problem solving, understanding, and learning (e.g., Mercer, 1995, 2002;

Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Prendergast, 1997; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999).

Dialogism

Dialogism is an ongoing conversational connection of the participants, a

purposeful discussion established in a relationship of mutuality and reflexivity (Burbules

& Bruce, 1995). According to Bakhtin (1981), human beings create meanings in

4

processes of reflection between people. They use these same meanings in later exchanges

with others, where they are amplified or amended as new meanings are acquired

(Nystrand et al., 1997). People’s utterances are shaped, developed, and influenced by

other people’s utterances as they anticipate others’ responses to their utterances (Bakhtin,

1981; Holquist, 1990; Nystrand et al., 1997). Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, and

Alexander (2009) characterized the dialogic approach as determined and maintained

through critical thinking, with principles of communication managing group behavior.

Anderson et al. (2001) posited that thinking requires listening to divergent voices within

our own minds, all representing different perspectives about an issue. Bakhtin (1981)

suggested that the very act of thinking is innately dialogical, whereas thought is

essentially a response to discussion, an inner dialogue.

Passivity’s Role in Student Success

Research has strongly supported the value and desirability of creating an

environment that promotes active learning (vs. passive). Braxton, Bray, and Berger

(2000) studied the relationship among active learning, social integration, and

involvement, concluding that active learning fosters social integration and social

integration is positively related to student retention and success. Prince (2004) focused on

the relationship between learning environments and dialogue, confirming that active

learning (i.e., collaborative and cooperative learning) elevates the quality of social

interaction. Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) similarly concluded that at institutions

where faculty members use active and collaborative learning techniques such as dialogic

instruction, levels of engagement and student learning are higher. Michel, Carter, and

Varela (2009) found higher student cognitive outcomes on specific material covered in a

5

class taught with the dialogic approach than in one taught with the passive teaching

approach.

Student Benefits of Dialogic Instruction

The ability to change and improve relies on consideration of various perspectives

that evolve because of participation in dialogue (Reznitskaya et al., 2001). Schwab

(1954) stated that classroom discussion is vitally important for developing in students the

“intellectual arts” of thinking and communication (p. 55). Larson (2000) stated that rather

than merely recount or recite memorized facts and details, students can explain their ideas

and thoughts; when discussing, learners are not submissive recipients of the information

transmitted from their teachers. In monologic instruction, because learning is based upon

remembering correct information, students become passive memorizers (Allington, 2001;

Nystrand et al., 1997). The more information that they can commit to short-term memory,

the more likely they are to score highly in their class, leaving no time for students to

interpret and to construct new knowledge together (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1993).

When passive students become active learners, according to Richmond, Lane, and

McCroskey (2006), communication improves between teachers and students, along with

students’ affective and cognitive learning and levels of critical thinking. Park (2009)

declared that dialogic thinking (i.e., dialogism) contributes to students’ learning

outcomes. Burns (2009) added that giving students a resonant voice promotes their

development as successful writers and thinkers. Through social interaction, students

integrate cognitive and behavioral techniques that cultivate a broader skill set that is

transferable to other unrelated problem-solving situations (Anderson et al., 2001; Hatano,

1993).

6

Teacher Benefits of Dialogic Instruction

According to Larson (2000), discussion is a useful teaching technique for

developing higher order thinking skills, skills that enable students to interpret, analyze,

and manipulate information. In a monologic classroom, success is measured by the

amount of correct information that students recall (Allington, 2001; Nystrand et al.,

1997). However, in dialogic instruction, teachers are not simply the broadcasters of

knowledge. Instead, learners construct knowledge through interaction, and students are

viewed as thinkers rather than memorizers (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran,

2003; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1993; Nystrand et al., 1997).

Instruction in which dialogue is central can be expected to stimulate students’

active learning and higher order thinking skills simultaneously; students are no longer

passive or disengaged in the exchange (Renshaw, 2004; Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Paul

(1992, 1994) considered dialogue part of the process of critical thinking because dialogue

makes it possible to consider other perspectives. According to Park (2009), dialogic

thinking contributes positively to students’ learning outcomes. Research has shown that

students learn more effectively and with a higher level of intellectual achievement when

they are engaged in dialogic activity (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Dialogic instruction,

according to Vanderburg (2006), is a style of teaching that is inherently rewarding for

teachers, allowing them to witness the intellectual development of their students.

Critical Thinking and Dialogic Instruction

McPeck (1981) described critical thinking as “reflective skepticism” within a

problem area being considered (p. 7). Critical thinking is an important piece of the

dialogic process (Habermas, 1984). Frijters, Ten Dam, and Rijlaarsdam (2008) argued

7

that instructional designs geared toward critical thinking stress the importance of

interactions between students. As early as 1928, Piaget noted that social exchange of

ideas is a principal method of encouraging what has since been labeled critical thinking.

Feito (2004) asserted that thinking and learning originate in social interaction, not within

the minds of individual students. As noted earlier, Paul (1992) insisted that students learn

best when their thinking involves an extended exchange of points of view or frames of

reference and that critical thinking and dialogue are inherently interrelated. Moreover, as

Bowick (2010) concluded, perceptions of reality are shaped not only by dialogue but also

by the perceptions of self, even as one contributes to affecting the perceptions of others.

Bruffee (1984) insisted that to think well as individuals, people must learn to converse

well collectively.

Classroom Environment and Dialogic Instruction

Almasi et al. (1996) noted that students share ideas and comment on others’

reactions openly and willingly when situated in a positive classroom culture. They

concurred with Nystrand and Gamoran (1993), who stated that classroom culture is

important in promoting students’ engagement in learning. After a careful examination of

classroom discourse and students’ learning, Nystrand and Gamoran concluded that when

instructors cultivate a safe learning environment, students readily participate in classroom

dialogue. Feito (2004) maintained that a classroom’s social environment not only

facilitates good learning but also creates it. Nystrand and Gamoran asserted that a safe

learning environment produces an effective class, meaning that more students finish

assignments, participate in dialogue, and achieve greater success.

8

Classroom environment is largely dependent on teachers’ perceptions (Kearney,

Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991). Bruffee (1984) stated that teachers are tasked with engaging

students in conversations with each other and encouraging those conversations to sound

like normal discourse. According to Lansford et al. (1995), unless teachers devote

themselves to the dialogic process, this is not possible. As Thomas (2009) noted, teachers

should provide context in the classroom in which students can engage in dialogue among

themselves and other discourse communities through reading and writing. McIntyre,

Blancher, and Baker (2006) examined the ways in which teachers promote student

discussion and concluded that positive classroom culture is an essential element in

students’ learning.

College Course Activities Questionnaire

The College Course Activities Questionnaire (CCAQ; Steele, 1981) was designed

to appraise cognitive and affective classroom climate, and to elicit individual perceptions

of the learning environment. It was used in this study to address the roles of teachers and

students in the classroom, as well as their levels of cognition. The questionnaire’s

Cognitive domain, based upon Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in Bloom, Englehart, Furst,

Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), measures cognition as lower level and higher level thought

processes. The questionnaire’s Affective domains assess classroom focus and classroom

climate. The Classroom Focus domain explicates the roles of teachers and students in the

classroom based upon behavior; and the Classroom Climate domain concentrates on the

roles of students and teachers based upon levels and types of communication in the

classroom (Nielsen & Kirk, 1974).

9

When administered to students, the CCAQ measures the perceived real, an index

of instructors’ actual practices as perceived by students; when administered to instructors,

the CCAQ measures instructors’ ideal, an index of teachers’ intended pattern of cognitive

emphasis (Steele, 1971). Examination of the two measures provides a measure of

perceived equivalence of instructional intent and actual classroom praxis (Armfield,

2007). Steele (1969) originally developed the Class Activities Questionnaire (CAQ) as

part of an evaluation procedure of curricular intent meant to provide valuable classroom

information and obtain a general picture of the instructional climate. Steele (1981)

revised the instrument to examine teacher-student relationships and student engagement,

attentiveness, achievement, and collaboration in the college classroom. Simpul (1998)

used the instrument to survey the perceptions of teachers and students related to

instructional emphasis and classroom learning conditions. Yeager (2004) used the CAQ

to measure teachers’ perceptions of school climate; Rowe (1996) used the instrument in a

study of transactional learning; Courtright (1987) used the CAQ to measure classroom

climate, and Abrego (2009) used it to examine the attitudes and perceptions of teachers

and students.

Related Studies

A number of researchers have examined dialogic instruction from various

perspectives. Shearer (2009) examined dialogue, and through his review of the literature

on dialogue in education, he proposed a conceptual definition of dialogue based upon the

works of Burbules (1993) and Moore (1980, 1983, 1993). Dialogic instruction has been

studied in various groups, including adult language arts classes (Adler, Rougle, Kaiser, &

Caughlan, 2004); community college English literature classes (Barrow, 2009); college

10

English as a second language (ESL) writing classes (Yu, 2008); and public speaking

courses (Broeckelman, 2005). Severiens, ten Dam, and Blom (2006) surveyed 1,138

students about their social and academic experiences during their time in school and

concluded that the quality of student-student and student-teacher interactions is critical to

obtaining good results. Wattiaux and Crump (2006) found that undergraduates perceive

higher learning better from student-centered discussion than from topic-centered

discussion. Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, and Salomone (2003) studied adult students

and identified a positive relationship between supportive dialogic faculty interactions in

academic and social environments, and students’ subsequent success. Dorestanni (2005)

studied the dialogic instructional approach versus the traditional lecture method in an

economics class setting and found positive results for active learning. Ebert-May,

Brewer, and Allred (1997) found that a sample of students in dialogic classrooms scored

higher than those in control groups on specific course material. Burns (2009) examined

the influence of academic discourse on student success in first-year English composition.

Statement of the Problem

Research has provided evidence of the desirability of dialogic instruction

(Thompson, 2004; Van Dijk, 1997; Van Voorhis, 1991; Wattiaux & Crump, 2006). Van

Voorhis (1991) found that dialogic learning structures generally yield positive outcomes

for students. Moore (1980, 1993) construed dialogue as an exchange between two or

more participants, where the proliferation of knowledge is the desired outcome. Wattiaux

and Crump (2006) determined that purposeful in-class discussion contributes positively

to the perception of learning. Brookfield (1986) found that dialogical learning enhances

11

the self-concepts of those involved and results in more meaningful and effective learning.

R. L. Saba and Shearer (1994) viewed these learners as active because they request

additional information, question ideas and concepts, or provide additional feedback.

Conversely, passive learning is synonymous with monologic instruction,

characterized as students receiving information from instructors and internalizing it

through memorization (Stewart-Wingfield & Black, 2005). According to Gee (1990),

passive learning is not optimal; if students cannot be engaged to articulate with accuracy

and confidence their values and beliefs, the result is disengaged students with a shortage

of creativity. Bonwell and Eison (1991) stated that active learning strategies might be

comparable to lectures for achieving mastery of content but superior to passive learning

in developing critical-thinking skills. The development of a critical awareness of and the

subsequent alterations of assumptions are at the heart of Mezirow’s (1991) perspective

transformation.

Mezirow’s theory relies heavily on dialogue (as cited in Burbules, 1993).

Perspective transformation occurs through dialogue as the participants offer, support,

abandon, and acknowledge ideas, subsequently triggering the discovery of new situations

and possibilities (Cranton, 2009). Intrinsic to dialogue is the necessity of the participants

being responsible for the ability to influence the conclusion (Burbules, 1993; Fernandez-

Balboa & Marshall, 1994). Dialogic instruction is parallel to Mezirow’s theory because it

engages students in such a way that they learn from making connections from their

experiences and those of others.

Dialogic instruction’s benefits are numerous (Gadamer, 1982). Included are the

active engagement of learners and teachers, an increase in perceived social relevance, the

12

influx of democratic principles in the classroom, the strengthening of ethos, and the

formation of community (Dewey, 1981; Freire, 1972). Guilar (2006) listed several

important variables necessary to achieve optimum benefits to the dialogic instructor: the

ability to direct conversation, build character, listen and respect, and retain authority.

Mezirow (1991) insisted that the best instruction occurs when teachers and students

become collaborators in learning. In effect, students and instructors garner the benefits of

higher level understanding and more well-developed critical-thinking skills (Nystrand et

al., 1997). Dialogic instruction’s socially constructed nature is, therefore, its strongest

asset (Nystrand et al., 1997).

Van Dijk (1997) depicted academic writing as socially constructed, that is, based

upon interactions in real-life situations. College writing instructors, however, typically

use a repressive lecture and essay model that fails to acknowledge the socially

constructed nature of writing (Solomon, 2007) and is, instead, “purely mechanistic”

(Berlin 1998, p. 9). Neal (2008) studied the discussion practices of community college

English teachers and found that their predominantly monologic instructional style

alienated students. Burns (2009) further contended that the predominant lecture and essay

model marginalizes the fundamental principles of academic writing instruction into a

passive, disengaging, “fix-it shop” curriculum, ignoring its potential as a creator of

proficient academic discourses (p. 7).

13

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the perceptions of students

and teachers of dialogic instruction in the community college composition classroom.

The possible roles of gender and age, if any, also were examined.

Rationale

The study used an intact questionnaire instrument developed by Steele (1969) to

understand the perceptions of students and instructors engaged in dialogic instruction in

writing classes at a community college in The Midwest. There were several reasons for

conducting this study. According to Vanderburg (2006), dialogism is the notion that all

forms of communication, written and verbal, are based upon interaction. Communication

is not simply recitation. Nystrand et al. (1997) argued, “Literature is not autonomous but

has to be constructed by readers in engaged encounters with text” (p. 9). Vanderburg

posited that better methods of instruction are needed to help students to focus their

thoughts, improve systems of argument, and develop deeper intellectual comprehension

of texts. According to Christoph and Nystrand (2001), dialogic instruction allows

educators to address all of these issues at the same time.

Research Questions

The study was guided by one overarching research question: What are the

perceptions of students and instructors of dialogic instruction in a community college

composition classroom? It also was guided by five subquestions:

14

RQ1. What is the students’ perceived real, as represented by the average

response for a given factor?

RQ2. What is the instructor’s ideal, as indicated by the average response for a

given factor?

RQ3. Is intent (teachers’ ideal) aligned with practice (students’ real) in the

instruction in a dialogic writing class?

RQ4. How do students perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

RQ5. How do instructors perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

The study also was guided by two other questions: (a) Does age have any role in

students’ perceptions of dialogism? and (b) Does gender have any role in students’

perceptions of dialogism?

Significance of the Study

While monologic instructional methods have a long history in academic writing,

recent scholarship has extolled the benefits of dialogic instruction. Despite the efficacy of

those arguments, little has changed in practice. There are two dynamics that may be

preventing such change: there is very little empirical evidence to support the argument,

and without such evidence, instructors are unlikely to change. This study aimed to

establish and rationalize some of the heretofore missing evidence by examining the

perceptions of students and instructors, and that may be what it takes to shift practice.

15

Brookfield (1986) found that dialogic instruction enhances the self-concepts of

teachers and students, with the result being more meaningful and effective learning.

Murphy et al. (2009) theorized that dialogic instruction affects large increases in the

“amount of student talk and concomitant reductions in teacher talk, as well as substantial

improvements in text comprehension” (p. 740). Schwab (1954) asserted that classroom

discussion is vitally important for developing in students the intellectual arts of thinking

and communication. According to Larson (2000), discussion is considered a useful

teaching technique for developing higher order thinking skills, which are skills that

enable students to interpret, analyze, and manipulate information. Larson further stated

that students can explain their ideas and thoughts, not merely recount or recite memorized

facts and details, and that when discussing, learners are not submissive recipients of

information transmitted from their teachers.

Just as there are a variety of different learning environments where adults study,

adults also are different in nature (Brookfield, 1987). The direction and nature of

classroom activities are directly influenced by teachers because they establish the

communication system in the classroom (Cazden, 1986). Metz (personal communication,

May 6, 2006) maintained that some students and teachers still think that the composition

class should just involve typing a 500-word essay four or five times each semester, but

there is little lasting value in something that most students can do already. According to

Wertsch, Del Rio, and Alvarez (1995), when students cooperate with peers in dialogic

interaction, the results of such contact are outside the capacities of the individuals

composing the group. Through these interactions, students integrate cognitive and

16

behavioral techniques that promote a broader skill set transferable to other unrelated

problem-solving situations (Anderson et al., 2001; Hatano, 1993).

Evidence has supported the claim that dialogic instruction is instrumental in

developing good thinkers (Murphy et al., 2009). Bakhtin (1981) suggested that thinking

is innately dialogical, whereas thought is essentially a response to discussion. Dialogic

instruction warrants numerous benefits: engagement of students and instructors, social

and educational relevance, introduction of democracy to the educative process, character

building, and formation of educational community (Dewey, 1981; Friere, 1972). Despite

evidence supporting the claim that dialogic writing instruction is more beneficial than the

traditional lecture and essay model (Larson, 2000), there is a dearth of information

regarding student and teacher perception of dialogic writing instruction. This study will

add to the existing literature on dialogism, and provide an assessment of stakeholders’

views of purposeful interactive discourse in the instruction of academic writing.

Theoretical Framework

Grounded in constructivism, this study examined the usefulness of dialogic

instruction, and the existence of multiple possibilities for interpretation. The

constructivist theoretical underpinnings used to clarify the role of dialogic instruction in

stimulating students’ grasp of topics have developed mainly from sociocognitive and

sociocultural theories (Burbules & Bruce, 1995). Piaget (1928) noted that the social

exchange of ideas is a principal method of encouraging what has since been termed

critical thinking.

17

According to Kettanurak, Ramamurthy, and Haseman (2001), constructivist

theory focuses on learning as a process in which learners are taught to think and learn

productively by using personal experience, situated cognition, and learning based upon

discovery. Constructivist cognitivism focuses on what learners know and how they know

it (Kettanurak et al., 2001). It is concerned with the cognitive processes that learners

engage in while learning (Bandura, 1997). Principles that relate to cognitivist theory

include stimulating and sustaining learner attention, and encouraging positive outlooks to

keep learners motivated (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Cognitive principles consider more

than behavior to describe brain-based learning. Cognitivists consider how human

memory works to promote learning; the practice of sorting and processing information

into short-term memory and long-term memory is significant to cognitivist educators

(Ertmer & Newby, 1993).

Constructivist cognitive theorists have argued that behaviors, along with personal

influences and environments, interact and afford individuals control over their existence

(Bandura, 1986). Important issues, namely, personal traits, drive, ego, and situational

aspects, arise when employing cognitive theory to a learning framework (Porter, 2004).

Individuals are in control of their lives through a three-way relationship among

behaviors, cognitive and personal factors, and the environment (Bandura, 1986). These

three components interact to guide individual choices. In addition, a foundation for

understanding the learning process develops and thrives (Porter, 2004).

Specific elements that incorporate cognitivist ideas include question asking,

practice using and applying information, examples, and clear navigation structure

(Kitano, 2003). Robinson, Thomas, Parton, and Nye (1997) asserted that discovery must

18

occur in a way that is appropriate to the learning environment. Instructors must be

comfortable allowing students to question. The discovery of how to learn, societal role

attainment, aptitude, and age-related memory all exemplify cognitivism (Feldman, 2000).

The discovery of knowledge is much different from having it deposited by well-meaning

instructors (Robinson et al., 1997).

This focus on possibilities serves as an interesting conjectural tie to composition

theories on literary discourse. According to Wertsch et al. (1995), when students

cooperate with peers in profound and expressive ways, the results of such interaction are

outside the capacities of the individuals composing the group. “Just as a move in a game

creates a space of possible and appropriate countermoves, so in a conversation, each

speech act creates a space of possible and appropriate response speech acts” (Macovski,

1997, pp. 237-238).

Data Collection

The perceptions of the participants were collected using an intact survey.

Information concerning cognitive, behavioral, and affective activities taking place

throughout the duration of the class was collected using the CCAQ (Steele, 1981). The

CCAQ was not used to evaluate the use of dialogic instruction in isolation; rather, it

served as a contributing factor to the teaching and learning process. Responses from

student participants involved in dialogic composition classrooms were examined and

scrutinized. Data from teacher participants also were analyzed. All participants filled out

the same CCAQ.

19

The CCAQ includes 25 forced-choice items evaluating cognitive emphasis,

classroom conditions, and student attitudes and reactions. Developed to assess

congruence of intent and practice (i.e., teachers’ ideal vs. students’ perceived real), its

cognitive items have been shown to be consistently identified with the appropriate level

of the taxonomy of intellectual abilities. Administered as a single instrument, the

aforementioned cognitive factors are scored separately from the factors associated with

classroom environment and students’ perceptions of the class. The CCAQ is actually

three instruments in one, measuring cognitive emphasis, classroom conditions, and

students’ perceptions of class strengths and weaknesses. Each question has four possible

responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Each

factor is represented by two questions:

RQ1. Within the sample, what is the instructor’s ideal, as indicated by the

average response for a given factor?

RQ2. Within the sample, what is the students’ perceived real, as represented by

the average response for a given factor? (D. White, personal communication,

November 6, 2011)

Data Analysis

Data collected from the participants were analyzed, and evolving patterns were

recognized through category construction (Merriam, 1991). Data were analyzed for

emerging patterns and statistical substantiation. The most important variables are the

seven cognitive factor observations for each student, as measured by the CCAQ (Steele,

1981).

20

Descriptive statistics facilitated the process to summarize, organize, and present

the data in a meaningful and effective format. The researcher used mean scores, standard

deviations, frequencies, and cross-tabulations as part of the descriptive analysis. Multiple

displays, such as charts and tables, were used to present the findings. Analysis of the data

was performed using SPSS v.20.

Ethical Concerns

Ethical issues are involved in all research methodologies. The researcher assumed

that the best research method to accomplish the research ethically was selected. This

study was conducted in accordance with the highest ethical standards. All participants

were adults, and they were informed that there were no known risks associated with their

participation in this study. An informed consent was read and provided to the

participants. The researcher was available to answer any questions and concerns about

participation in the study. Results of the survey were reported as aggregate data, and the

names of participants were not included. Care was taken to ensure that the participants

were from classrooms in which the dialogic method of instruction was being used at the

time of the study.

Validity

According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007), a valid study is appropriate and

meaningful, and it has no inherent threats to its integrity or its results. Random sampling,

as prescribed by Gall et al. and Marion (2004), was used to maintain external validity.

Marion stated that each member of the target population should have an equal chance of

21

being selected for the sample, thus ensuring that the sample is representative of the

population and the findings are generalizable. The sample size derived from answering

the two main research questions sufficed and was applicable to the other study questions

and research goals.

Definitions of Terms

Active learning. As characterized by Mayer (2004), active learning is a process

whereby learners are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively

absorbing lectures. Active learning involves reading; writing; discussion; and

engagement in problem solving, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Behaviorism. According to Mayer (2003), behaviorism is characterized as not

considering cognition, concentrating only on the stimulus response.

Cognitivism. Largely based upon the early work of Piaget (1928), cognitivism

examines such internal mental processes as problem solving, memory, and language.

Cognitivists are interested in how people understand, diagnose, and solve problems, and

they concern themselves with the mental processes that mediate between stimulus and

response.

Constructivism. Constructivist theory is opposed to behaviorism (de Jager,

Reezigt, & Creemers, 2002). Instead of focusing on learning as stimulus and response,

constructivism views learning as a process in which the learners actively construct

meaning and new knowledge through their experiences. Therefore, teachers cannot

impart knowledge; instead, they must help students to construct knowledge.

22

Critical thinking. The concept of critical thinking is broad and difficult to define

succinctly. For the purpose of this study, the definition offered by Fisher and Scriven

(1997) was used, wherein they characterized critical thinking as the skilled, active

interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and

argumentation.

Dialogue/Dialogism. As used in this study, and based upon the works of Bakhtin

(1984) and Voloshinov (1973), dialogue is an active communication between

speaker/writer and listener/reader. Critical is the listener’s active role in the dialogue,

wherein the listener’s participation shapes the dialogue in conjunction with the speaker’s

contribution. The speaker/writer is consequently nothing more than an equal in the

process because the listener and the reader also have a voice in a dialogue, even when

they are silent. A dialogic communication is always a multivoiced process. Burbules

(1993) viewed dialogue as “a continuous, developmental communicative interchange

through which we stand to gain a fuller appreciation of the world, ourselves, and one

another” (p. 8).

Dialogic instruction. Dialogic instruction, according to Bakhtin (1996),

encourages the participation of every student. Dialogism is not possible without the

individual voices that take part in it. Dialogic instruction is built on respect for the

individual “voices” of the students, and it draws upon all possible aspects of these voices

(Marchenkova, 2005). The primary objective of dialogic instruction is not to suppress

students’ voices, but to develop them.

Metacognition. Metacognition is characterized as thinking about one’s thinking.

Flavell (1979) defined it as knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena. This

23

definition was only slightly different from that of Brown (1978), who typified it as

knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition.

Monologic instruction. Based upon the writings of Bahktin (1984) and Emerson

(2004), monologic instruction exists in teacher-centered classrooms where students work

individually with authoritative texts. The main distinction is the notion that in a

monologic class, students do not communicate among themselves as part of their

classroom experience.

Passive learning. For learning to be considered passive, according to Allington

(2001) and Stewart-Wingfield and Black (2005), teachers are the focus of the classroom

through means of lecturing, providing notes and other avenues for the students to attain

information about course material.

Safe learning environment. Preskill and Brookfield (2009) asserted that a safe

learning environment is one that honors each student. Instructors design a safe learning

environment by providing lessons, activities, and assignments that help students to

connect to the world through their coursework by providing opportunities for

multicultural and other activities that foster social, emotional, and cognitive development.

A safe learning environment encourages positive and mutually supportive working

relationships with classmates and a selfless group dynamic, in which all students work

well together as a team and receive ongoing opportunities for development as critical

thinkers.

Transactional learning. Maharg (2006) defined transactional learning as

exhibiting the following characteristics: active learning; the practical realities of

24

transactions forming the basis of learning; opportunities to reflect on learning;

collaboration within and across teams; and process, or holistic, learning.

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

1. The CCAQ is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring cognitive

emphasis, classroom conditions, and students’ perceptions of class strengths

and weaknesses.

2. The students and teachers responded honestly to the CCAQ.

3. The students and teachers were able to effectively evaluate and subsequently

report their perceptions when given the CCAQ.

Limitations

1. Only students and teachers at a 2-year community college in the Midwestern

United States participated in the study. The sample size could have limited the

researcher’s ability to generalize the findings of this study.

2. The CCAQ is a self-reporting questionnaire that lends itself to natural bias

because one’s perception of self might be different from the perceptions of

others.

3. Participation was voluntary, which could have affected the credibility of the

sample.

25

Nature of the Study

The study followed a descriptive design to examine the perceptions of students

and teachers in a dialogic community college English composition classroom. A

descriptive research design is one in which data are collected to describe situations or

phenomena (Creswell, 2009). According to Key (1997), descriptive research is used to

obtain information about the current status of the stated phenomenon to describe what

exists with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996)

noted that the purpose of descriptive research is to describe the current state, or determine

what is, in order to establish the validity and credibility of the study. Moreover, the

descriptive function of research is heavily dependent on instrumentation for measurement

and observation (Borg & Gall, 1989). Descriptive research involves gathering data that

describe events and then organizing, tabulating, portraying, and eliciting meaning from

the data (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).

Target Population

The target population for this study comprised students and teachers at a

Midwestern community college. The population also included students from various

academic disciplines.

Setting

This quantitative study was conducted in English composition classes at a state

community college in the Midwestern United States whose class size was limited to a

maximum of 20 students. At the time of this study, this Midwestern community college

campus had an enrollment of just over 16,000 students, whose average age was 28.5

years.

26

Sample

A convenience sample of 83 first- and second-semester English Composition I

and II community college students and five composition instructors was drawn from a

number of Composition I and II classes.

Study Variables

According to Creswell (2007), specific attributes called variables are measured to

address the purpose of studies. Creswell explained that independent variables often are

characterized as factors that are studied to determine their effect(s) on the outcome, or

dependent, variable. Creswell further explained that dependent variables are influenced

by the independent variable. The dependent variable for this study was the perceptions of

students and teachers, as measured by the CCAQ. The independent variables were the

instructional techniques and practices of faculty members, described as dialogic. The role

of dialogic instruction and student perception was explored in various age ranges, and the

role of dialogic instruction and students’ perceptions was examined categorically by

gender. In this study, 69% of the students were female.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Five chapters are presented in this quantitative comparative descriptive study.

Included in Chapter 1 was the introduction to the problem, background of the study,

statement of the problem, purpose of the study, rationale, research question and

subquestions, significance of the study, conceptual framework, nature of the study,

definition of terms, assumptions of the study, and limitations of the study. Chapter 2

includes a review of the literature related to dialogical instruction, its impact, and its

27

relationship to various other concepts and theories. Chapter 3 describes the research

methodology, including the research design, conceptual framework, research questions,

participant characteristics, data collection procedure, data analysis procedure, credibility,

and reliability. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis and an interpretation of the

participants’ responses in narrative format and data display. Chapter 5 provides the

research findings from the data analysis and conclusion. Suggestions for future research

on dialogic writing instruction in higher education also are offered.

28

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Research has identified dialogic instruction as a desirable method of curriculum

delivery (Nystrand et al., 1997). Dialogic instruction encourages students to integrate

cognitive and behavioral processes, thus leading to a broader transferable skill set

(Anderson et al., 2001; Hatano, 1993). The dialogical approach is influenced by and

maintained through group behavior principles and critical thinking. The research,

however, has not shown that dialogic instruction is widely applied in the instructional

setting in the college writing classroom. Therefore, this study examined the use of

dialogic instruction practices by community college faculty in English composition class

as well as the perceptions of community college instructors and students in the dialogic

writing classes.

This chapter describes the foundation of this study by reviewing the literature and

current research on the dialogic as well as traditional instructional practices of

community college composition instructors. Included in the chapter are an overview of

the nature of dialogue related to transactional distance, autonomy, and critical thinking;

the roles of dialogism and monoligism in higher education as they pertain to various

accepted learning theories; an examination of constructivism as the theoretical framework

of dialogism; and a review of the literature on the nature of college writing instruction.

The four components of dialogue and dialogism, instructional methods, constructivism,

and the community college writing classroom set the foundation for the conceptual

framework that guided this study.

29

Dialogue

Guilar (2006) stated that the topic of dialogue is as old as classical Greece.

Burbules (1993) described dialogue as “a continuous, developmental communicative

interchange through which we stand to gain a fuller appreciation of the world, ourselves,

and one another” (p. 8). Moore (1993) described dialogue as

The extent to which, in any educational programme, learner and educator are able

to respond to each other. This is determined by the content or subject-matter

which is studied, by the educational philosophy of the educator and learner, and

by the environmental factors, the most important of which is the medium of

communication. (p. 157)

Moore (1993) implied that dialogue is an exchange between two or more partners

in an educational environment where the desired outcome is an expansion of knowledge

and that students should be able to involve themselves personally in the process of

collaborative meaning making. Moore’s concept of dialogue did not coincide exactly

with that of Burbules (1993), who more narrowly explained dialogue as the manufacture

of knowledge, whereas dialogue at the personal level works to build on or reform one’s

intellectual representation (Minsky, 1988).

Schwab (1954) believed that classroom discussion (i.e., dialogue) is vitally

important for developing in students the intellectual arts of thinking and communication.

According to Larson (2000), dialogue is thought to be a useful teaching technique for

developing higher order thinking skills, skills that enable students to interpret, analyze,

and manipulate information. Larson further stated that dialogue allows students to explain

their ideas and thoughts rather than merely recount or recite memorized facts and details;

30

through dialogue, learners are not submissive recipients of information transmitted from

their teachers.

Burbules (1993) described four types of dialogue: conversation, inquiry, debate,

and instruction. Dialogue, as used in this study, is a broad concept whose intellectual

transactions include exchanges that not only enhance new understanding on behalf of an

individual but also include educational conversations that support social presence

(Moore, 1993). According to Larsen (2000), the distinctions are important, and how

academia views dialogue must be clear in terms of all verbal or written educational

exchanges being included in a conceptual definition of dialogue.

In Grow’s staged self-directed learning model, presented by Merriam, Caffarella,

and Baumgartner (2007), Grow presented a template for learners to position themselves

in terms of their readiness for and comfort with being self-directed, and instructors can

match each learner’s stage with suitable instructional strategies. Moore (1993) stated that

only through dialogue can teachers hope to ascertain the individual needs of students.

Therefore, according to Burbules (1993), dialogue must be the cornerstone of any

effective teaching philosophy.

Transactional Distance

Moore’s (1980, 1993) theory of transactional distance supplied a structure for the

sharing of intellectual ideas (i.e., dialogue), where the exchange is affected by the

structure of a course and the stakeholders’ perceptions of autonomy. Moore’s (1993)

theory implied that as dialogue increases, transactional distance decreases; the greater the

level of communication or dialogue, the more effective the exchange or transaction. The

idea that transactional distance decreases or the exchange of intellectual ideas is more

31

effective as dialogue increases was supported by R. L. Saba and Shearer (1994).

However, F. Saba’s (1989) work also introduced the idea of psychological separation as

representing distance and distinguished this construct from geographic separation.

According to Moore (1993), transactional distance is the psychological and

communication space between students and instructors. Moore and Kearsley (1996) later

suggested that transactional distance exists in any educational setting where there is a

student, an instructor, and a means of communication. Moore (1993) further indicated

that a goal of instruction should be to minimize transactional distance through dialogue,

structure, and autonomy.

Three Levels of Interaction

Moore (1989) outlined three levels of interaction that might occur in a classroom:

instructor-learner, learner-learner, and learner-content levels. Although the levels

outlined by Moore are sound and recognizable in practice, the levels mix individual

aspects of transactional distance with group level dynamics. Although the learner-

instructor level of interaction is at the individual or personal level, the learner-learner

might be at the personal and group levels. Moore’s discussion of these three levels

intimated that the learner-content level is central to education and is key to Holmberg’s

(1983) idea of guided didactic conversation or the internal dialogue that students have

between themselves and the content.

However, it has been argued that interactional dialogue, learner-learner or learner-

instructor interactions, are central to education. One level might or might not be more

powerful than the others in the theory; Gorsky and Caspi (2005) contemplated the theory

really reverting to a tautology, where dialogue is actually the key determinant of

32

transactional distance. In addition, Moore and Kearsley (1996) stated that the learner-

content idea might be more applicable to older modes of instructional delivery and might

not adequately reflect today’s more dynamic and interactive learning environments.

Chen’s (2001) research lent support to the idea of a hierarchy of levels

(individual, group, and institutional) that might exist independently in terms of how they

affect transactional distance. Chen established that there was not a high level of

correlation among the three levels. Chen’s results implied that multiple levels of

transactional distance, although connected in a traditional model, can exist on their own.

Dialogue and Autonomy

Dialogue happens when unrestricted, unprompted communication between

multiple participants exists (Burbules, 1993). In any learning community, “knowledge is

never presented as complete and sacred; rather, it is always open to further question and

criticism” (Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000, p. 119). While expressing differences of opinion,

participants remain involved in, affected by, and considerate of others by respecting

established guidelines. The transfer and construction of knowledge occur when

participants offer, support, desert, and ultimately accept ideas affording the discovery of

new possibilities. Essential to dialogue is each participant accepting accountability for the

capacity to impact the conclusion (Fernandez-Balboa & Marshall, 1994). Vaughan and

Garrison (2008) stated, “All students must have the opportunity to participate in

communities of inquiry” (p. 3). They continued by citing Lipman’s (1991) assertion that

“the importance of a community of inquiry is that, while the objective of critical

reflection is intellectual autonomy, in reality, critical reflection is thoroughly social and

communal” (p. 4).

33

Concurrently, according to Merys (2006), autonomy is a characteristic of

individual students and is related to their propensity to be self-directed in their learning.

Buenger, Forte, Boozer, and Maddox (2007) called it the ability to be self-governing, be

independent, and make one’s own decisions. Regarding autonomy, Brookfield (1986)

found that dialogue enhances the self-concepts of stakeholders, resulting in more

meaningful and effective learning. He submitted that autonomous life mastery, blended

with group interaction and participation, provides the highest level of learner satisfaction.

Autonomy is a variable that is highly affected by course structure because a highly

structured course takes away an individual’s ability to be completely self-directed

(Myrick & Tamlyn, 2007). Adults learn in different ways, and educators must adapt by

recognizing “students’ needs for self-determination and autonomy, and provide

opportunities for choice and control” (McKeachie, 2002, p. 126).

Dialogue and Critical Thinking

Halpern (2003) defined critical thinking as “cognitive skills and strategies that

increase the likelihood of a desired outcome… thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and

goal-directed- the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences,

calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (p. 6). Frijters et al. (2008) asserted that

instructional designs geared toward critical thinking stress the importance of interaction

between and among students. Paul (1992) argued that students learn the most

efficaciously when their thinking involves an extended exchange of points of view or

frames of reference.

Critical thinking and dialogue are interrelated. Paul (1992, 1994) considered

dialogue to be part of the process of critical thinking because dialogue makes it possible

34

to take other perspectives into account. Instruction in which dialogue is central can be

expected to stimulate students’ active learning and higher order thinking skills

simultaneously (Renshaw, 2004; Salomon & Perkins, 1998).

J. Metz (personal communication, May 6, 2006) theorized that responding to

readings is a form of dialogue; responding to each other is dialogue, provided that one is

actually listening and responding; and responding to invention prompts and responding to

(by evaluating) one’s own essay are both forms of dialogue; collectively, all are critical in

the learning process. Writing classes must teach students how to use academic

knowledge, “fixed and formalized as it probably has to be, in order to make sense of a

perpetually shifting real-world terrain” (Spellmeyer, 1989, p. 263). Spellmeyer (1989)

inferred that by teaching writing in this manner, educators can actually teach students to

think critically; therefore, to teach writing is to encourage ideology. Berlin (1988)

insisted that “a rhetoric cannot escape the ideological question, and to ignore this is to fail

our responsibilities as teachers and as citizens” (p. 483).

Monoligism

Bakhtin (1985) described monologism as the shuttering of dialogue and its

didactic potential. Bakhtin believed that monologism exists when definitive truths leave

no margin for other perspectives. He equated the lack of dialogue to a loss of freedom

and the incapacity to accept alternate views. His stance was that monoligism precludes

creative opportunities and the ability to question arbitrary and unilateral discourses

openly. He also believed that monoligism is self-defeating because individuals will

35

always find ways to shape ideologies through dialogic interaction (as cited in Holquist,

2002).

E. J. White (2009) argued that monologism exists in any educational setting

where the projected instructional meaning ignores individual differences in perspective

and perception. Matusov (2009) asserted that no instructional method could be fully

monologic because there are always multiple perspectives in the classrooms. However,

Bakhtin (1985) believed that any instructional theory or approach that relies on narrow,

dogmatic paradigms could be construed as monologic. E. J. White characterized

monologism as the absence of authentic dialogue, where the participants are unable to

consider alternatives to sanctioned doctrine. He insisted that left unchallenged,

monologism represents an effort to eliminate dialogue and freedom.

Many researchers, however, have tended to regard monologic instruction as

superior. Saussure (1964) posited that the conditions of written communication are such

that both conversing parties might be said to be using language in a monologic fashion.

Linell (1979) asserted that writer and reader normally work alone, thus seemingly

performing individual (monologic) activities, and that in doing so, they apply the rules of

a language system that is socially shared and normatively standardized to a greater extent

than is the case in speech communication. Chomsky (1975) argued that utilization of

language in unrestrained dialogues is more or less an accidental phenomenon. Thus,

according to Linell, language has been viewed consistently as a means for storing,

representing, transmitting (transporting) knowledge, not as ingredient component of

people’s social interaction. Because writing is monological rather than dialogical,

standardization, in his view, is exactly what should be expected.

36

Dialogism

Bakhtin (1981) offered an alternative to monologism through his philosophy of

dialogism. In dialogism, there is always room for debate, and Bakhtin asserted that

everyone has the capacity to create individualized meaning from social exchange and that

consensus is not always necessary. Rather than embrace predetermined targeted

outcomes in educational practice, dialogism holds differences in high regard, viewing

them as potential avenues to new meaning.

The term dialogism typically has been characterized as the quality of an

occurrence of communication defined by its relationship to other occurrences, whether

earlier, to which it reacts and responds, or future, whose reaction it foresees (Coulter,

1999). The favorable perceptions of dialogism often have been buttressed by its

opposition to monologism, described by Shepherd (2005) as the refusal of discourse to

acknowledge its interpersonal structure, its repudiation of independence, and its

“authoritative assertions” (p. 17).

Through social interaction, students integrate cognitive and behavioral techniques

that foster a broader skill set that is transferable to other unrelated problem-solving

situations (Anderson et al., 2001; Hatano, 1993). The dialogic approach is determined

and maintained through critical thinking and the principles of communication managing

group behavior (Triplett, 2002). Bakhtin (1981) suggested that thinking is innately

dialogical and thought is essentially a response to discussion.

According to Schwab (1954), discussion is “an engagement in and a practice of

the activities of thought and communication” (p. 55). Brookfield (1986) found that

collaborative learning enhances the self-concepts of those involved and results in more

37

meaningful and effective learning. Murphy et al. (2009) proposed that discussion

approaches affect large increases in the “amount of student talk and concomitant

reductions in teacher talk, as well as substantial improvements in text comprehension”

(p. 740).

Embedded in dialogism, according to Fallon (1995), is the importance placed on

social interaction as a way to create new knowledge. Bakhtin’s (1984) philosophy of

discourse reaches past words already written or spoken to embrace what yet may be in

“the form of still latent, unmuttered future work” (p. 90). Coulter (1999) asserted that

inflection, tone, and body language are all interpreted, offering a much more extensive

view of discourse that extends beyond the limits of literal denotation and that equal

emphasis is placed on style and diction.

Guilar (2006) believed that the traditional lecture (i.e., monologic) method of

instruction focuses on the teacher and does not elicit the power or voice of students.

Conversely, according to Pratt (1991), dialogic instruction involves and embraces the

voice of all participants. The teacher’s ability to allow and encourage individuality is

emphasized, and rather than being the final objective, dialogue is an ongoing and

expanding activity that promotes the creation of new meaning (Arnett, 1992).

Passive Learning

Whetten and Clark (1996) described passive learning as the type of learning in

which students enter their courses with open minds, which are like empty vessels or

sponges, and teachers fill the minds of the students with knowledge simply for the sake of

obtaining better results in standard examinations. Moll and Whitmore (1993) stated that

38

the concept of passive learning takes place in the traditional monologic classroom, which

is customary in systems of education focusing chiefly on the instructor’s role as lecturer

and bestower of knowledge in the classroom. The teacher vocalizes the information, and

the students merely take notes and absorb knowledge in a passive manner (Miner, Das, &

Gale, 1984).

At the end of each session, the students usually remember only about 10% of the

content taught (Bligh, 2000). The lecturers in passive learning environments act basically

as verbal textbooks whose lectures are usually dull; professors lecture for the majority of

class time, with little or no opportunity for student participation or involvement (Stewart-

Wingfield & Black, 2005). The passive learning approach prevails in higher education

because it offers an expedient method to convey knowledge and instill basic tenets

(Whetten & Clark, 1996).

Active Learning

McKeachie (2002) wrote that active and motivated students retain more

information. It is paramount that instructors strive to recognize the three indices of

motivation: “choice, effort, and persistence” (p. 119). Active learning describes a variety

of instructional models, all of which hold learners responsible for their own learning

(Pratt, 1991). Bonwell and Eison (1991) described the approach as a process in which

students engage in “doing things and thinking about what they are doing” in the

classroom (p. 2).

A large number of divergent practices can constitute the concept of active

learning (Ebert-May et al., 1997). Examples include lecture pauses for question-and-

39

answer sessions; incorporation of in-class writing activities; collaborative endeavors; the

use of surveys, oral quizzes, student self-assessments, field trips, debates, and contests;

and role plays (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Ebert-May et al., 1997; Sarason & Banbury,

2004). Among the benefits of active learning, Bonwell and Eison (1991) listed increased

student involvement, greater student engagement in dialogic activities, higher level of

student motivation, ability to provide immediate feedback, and more effective and

immediate development of critical-thinking skills. Active learning reflects a constructivist

conception of education that “construes learning as an interpretive, recursive, building

process by active learners interacting with the physical and social world” (Twomey-

Fosnot, 1996, p. 30).

Transformative Learning

The model of transformative learning was presented by Mezirow in 1978; it has

been fodder for adult education investigations ever since. Most theories in the field have

been built upon Mezirow’s foundation (as cited in Taylor, 1998). Mezirow’s own work

evolved “into a comprehensive and complex description of how learners construe,

validate, and reformulate the meaning of their experience” (as cited in Cranton, 1994,

p. 22). According to the Transformative Learning Centre (2010), transformative learning

is “a deep, structural shift in basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions” (para. 2).

Merriam, Courtenay, and Cervero (2006) asserted that transformational learning largely

concerns change and that this change produces empowerment.

Many other researchers have offered their own definitions and descriptions of

transformative learning. Despite myriad attempts to condense Mezirow’s (1978)

40

principles into one all-encompassing definition, certain common themes exist in each.

The three main themes emerging from Mezirow’s work were centrality of experience,

critical reflection, and rational discourse (as cited in Taylor, 1998). Transformative

learning has its roots in psychoanalytic theory (Boyd & Myers, 1988) and critical social

theory (Scott, 1997). From his pioneering research in the education of adult learners,

Mezirow framed “a theory of adult development and a derivative concept of adult

education” (p. 153) that has been vigorously debated for more than 2 decades (as cited in

Cranton, 2006).

Mezirow (1991) proposed two main levels on which individuals exercise

judgment in relation to meaning as frames of reference. The first level is meaning

schemes, in which people make everyday decisions in the moment that are context

oriented and are the outworking of the second category of frames of reference: meaning

perspectives. Meaning perspectives are a matter of “habitual orientation and expectations

[which] provide criteria for judgment” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 44). A change in these

meaning perspectives involves reflection on the underlying motives, values, and beliefs

that undergird practice in any endeavor. Mezirow also insisted that change or

transformation of meaning perspectives is far less frequent than transformation of

meaning schemes and is a deeper transformative experience for adult learners in that they

are examining and reflecting on prior assumptions, addressing, and possibly altering, the

underlying reasons for taking specific actions.

Mezirow (1991) asserted that transformative learning takes place in four main

categories; of these categories, three involve alterations of “meaning schemes,” described

by Mezirow as “particular knowledge, beliefs, value judgments, and feelings” that occur

41

in explicit, relative conditions (p. 44). The fourth category is modification in “meaning

perspectives” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167) or the process of reexamining and rearranging the

fundamental assumptions of “meaning schemes” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167); this happens

when simple changes in the schemes are not enough.

In order to alter “meaning schemes (specific beliefs, attitudes, and emotional

reactions),” it is necessary to reflect critically on experiences, subsequently leading to

“perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167). Perspective transformation occurs

when people develop a critical awareness of the reasons assumptions constrain the way

they recognize, comprehend, and appreciate particular situations, modifying expectations

to foster a newfound perspective and then reacting appropriately (Mezirow, 1991).

Although Mezirow saw perspective transformation as the level of transformative

learning that occurs less frequently (as cited in Imel, 1998), he placed a high level of

priority here, even calling it “the cardinal goal” and “the engine of adult learning” (1997,

p. 5; 1994, p. 228). Two other aspects of frames of reference are what Mezirow (1997)

referred to as the “two dimensions... of habits of mind and points of view” (p. 5).

Mezirow saw “points of view” as susceptible to continual readjustment and “habits of

mind” as oriented toward longer duration, pointing to the deeper change of perspective

transformation (p. 5).

According to Cranton (2009),

Transformative learning can occur when students encounter alternative points of

view and perspectives. Exposure to alternatives encourages students to critically

question their assumptions, beliefs, and values, and when this leads to a shift in

the way they see themselves or things in the world, they have engaged in

transformative learning. (para. 3)

42

Merriam et al. (2007) stated that a number of steps exist in the process of

transformative learning. First is a disorienting dilemma that is not resolved through prior

problem-solving strategies (experience). The next step is self-examination with critical

assessment of assumptions. This step precedes the acknowledgment that others have gone

through a similar process. Finally, options are explored, and a plan of action is created.

Mezirow (1991) emphasized the importance of critical reflection in

transformative learning theory, stating that reflection is the overt process of “intentional

assessment” (p. 44) of one’s actions, whereas critical reflection goes much deeper,

seeking the reasons behind those actions. He offered three types of reflection (i.e.,

content, process, and premise) and suggested their roles in the transformation of meaning

schemes and perspectives. In the process of reflection, one must ask oneself critical

questions (Cranton, 1994).

The term transformative learning stems from transformative learning theory

(Mezirow, 1991), which described a learning process of “becoming critically aware of

one's own tacit assumptions and expectations and those of others and assessing their

relevance for making an interpretation” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 4). Merriam and Caffarella

(1999, p. 321) arranged transformative learning into three segments: critical reflection,

reflective discourse, and action. Mezirow (2000) suggested that engaging in this process

can result in frames of reference that are more easily altered. Rather than act upon the

“purposes, values, feelings, and meanings… we have uncritically assimilated from

others” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 8), transformative learning typically entails intense emotions

demonstrated by actions.

43

To experience perspective transformation, it is critical that people change their

own cultural paradigms. Merriam et al. (2006) discussed providing opportunities through

experience, and thus empowerment. To empower, teachers must educate, but that

education must be mutual. Freire (1997) believed that the poor of the world are

dominated, subsequently becoming the victims of those who possess political power.

What they need, he asserted, is the liberation of an education; knowledge can give them a

critical consciousness, granting them an agency for change, and loosening the shackles of

their society. Such an education would not conform and mold people to fit into the roles

expected by society, but it would prepare them to realize their own values and reality, to

reflect and study critically their world, and move into action to transform it (Freire,

1997). Transformative learning can take many forms, and adult learning theories can be

adapted effectively to fit its broad spectrum definition; the principles of dialogism are

concurrent and concomitant with Mezirow’s (1991) theory (Taylor, 1998).

Illeris (2003) described learning in youth as “a gradual transition from the

uncensored, trusting learning of childhood to the selective and self-controlled learning of

adulthood” (p. 363). He described transformative learning as “a far-reaching type of

learning” (p. 402). To fully understand transformative learning, consideration also must

be given to the innate process of human learning. This process involves the use of

problem solving, followed by reflection and discussion. Through self-reflection,

individuals can identify their own optimum learning processes through concrete

experiences, reflecting on those experiences, synthesizing new knowledge around those

experiences, and finally actively applying that knowledge in their lives and work. This

44

description can be compared to the premises of Kolb’s (1981) model of experiential

learning (Merriam et al., 2007).

What Mezirow (1994) referred to as “perspective transformation” goes beyond

everyday decision making in the classroom and addresses issues of embodied values.

Mezirow called this deeper phenomenon of perspective transformation “the engine of

adult development” (p. 228). Jarvis (1987) underpinned this reference by describing the

optimal “zone” in which adults learn as “disjuncture,” the place where individuals have a

tension with the environment. “This ‘inability to cope with the situation unthinkingly,

instinctively, is at the heart of all learning’ ” (Jarvis, 1987, p. 284). The fundamental

premise of Jarvis’s (1987) learning process is that all learning begins with the way the

five human senses function.

As expressed by Mezirow (1997), transformative learning follows a change in

individuals’ frames of reference by analytically pondering their principle assumptions

and convictions, and deliberately making and executing strategies that generate new

perspectives. Transformative learning is primarily a “rational, analytical, and cognitive”

process with an “inherent logic” (Grabov, 1997, pp. 90-91). Transformative learning is a

major component of adult learning theory. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) alluded to the

appropriateness of transformative learning as a theory of adult learning because it “is

firmly anchored in life experience” (p. 320). The foundational goal of transformative

learning is “effecting change in a frame of reference” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5), with a view

to “construing and appropriating a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s

experience as a guide to action” (Mezirow, 1994, pp. 222-223). Mezirow and Caffarella

also saw transformative learning as “a meaning-making activity” (p. 319).

45

Transformative learning is not meant to be a neat or tidy approach. Mezirow

(1997) stated that learning is not transformative if it “fits comfortably in our existing

frames of reference” (p. 7). Instead, it is based upon what Mezirow (1991) called

“disorienting dilemmas” (p. xvi), which are situations, questions, and so on, that are

unsettling, bothersome, or problematic. They often are in the context of “a significant

personal event... an acute internal personal and personal crisis” (Taylor, 2000, p. 298).

These events might call into question people’s values, patterns of practice, or judgment as

they live and work in particular contexts. As these dilemmas are addressed and frames of

reference, values, and or aspirations are further understood (or changed entirely),

transformative learning occurs.

Imel (1998) stated that transformative learning cannot be understood in terms of

one modality. As an outgrowth of the original strand of the transformative learning

literature as created by Mezirow (1991), more recent directions in the field have

questioned Mezirow’s emphasis on transformative learning as a primarily rational or

cognitive approach to learning. This view counteracts this rational/cognitive viewpoint by

balancing it with aspects that allow for intuition, affect, and artistry (Cranton, 1994;

Grabov, 1997; Imel, 1998). It also allows for the idea of authenticity of the teaching self,

even when engaging in critical reflection and dialogue in collaboration (Cranton, 1994).

In transformative learning, perspective transformation has practical and

empowering aspects. Kritskaya and Dirkx (2000) stated that “transformative learning as

inner work is not merely a narcissistic, me-oriented perspective” (p. 8). Citing Palmer

(1998), they also commented that the transformation of perspectives is “outer work

through an inner journey” (p. 4). Cranton (1994) suggested that professional development

46

models that emphasize technical expertise need not be ignored, as long as there is an

understanding that this technical expertise includes “content... derived from an emerging

theory of practice” (p. 214). Arising from this emergent theory, Cranton also believed

that empowerment must precede transformative learning, in addition to what she called

an increased stage of empowerment that follows. This notion of empowerment owes

much to Habermas’s framework of learning and interests (as cited in Arhar, Holly, &

Kasten, 2001), and figured prominently in Mezirow’s (1991) earlier work. If this theory

of adult learning is to remain significant to adult educators, it must continue to inform

adult educators in ways that allow them to improve their teaching practically and

theoretically (Taylor, 2000).

Learning Environment

Rogers (1951) submitted that a warm and empathetic climate will greatly enhance

the conditions for learning. Critical in developing an atmosphere where the dialogical

approach is possible is the creation of a safe learning environment (Sappington, 1984).

Rossiter (2007) claimed that telling others that they are miserable is of little use and is, in

fact, counterproductive in educational efforts; showing, more so than telling, can be a

much more prudent approach. Thus, according to Rossiter, educators’ most difficult task

is to revere and react to the learners’ environment rather than condescendingly subject

learners to the educators’ own ideals. Merriam et al. (2006) asserted that one must respect

the cultural and social integrity of others, which assumes mutuality; as such, people are

always in a position of teaching themselves as well as others in what Merriam et al.

termed the self-other relationship.

47

Depending on the classroom culture, students will decide what questions to ask

and how they feel about sharing their thoughts honestly (Nystrand et al., 1997). Battle

(1995) found that even young children are affected by the classroom culture. In her study,

nonthreatening and nonevaluative environments supported Kindergarten children’s

sharing of their own interpretations of stories. Research on the classroom environment

has shown that many students have distinct beliefs about the behaviors that their

classmates might consider appropriate in the classroom setting (Fassinger, 1995; Howard

& Henney, 1998; Howard, James, & Taylor, 2002; Weaver & Qi, 2005). These

perceptions can significantly limit and drastically affect student class involvement. Many

students are intimidated by the prospect of peer disapproval and scorn, so adding that fear

and anxiety can correspond negatively with their actual rate of classroom involvement

(Fassinger, 1995; Weaver & Qi, 2005).

The most commonly cited reasons for nonparticipation have been the feeling that

students’ ideas are “not well enough formulated” (Howard & Henney, 1998, p. 712) and

that they do not know enough about the subject matter (Crawford & MacLeod, 1990;

Howard, Short, & Clark, 1996). In addition, the most cited reason for class participation

anxiety has been the possibility of being considered “stupid” by other students (Hyde &

Ruth, 2002, p. 245). Wee (2010) insisted that creating a positive classroom culture is the

most important teacher role.

Almasi et al. (1996) pointed out that the culture of the classroom is one of the key

elements in engagement. They observed that students can exchange ideas and comment

on each other’s responses freely when they construct meaning of their reading in a

positive classroom culture. Nystrand and Gamoran (1993) also purported that classroom

48

culture is important in students’ engagement in learning. After careful examination of the

relationship between the classroom discourse and students’ learning, Nystrand and

Gamoran concluded that when teachers turn their classrooms into interpretive

communities that allow students to share their different interpretations of their reading,

students learn how to read aesthetically and engage in learning through classroom

discourse. Nystrand and Gamoran reported that a positive classroom culture makes a

class effective. Concurrently, compared to students in ineffective classes, more students

in effective classes complete their reading and writing assignments, participate in

discussions, and accomplish higher literature achievement (Bleich, 1978; Fish, 1980).

Wells (2000) also emphasized the importance of creating a classroom community

with a positive classroom culture, explaining that learning is not mastering an isolated

skill or remembering information. According to Fallon (1995), learning does not solely

happen by teaching; instead, it happens when students are situated to solve emerging

problems or difficulties in activities. A positive classroom culture contributes to making a

classroom a community of inquiry, a place where students can work together to construct

knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978).

Sappington (1994) asserted that the creation of a safe learning environment is

critical in developing an atmosphere where the dialogical approach can exist. Barth

(2007) intimated that the first and most important strategy is to “discover and provide the

conditions under which people’s learning curves go off the chart” (p. 162). According to

McKeachie (2002), the best and safest learning environment honors each student. He

recommended that instructors design a safe learning environment by providing lessons,

activities, and assignments that help students to connect to the world through their

49

coursework. Hyde and Ruth (2002) argued that educators should provide opportunities

for multicultural and other types of activities that foster social, emotional, and cognitive

development. Christoph and Nystrand (2001) stated that the goal must be to create

positive and mutually supportive working relationships with classmates by encouraging

and promoting a selfless group dynamic where all are encouraged to work well together

as a team and all receive ongoing opportunities for development as critical thinkers. D. R.

Johnson et al. (2007) argued that positive peer and faculty interactions can influence

students’ sense of belonging by making complex environments feel more socially and

academically supportive.

Preskill and Brookfield (2009) concurred, stating, “If the goal truly is to develop

students’ capacities to learn, think critically, and take informed action,” then the teacher’s

stand is immaterial (p. 69). Students might benefit more by learning to show rather than

to just tell; in this way, they allow their readers to draw their own inferences and

conclusions (Elbow, 1981).

Theoretical Framework

Based in constructivism, this study examined perceptions of dialogic instruction

and the existence of multiple possibilities for interpretation. The basic tenet of

constructivism is that “people learn by using what they know to construct new

understandings”; therefore, “all learning involves transfer that is based on previous

experiences and prior knowledge” (National Research Council [NRC], 2000, pp. 68,

236). Therefore, when teaching any idea or skill, teachers should try to understand

students’ “previous experiences and prior knowledge” (NRC, 2000, p. 68) and use that

50

information as a foundation. The constructivist theoretical underpinnings used to clarify

the role of dialogic instruction in stimulating students’ grasp of topics developed mainly

from the sociocognitive and sociocultural theories (Burbules & Bruce, 1995).

Constructivism can be described in many ways. Knowles (1975) asserted that

effective educators must understand the ways in which adults learn, especially how those

ways are different from the ways in which children learn. Adults use prior knowledge as

a foundation upon which they build new information. McKeachie (2002) wrote that

active and motivated students retain more information. To that end, he advocated that

teachers strive to recognize the three indices of motivation: “choice, effort, and

persistence” (p. 119).

Adults learn in different ways, and educators must adapt their instructional

methods by recognizing “students’ needs for self-determination and autonomy, and

provide opportunities for choice and control” (McKeachie, 2002, p. 126). Regardless of

the educational setting, the crucial importance of dialogue and discussion must be

addressed. Bruffee (1984) stated that adult learners have a strong desire for clear

communication that demonstrates warmth, respect, and encouragement. It is the duty of

teachers, therefore, to supply the human touch by demonstrating warmth, respect, and

encouragement (Fassinger, 1995).

Knowles’s (1975) theory of andragogy highlighted the self-directed and

constructivist nature of adult learning. He insisted that efforts to teach adults account for

this basic characteristic. Teachers take on the role of facilitator rather than lecturer.

According to Knowles, andragogy makes the following assumptions about the design of

learning:

51

1. Adults need to know why they need to learn something.

2. Adults need to learn experientially.

3. Adults approach learning as problem-solving.

4. Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value. (as cited in Kearsley,

n.d.)

Self-directed learning, one of the most frequent adult educational processes, is

cloaked in constructivism (Bandura, 1997). Self-directed learning occurs with activities

that are student initiated, student planned, student implemented, and student evaluated

(Knowles, 1980). Self-directed should not be confused with self-taught, according to

Knowles, because the teacher still plays an important but significantly different role than

in the traditional educational setting. Self-directed learning should not be considered as

activity done in isolation. Studies of self-directed learning have demonstrated that on

average, students include 10 other people as resources, guides, consultants, and so on

(Cross, 1981). Wlodkowski (2008) advocated that teachers offer self-directed learning

activities as an option, but not mandate them.

According to Billington (1990) and Galbraith (1994), however, using this method

of instruction with the wrong type of students can leave them feeling alienated, lacking in

self-esteem, or becoming overwhelmed or intimidated. This degradation of students’ self-

perception also lends itself to Saussure’s (1964) monologic leanings. To bridge this gap,

Grow’s staged self-directed learning model, presented by Merriam et al. (2007), serves as

a template that allows learners to position themselves in terms of their readiness for, and

comfort with, being self-directed and also allows instructors to match the learners’ mind-

sets with suitable instructional strategies.

52

As previously discussed, also critical in educating adults is the theory of

transformative learning, which reflects a constructivist conception of education that

views education as interpretive and recursive (Twomey-Fosnot, 1996). According to

Freire (1997), education is the key to empowering all people and giving them the skills to

deal with their life situations effectively and develop appropriate courses of action. Freire

argued that individuals who are oppressed develop a subservient nature and that even

when the domination no longer exists, they remain unable to change accordingly. By

developing decisive awareness, they are empowered to take effective steps to change this

acquired characteristic.

To educate adults effectively, Cranton (2009) asserted that it is important to form

a cohesive and multifaceted constructivist approach. As a facilitator of learning, she

believed that it is important to foster an environment conducive to learning through

invention. Among constructivist recommendations regarding the education of adults,

Elbow (1981) argued that teachers always must be fully aware of their own learning

styles: Their teaching styles reflect their preferred ways of learning, and sometimes, their

styles might not be the most suitable ones for their students, so keeping that in mind is

important. Educators should be cognizant of students’ cultural differences and the

learning styles that are defined by these cultural differences (Wertsch et al., 1995).

Wlodkowski (2008) recommended that teachers employ a wide array of instructional

methods that will allow them to be effective with students who have different learning

styles. According to McKeachie (2002), teachers should project their own motivation on

to their students because motivated teachers beget motivated students. In light of

constructivist theory, Wlodkowski argued that even though teachers cannot motivate

53

anyone to do anything, they can construct situations where students can motivate

themselves.

According to Porter (2004), the constructivist approach was based upon designing

and teaching courses that emulated the work environment. Using this approach,

knowledge and skills can be applied to the teaching-learning situation. The assignment or

project given to students to complete should simulate a real-world problem or situation

that could be encountered in the workplace. By using the constructivist approach,

students can add new information and knowledge to their prior knowledge and

subsequently apply these concepts.

Classroom assessment is critical to student learning. Research has shown that

student achievement increases when classroom assessment provides students with good

feedback about their performance (integral to the dialogical approach) and is used

consistently to monitor student progress (Butler & McMunn, 2006). Dialogical

assessment aids in improving student learning when it provides clear standards for

learning and is used to modify lessons to meet individual students’ needs (Butler &

McMunn, 2006). In the constructivist approach, authentic assessment is assessment for

learning; strengths and weaknesses are identified so that students are able to better their

performance by improving their skills (Butler & McMunn, 2006). Conversely, monologic

assessments of learning are not centered on the feedback necessary for improvement.

According to Borton and Huot (2007), assessment is an important element of student

learning because when students learn appropriate methods to assess not only their own

work but also the work of others, they are actually learning valuable decision-making

skills that are useful when producing their own work in the future.

54

Constructivists believe that using differentiated instruction and traditional styles

of testing only causes confusion for students and teachers. Constructivist teachers view

assessment as a natural element of teaching and learning activities, not as a separate

activity (Brooks & Brooks, 2001). Constructivism does not distinguish between

instruction and assessment; instead, they are viewed as mutually dependent. Preparing

students for the real world is perhaps the core purpose of education. Authentic

assessments accomplish that purpose because they are meaningful, challenging, and

performance driven, and they also integrate knowledge for students (Butler & McMunn,

2006). Authentic assessments require students to apply knowledge to new situations

(Brooks & Brooks, 2001). Students must demonstrate that they have synthesized the

material, not just memorized information. Though Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in Bloom

et al., 1956) has long dominated assessment and learning models on student objectives,

several new ideas that label more effectively what is involved in cognitive processes now

exist, and these more recently identified outcomes are fundamental to teaching in

emerging constructivist ways. Characteristics of constructivism are present in self-

directed learning, transformative learning, experiential learning, and self-reflection.

Considered fundamental to constructivism are the works of Bandura (1997) and

Vygotsky (1962, 1978). Vygotsky’s (1978) social development theory advanced that

communication actually precedes development and that perception and cognition are the

products of socialization and social behavior. Vygotsky (1962) argued that the ability to

explicate thoughts through language always falls short of the actual thoughts; this gap

drives the constant process of trying to create meaning. Bandura’s social learning theory

suggests that people learn from one another via observation, imitation, and modeling. It

55

also encompasses attention, memory, and motivation, and it encompasses cognitive and

behavioral frameworks.

Constructivism is a philosophy of learning based upon the premise that by

reflecting on their experiences, people construct their own understanding of the world in

which they live (Jonassen, 1991). People generate their own rules and mental models to

make sense of their experiences (Huitt, 2009). Learning, therefore, is simply the process

of adjusting mental models to accommodate new experiences (McMahon, 1997).

Cognitivism

Kettanurak et al. (2001) defined constructivist theory as focusing on learning as a

process in which learners are taught to think and learn productively by using personal

experience, situated cognition, and learning based upon discovery. Cognitivism focuses

on what learners know and how they know it. It is concerned with the cognitive processes

that learners engage in while learning. Principles that relate to the cognitivist theory

include methods of stimulating and sustaining learner attention, and encouraging positive

outlooks to keep learners motivated (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Cognitive principles

consider more than behavior to describe brain-based learning. Cognitivists consider how

human memory works to promote learning. The practices of sorting and processing

information into short-term memory and long-term memory are significant to cognitivist

educators.

Cognitive theorists have submitted that behaviors, along with personal influences

and environments, interact and afford individuals control over their existence (Bandura,

1986). Important issues such as personal traits, drive, ego, and situational aspects arise

56

when employing cognitive theory to a learning framework. Individuals are in control of

their lives through a three-way relationship among behaviors, cognitive and personal

factors, and the environment (Bandura, 1986). These three components interact to guide

individual choices. They also offer a foundation for understanding the learning process.

Specific elements that incorporate cognitivist ideas include the asking of

questions, practice in using and applying information, examples, and clear navigation

structure. Discovering knowledge is much different from having it deposited by well-

meaning instructors. Discovery must occur in a way that is appropriate to the learning

environment. Instructors must be comfortable allowing students to question. The

discovery of how to learn, societal role attainment, aptitude, and age-related memory all

exemplify cognitivism.

Summary

College composition courses endeavor to infuse academic discourse literacy into

students (Bartholomae, 1985), yet little consideration has been given to how these writing

classes can become a conduit to students’ futures (Mauk & Metz, 2010). By integrating

concepts and strategies from several adult learning strategies into the curriculum, Bruffee

(1984) contended that these courses could effectively be a springboard to higher levels of

cognition. According to Elbow (1981), teaching writing can be so much more than just

structure and form. Berlin (1988) asserted that it could be liberating.

Berlin (1988) continued by stating that students cannot be taught rhetoric; it is

something that students develop over time. He asserted that students can learn to think

more critically and to think about thinking. By doing so, they have the opportunity to

57

develop their skills (J. Metz, personal communication, May 6, 2006). To express oneself

articulately, one must first think eloquently. Writing is, after all, simply recorded thought;

composition should be as much a thinking course as it is a writing class (Elbow, 1981).

Written academic discourse can be described as the type of language used in a particular

context or subject; as such, it can vary significantly from department to department and

subject to subject (Bartholomae, 1985).

Mauk and Metz (2010) concluded that a typical composition class requires a

number of essays on divergent topics. Students are taught to write proposals, do

evaluations, author narratives, and craft expository pieces. Formal reference citations are

required when appropriate. Concepts explored include critical thinking, rhetorical stance,

and revision strategies. They believed that students learn different writing conventions for

different situations, yet more importantly and often overlooked, they also learn different

ways of seeing and knowing.

Spellmeyer (1989) asserted that the dominant theme for a composition course

should be the development of students who think critically about their world. Bruffee

(1984) argued that the ability to think is not intrinsic, but is developed socially. He

described thought as internalized dialogue; from his perspective, writing is “internalized

conversation re-externalized” (p. 641). Internalized conversation becomes reflective

thought, and writing is externalizing thought in a social medium. Consequently, thought

and writing are both transformations of oral conversation.

Writing classes must teach students how to use academic knowledge, think

critically, and create meaning (Spellmeyer, 1989). A dialogic instructional approach can

accomplish those goals effectively, but some educators and researchers continue to resist

58

the dialogical approach for various reasons. Kain (2003) asserted that “theorists

vigorously argue the merits of various and often conflicting approaches to understanding

and teaching writing” (p. 106). Kain also concluded that “reflective thinking, an essential

element of an undergraduate education, is a key to lifelong learning and self-discovery”

(p. 113). Despite the efforts of traditionalists, the literature has supported the study of

dialogical instruction in the college writing class.

59

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter includes a description of the research design used to examine the

perceptions of students and teachers in community college English composition classes.

The study followed a dialogic instructional approach. The method to examine the

perceptions of community college faculty and students was a descriptive study using a

questionnaire. Explanations of the setting, instrumentation, data collection, and data

analysis are presented.

Research Questions

Primary Research Question

What are the perceptions of students and instructors of dialogic instruction in a

community college composition classroom?

Research Subquestions

RQ1. What is the students’ perceived real, as represented by the average

response for a given factor?

RQ2. What is the instructor’s ideal, as indicated by the average response for a

given factor?

RQ3. Is intent (teachers’ ideal) aligned with practice (students’ real) in the

instruction in a dialogic writing class?

RQ4. How do students perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

60

RQ5. How do instructors perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

The study also was guided by two other questions: (a) Does age have any role in

students’ perceptions of dialogism? and (b) Does gender have any role in students’

perceptions of dialogism?

Methodology and Rationale

According to Creswell (2009), quantitative research examines the relationship of

variables on instruments that can provide quantifiable data. R. B. Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004) stressed that one asset of quantitative research is its utility in

exploring data obtained from large samples. Creswell stated that descriptive research can

be used to gather data about a sample in order to describe the participants’ characteristics.

The goal of descriptive research is to explain and describe “what is” (Borg &

Gall, 1989). Descriptive researchers typically employ data collected through data

reviews, surveys, interviews, or observations, and then they classify and describe the

collected information (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). Descriptive research is best suited to

explain how things are and how they came to be. Descriptive research can employ any

suitable number of variables, but it is different from other methods in that only one

variable is required (Borg & Gall, 1989).

Although Gay (1992) has been known for categorizing descriptive research as an

identifiable form of quantitative study, this form of inquiry was perhaps best described

much earlier by Dewey and Bentley (1949). At its core, descriptive research does not

require experimentation to gather data. Instead, this type of study facilitates descriptions

61

of unique characteristics, existing issues, and changes that result over time. Observation

is available to monitor the outcomes. As a result, descriptive research has the opportunity

to generate meaningful data and then quantifying, organizing, and presenting the results

systematically.

Dewey and Bentley (1949) provided the fundamental principles for descriptive

research: Observation can become scientific if it is reported in direct relation to the

particular procedure applied in the observance. Done appropriately, this reporting

necessitates several principles, namely, the use of an accurate reference model with a

sufficiently detailed description of the test being employed; the establishment of suitable

criteria; and the factual accounting of the findings (Dewey & Bentley, 1949). Although

these steps are the foundation of all scientific inquiry, they are especially germane to

descriptive research.

Descriptive research requires a distinction between theory and fact. Reports

represented as fact must be reliable and valid when subjected to scrutiny. On the other

hand, theory must remain open to discussion, opinion, and speculation. The fundamentals

of descriptive research facilitate the generation of information that can be quantified,

organized, and presented in a systematic fashion. Descriptive statistics indicate “general

tendencies in the data (mean, mode, median), the spread of variables (variance, standard

deviation, and range), or a comparison of how one variable relates to all others”

(Creswell, 2009, p. 190).

Gall et al. (2004) asserted that one of the primary benefits of quantitative research

is that the results can be generalized. Frechtling and Westat (2002) maintained that

quantitative research methods provide more objective and accurate information because

62

the data collection methods are standardized and can be replicated. Dobrovolny and

Fuentes (2008) added that the advantages of using quantitative methods include that they

are more time and resource efficient and the results might apply to a larger target

population. The current study followed a descriptive questionnaire design to learn about

and describe the perceptions of community college students and faculty when a dialogical

approach to writing instruction is used. The questionnaire approach facilitated the

collection of quantifiable data from a large sample.

Research Design

Lack of knowledge about the dialogical delivery of writing instruction intimated

the need for a descriptive research design. The researcher used descriptive research to

obtain data about the perceptions of a given sample. Descriptive research also provides

readily generalizable information (Gall et al., 2004). A quantitative, descriptive design

was used to examine the perceptions of community college students and faculty.

Specifically, the study asked the participants to complete a questionnaire that would help

to identify the perceptions of a group of students and instructors engaged in dialogical

English composition instruction at a community college in the Midwestern United States.

According to Gall et al. (2004), questionnaires are appropriate to evaluate the opinions or

characteristics of a specific sample.

Dependent and Independent Variables

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of students and faculty

when a dialogical approach to writing instruction was used in a community college

composition classroom. The dependent variable was the instructional approach of the

63

faculty members, specifically described as dialogic, as defined earlier. The independent

variables were the perceptions of teachers’ intent and students’ real; additional

independent variables were the demographic factors of student age and gender.

Setting of the Study

Faculty invited to participate in the study were full-time and part-time instructors

at a community college whose instructional approach has been identified as dialogical by

the instructors and administrators who monitor and evaluate them. This institution was

selected because it serves a large geographic area and encompasses a diverse student

population. Data collection was limited to students and instructors in English

Composition I and II. Access to a larger sample increased the generalizability of the

findings.

The sample for this study comprised English Composition I and II students at a

Midwestern community college. At the time of this study, the institution had an

enrollment of just over 16,000 students, whose average age was 28.5 years. The students

came from various academic disciplines, all of whom are required to take both

composition classes.

The researcher obtained permission to conduct this study by contacting the

institutional research department of the community college and communicating the

purpose of the study. To encourage participation, the researcher and the department chair

agreed that the outcome of the study would be shared with the institution. Authorization

was obtained from the community college to conduct the research. Moreover, the

researcher and the chair of the English department agreed that the researcher would send

a cover letter e-mail with a copy of the questionnaire to each faculty member who had the

64

potential to become a participant in this study, thus assuring strictly voluntary

participation.

Instrument

The CCAQ (Steele, 1981) includes 25 forced-choice items evaluating cognitive

emphasis, classroom conditions, and students’ attitudes and reactions. Developed to

assess congruence of intent and practice (i.e., teachers’ ideal and students’ perceived

real), the cognitive items on the CCAQ have been identified consistently with the

appropriate level of the taxonomy of intellectual abilities. Administered as a single

instrument, the aforementioned cognitive factors are scored separately from the factors

associated with classroom environment and students’ perceptions of the class; the CCAQ

is actually three instruments in one, measuring cognitive emphasis, classroom conditions,

and students’ perceptions of class strengths and weaknesses (see Appendix A). The self-

reporting CCAQ, which is an assessment of problem-solving preferences, was

administered to a sample of students and instructors from one community college English

department.

Steele (1981) developed the CCAQ to appraise cognitive and affective classroom

climate by obtaining individual views of the learning environment. Administered to

students, the CCAQ measures their perceived real, an index of an instructor’s actual

practices as the students perceive them. Administered to instructors, it measures their

ideal, an index of a teacher’s intended pattern of cognitive emphasis; examination of the

two measures provides a measure of perceived congruence of instructional intent and

actual classroom praxis (Armfield, 2007). The CCAQ was developed originally as part of

65

an evaluation procedure of curricular intent to provide valuable classroom information

and obtain a general picture of the instructional climate. Steele (1984) revised the

instrument to examine teacher-student relationships and student engagement,

attentiveness, achievement, and collaboration.

Validity and Reliability

According to Gall et al. (2007), a valid study is appropriate and meaningful, with

no inherent threats to its integrity or its results. Random sampling, as prescribed by Gall

et al. (2007) as well as Marion (2004), was used to maintain external validity. Marion

stated that each member of the target population should have an equal chance of being

selected for the sample, thus assuring that the participants are representative of the

population. Gall et al. (2004) asserted that content validity is imperative in a descriptive

study to ensure that the instrumentation meets its designed purpose, thereby embodying

the intended goals of the study. Neuman (2003) added that replication of studies can

increase the reliability of the findings; therefore, use of a previously developed survey

instrument with a track record of over 4 decades contributed to the reliability of this

study.

Creswell (2009) asserted that establishing the validity and reliability of an

existing instrument is vital in determining its utility. Creswell detailed the importance of

determining whether the instrument truly measures its intended content and that it is

relevant to the research questions. Wahlstrom (1971) conducted a cross-validation study

of the original CAQ (Steele, 1969) using a sample of 1,831 students. Factor analysis

provided factorial validation of the CAQ, supporting essentially the same structure

66

reflected in Table 1. Although the divergence factor was unsupported, all other factors

were judged to supply meaningful information. The CAQ has been found to reveal clear

variations in emphasis in the cognitive and noncognitive domains within and across

instructional groups (Steele, 1982).

Table 1. Classification of Student Comments in the CCAQ*

Directions: Tally the number of comments that occur in each category for each of the three open-ended questions

Process

and

content

Presentation

of content

Purpose of

content

Study

conditions

Class

opportunities

Teacher

behavior

Intellectual

environment

Evaluation

procedures

Other

topics

Thought

processes

Clarity

Relevant

Pace and

schedule

Facilities

and

materials

Group

atmosphere

Teacher

competence

Measures

Subject

matter

Stimulating/

challenging

Preparatory Workload Activities Individual

acceptance

Student

competence

Products

Self-

initiated

activities

*Note. Developed by Lapan for Steele, House, Kerins, and Lapan (1971)

In addition to the substantial support provided by the factor analysis and other

forms of analysis, evidence validating the dimensions of the CAQ was obtained by Steele

et al. (1971). Extensive descriptive and observational data were collected for many

classes in which the CAQ was administered. Analysis of these data suggested that the

profiles of emphasis indicated by the CAQ were the actual emphasis that existed in those

classes. No contradictory information was found that tended to invalidate the CAQ

findings. CAQ/CCAQ reliability coefficients are presented in Appendix B.

Data Collection

The perceptions of the participants were obtained using a variety of statistical

methods. Information about the cognitive, behavioral, and affective activities taking place

67

throughout the duration of the class was collected using the CCAQ (Steele, 1981). The

CCAQ was not used to evaluate the use of dialogic instruction in isolation, but as a

contributing factor to the teaching and learning processes. Responses from the students in

the dialogic composition classrooms were correlated with the responses of the teachers in

classes using dialogic instruction. The teachers filled out the same CCAQ as the students.

For this research, “the intent of sampling individuals is to choose individuals that

are representative of a population so that the results can be generalized to a population”

(Creswell, 2007, p. 113). In this probabilistic sampling, a representative, large randomly

chosen group of individuals who did and did not have experience only with traditional

writing instruction was used. To determine an adequate sample size, the researcher used

an appropriate sample size formula.

The CCAQ was administered in strict accordance with Steele’s (1981) guidelines,

which stated that two conditions influence the way students respond and, hence, impact

the meaningfulness of the results. These conditions are the manner in which the CCAQ is

presented to students and the absence of threat or exposure. Utmost care was taken to

ensure that the CCAQ was administered appropriately.

Data Analysis

Data collected from the participants’ interviews were analyzed, and evolving

patterns were recognized through category construction (Merriam, 1991). Data were

analyzed for emerging patterns and statistical substantiation. The most important

variables were the seven cognitive factor observations for each student, as measured by

the CCAQ (Steele, 1981).

68

Each question had four possible responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Each factor was represented by two questions.

The sample sizes derived from answering the appropriate questions were sufficient and

applicable to the other study questions and research goals. These questions (research

goals) were the following:

1. Within a given class, is it possible to establish agreement between the

“instructor’s ideal” and the students’ “perceived real” as represented by the

class average response for a given factor?

2. In classes defined by teaching style, instructor, or some other grouping, is it

possible to detect important characteristics of the groups? (D. White, personal

communication, November 6, 2011)

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize, organize, and present the data in a

meaningful and effective format. Mean scores, standard deviations, frequencies, and

correlation were used as part of the descriptive analysis. Multiple displays, such as charts

and tables, were used to present the findings. Analysis of the data was performed using

SPSS v.20. The data were interpreted according to the four-step process described by

Steele (1984; see Appendix D). At the simplest level, quantitative analysis of the survey

results, frequency distributions of responses to specific items on the questionnaire,

structured the argument and analysis of findings. Quantitative data were easily

quantifiable, structurally analyzable, and lucidly reportable.

Primary Research Question

What are the perceptions of students and instructors of dialogic instruction in a

community college composition classroom?

69

The third section of the CCAQ (Steele, 1981) provided students with the

opportunity to give open-ended responses to the request to list the three best things about

the class from their own points of view. A second question asked them to identify three

things about the class that they would change if they could. Finally, students were given

the opportunity to make any comments they wished. These open-ended questions served

to enhance the data provided by the Likert scale questions.

Scoring Procedures

Open-ended items are difficult to quantify or summarize. One way of processing

these questions in this study was to sort the student comments into categories according

to the nature of the comments. A category system developed by Lapan, Steele, House,

and Kerins (1970) covered relevant dimensions of the classroom situation. Eight

classroom dimensions were defined, and each dimension was divided into two

subcategories, giving a total of 17 categories of comments about the classroom. An 18th

category was used to record other topics mentioned that were too general or unclear to

classify and for comments that did not pertain to the classroom. Detailed category

descriptions are shown in Appendix E.

Interpretation

The classification of comments made the comparison of many classes possible. It

allowed generalizations to be made about many groups of students, and it was one way of

comparing the students’ comments with other responses about the same class situation.

Correlation of categories of responses with the cognitive and classroom conditions

factors of the CCAQ (Steele, 1981) helped to clarify relevant dimensions of the class,

revealing the perceptions of students and instructors alike.

70

RQ1

What is the instructors’ ideal, as indicated by the average response for a given

factor? When administered to instructors, the CCAQ (Steele, 1981) asked them to mark

the responses that they would ideally like the class to give. This measure is the

instructors’ ideal, and it represents an index of a teacher’s intended pattern of cognitive

emphasis.

RQ2

What is the students’ perceived real, as represented by the average response for a

given factor? When administered to all students in a class, the CCAQ’s (Steele, 1981)

mean and distribution of responses indicate the perceived emphasis on the various

dimensions described. This measure is the perceived real, and it represents an index of an

instructor’s actual practices insofar as the students perceive them as a group.

RQ3

Is intent (teachers’ ideal) aligned with practice (students’ real) in the instruction

in a dialogic writing class? The CCAQ (Steele, 1981) is administered to both instructors

and students. Comparison of the instructor’s ideal with the students’ perceived real

provides a measure of congruence of intent and practice in instruction.

RQ4

How do students perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to learning

environment? The Classroom Conditions section of the CCAQ (Steele, 1981) assesses

several noncognitive dimensions of the classroom concerned with the following

conditions and emphases:

71

1. Opportunity for or tolerance of divergent thinking, as opposed to convergent

thinking patterns.

2. Discussion opportunity and student involvement in class discussion.

3. Student enthusiasm and excitement with class activities.

4. The degree to which independence and student initiative are tolerated or

encouraged.

5. Undue stress on test performance and grades.

6. Emphasis on lecture and a passive listening role for students, as opposed to

doing something other than listening.

7. The degree to which humor and laughter is characteristic of the class.

8. An estimate of the average amount of teacher talk in class.

9. An estimate of the average amount of homework performed weekly.

Scoring Procedures

Three of the conditions listed in the last section (Items 2, 5, and 6) are composed

of paired items and scored similarly to the cognitive factors. Consistency and direction of

response are determined. The divergence, enthusiasm, independence, and humor

dimensions (Items 1, 3, 4, and 7) are assessed by single items. In addition, students are

asked to estimate the amount of time the teacher talks by circling one of six percentages

(i.e., 90, 75, 60, 40, 25, or 10%). The median student response is used as the class

estimate.

RQ5

How do instructors perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment? Teachers are asked to indicate the response they ideally would like

72

the class to give for all but the last two factors. The responses are compared to the mean

student response to determine the degree of match between intent and practice. For the

last two factors of teacher talk and homework, they are asked to estimate the amount of

time that they talk and the amount of weekly preparation the students are required to do.

The teachers’ awareness of their own and students’ behaviors can be assessed by

comparing student and teacher responses.

The cognitive factors of the CCAQ (Steele, 1981) are keyed to the seven levels of

the taxonomy of intellectual abilities adapted from Bloom’s taxonomy by Steele (1969).

These seven cognitive levels are shown in Appendix F. They are inclusive of student

behaviors related to thinking operations. They are hierarchical, in that each higher level

requires and includes the use of lower thinking operations.

The seven cognitive factors of the CCAQ are composed of 14 short statements

describing possible cognitive activities. Responses are made in terms of how well the

sentences describe what is stressed in the class. For each of the seven cognitive levels,

statements that express approximately the same concept are paired (see Table 2). By

matching the responses from the same individual with those of the other respondents for

each pair of statements, the consistency of response can be ascertained. The function of

this procedure is to provide a measure of the degree to which students are certain of their

opinions about each cognitive level.

73

Table 2. Paired Items for Cognitive Factors of the CCAQ

Factor I: Memory

1. Remembering or recognizing information is the student’s main job.

10. Great emphasis is placed on memorizing.

Factor II: Translation

9. Restating ideas in your own words is a central concern.

21. Great importance is placed on explaining and summarizing what is presented.

Factor III: Interpretation

6. Students are expected to go beyond the information given to see what is implied.

16. Students are expected to read between the lines to find trends and consequences in what is

presented.

Factor IV: Application

3. Students actively put methods and ideas to use in new situations.

13. A central concern is practicing methods in lifelike situations to develop skill in solving problems.

Factor V: Analysis

7. Great importance is placed on logical reasoning and analysis.

12. Using logic and reasoning processes to think through complicated problems (and prove the answer)

is a major activity.

Factor VI: Synthesis

11. Students are urged to build onto what they have learned to produce something brand new.

23. Inventing, designing, composing, and creating are major activities.

Factor VII: Evaluation

2. A central activity is to make judgments of good/bad, right/wrong, and explain why.

20. The student’s major job is to make judgments about the value of issues and ideas.

Additional Research Questions

The study also was guided by two other questions: (a) Does age have any role in

students’ perceptions of dialogism? and (b) Does gender have any role in students’

perceptions of dialogism? Demographic data were used to answer these additional

questions.

Sample Size

A convenience sample of 83 first- and second-semester community college

students and five English composition instructors were drawn from a target population of

six English Composition I and II classes. The role of dialogic instruction and student

perceptions were explored via various age ranges, with each age range beginning at age

74

18 years and ending at age 59 years. The role of dialogic instruction and student

perceptions were explored categorically by students’ gender. In this study, 69% of the

participants were female.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations in a research design might influence the level of reliability, validity,

and generalizability of a given study. One of the limitations of the methodology of this

study was that the data were obtained only from English Composition I and II students

and teachers at a 2-year community college in the Midwestern United States, where a

dialogical instructional approach is used. The sample could have limited the

generalizability of the findings. A second limitation of this study was that the data were

collected from only one community college in the Midwestern United States, thus,

community colleges with different demographics might not find the results useful.

Another limitation of the methodology of this study was that participation was voluntary,

which could have affected the representative status of the sample. Lastly, the CCAQ

(Steele, 1981) is a self-reporting questionnaire, which could have lent itself to natural

bias because one’s perception of self might be different from the perceptions of others;

therefore, validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instrument used.

Expected Findings

It was anticipated that the data collected for the study would allow students’

perspectives of the dialogical approach to teaching writing to be represented

75

quantitatively. This process espoused the claims of Creswell (2009), who asserted that

research methods should correspond to research problems.

Conclusions drawn from this study regarding the perceptions of community

college instructors and students were limited to the sample. It is hoped that this study will

provide a better understanding of the use of dialogical instructional approaches in the

community college English composition setting. Data from this study will add to the

body of knowledge about dialogical instructional practices of instructors at 2-year

institutions. The findings might imply that community college English departments could

benefit from the use of dialogical instruction. Because little is known about dialogical

instructional practices in community colleges composition classrooms, the data from this

study will help to fill the gap in knowledge. Moreover, the objective of the study was to

understand the nature of dialogical instruction used in the English composition

classrooms of community colleges based upon the perceptions of students and instructors.

Ethical Issues

Ethical considerations are a primary concern when conducting research to

guarantee the protection of the study’s participants. The Belmont Report (U.S.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979) was instituted by the National

Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research to provide groundwork for conducting research involving human participants.

In this report, three ethical principles and guidelines described the conduct of research

involving human participants: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. To guarantee

that the participants’ rights were protected, the researcher complied with the principles

76

outlined in the Belmont Report (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

1979).

Ethical issues are involved in all research methodologies. The best research

method to accomplish the study ethically was chosen in accordance with the highest

ethical standards. All participants were adults who were informed that there were no

known risks associated with their participation in this study. An informed consent was

read and provided to the participants by the researcher, who also was available to answer

any questions and concerns about participation in the study. Written permission to use the

CCAQ was obtained from its author. Results of the survey were reported as aggregate

data; the names of the participants were not included. Care was taken to ensure that the

sample was from classrooms using dialogical methods of instruction.

Conclusion

This chapter outlined the research design and methodology used to implement a

descriptive study to examine the perceptions of students and instructors from a

community college in The Midwest. It also thoroughly described the steps taken to ensure

the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants. Results of the data analysis are

presented in Chapter 4.

77

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The primary purpose of this study was to examine student and teacher perceptions

of dialogic instruction in the community college composition classroom. Provided in

Chapter 4 are the results of the data collected from a sample of student and teacher

participants from a community college in the Midwestern United States. Data collected in

this study were participant responses to a questionnaire instrument. Six instructors of

English composition who use dialogical instruction allowed their classes to participate.

Classes of one instructor were excluded from the study when data revealed that the

instructional methods used were not dialogic. Collected data were studied and analyzed

in order to develop themes to answer the research questions. Data collection and analysis

resulted in a statistical representation of the research environment. The purpose of this

chapter is to share the data and understandings with the reader.

Research Questions

Several research questions were examined to elicit the perceptions of the

participants:

RQ1. What is the students’ perceived real, as represented by the average

response for a given factor?

RQ2. What is the instructors’ ideal, as indicated by the average response for a

given factor?

RQ3. Is intent (teachers’ ideal) aligned with practice (students’ real) in the

instruction in a dialogic writing class?

78

RQ4. How do students perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

RQ5. How do instructors perceive the dialogic writing classroom with regard to

learning environment?

Additional research questions: Two demographic elements were examined to

determine the following: (a) Does age have any role in students’ perceptions of

dialogism? and (b) Does gender have any role in students’ perceptions of dialogism?

Summary of the Research Instrument

Perceptions of dialogic instruction in the composition classroom were assessed

and compared using the participants’ responses on the CCAQ, which was developed

initially by Steele (1969) and later revised by him (1982) to obtain information about the

cognitive, behavioral, and affective activities that teachers intended and students

perceived. Scoring is represented by mean responses to 21 separate factors. Cognitive

factors are scored separately from factors dealing with classroom conditions and

students’ attitudes toward the class. The CCAQ assesses Cognitive Emphasis (related to

the Cognitive Domain), Classroom Focus (related to the Behavioral Domain), and

Classroom Conditions (related to the Affective Domain); in addition, it appraises the

Strengths and Weaknesses of the class perceived by students. The CCAQ assesses actual

classroom environment, as perceived by students; it also assesses teachers’ intended

classroom environment, allowing an examination of how well teacher intent aligns with

students’ perceived real. The CCAQ was not designed to evaluate teachers; rather, it was

meant to provide an assessment of patterns of emphasis across classrooms. According to

79

Steele (1981), analysis of a larger scale instructional environment can be done without

revealing the identities of individual teachers, thus serving as the basis for comparison

and discussion without posing a threat to participants.

Design of the CCAQ

Cognitive Domain

Design of the initial section of the CCAQ was based upon Bloom’s taxonomy of

the cognitive domain (as cited in Bloom et al., 1956); its focus was the standardization of

the language describing teachers’ expectations of their students. Moreover, Bloom et al.

(1956) suggested that use of the taxonomy could help to discern a perspective of the

emphasis on specific behaviors via an instructional method. Developing an understanding

of the levels of thinking emphasized in the classroom is the purpose of the Cognitive

section of the CCAQ while describing participants’ perceptions of the levels of thinking

that occur within the assignments and the classroom interactions.

Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in Bloom et al., 1956) is separated into two sections

by dimension in the CCAQ, namely, lower level thought processes and higher level

thought processes, consisting of seven unique categories (factors) on which to base

educational objectives. Cognitive factors of the CCAQ are indicative of student behaviors

related to thinking operations. Hierarchical in nature, each higher level process requires

and includes the use of lower level thinking operations. Three factors of lower level

thought processes are Memory, Translation, and Interpretation. Four higher level thought

process factors are Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. These seven

cognitive factors of the CCAQ comprise separate paired short statements describing

80

possible cognitive activities. Each factor is further clarified as the collected data are

described below.

Behavioral Domain

Examined in the second section of the CCAQ was the Classroom Focus

dimension as related to the Behavioral Domain, consisting of eight factors assessing how

a group of students interact and work together with a teacher. One aspect of the social

climate is the degree to which a teacher seeks to encourage an exchange of ideas with

students. Also examined in this dimension was how relaxed and open versus stressful the

respondents perceived the setting. Three behavioral factors are Discussion, Openness,

and Dialogue; each is comprised of short paired statements describing possible

behavioral activities.

Affective Domain

Affective behaviors were examined in the third section of the CCAQ. Eight

factors were addressed according to the following conditions and emphases:

1. Opportunity for or tolerance of divergent thinking, as opposed to convergent

thinking patterns.

2. Student enthusiasm and excitement about class activities.

3. The degree to which independence and student initiatives are tolerated or

encouraged.

4. Undue stress on test performance and grades.

5. Emphasis on lecture and a passive listening role for students, as opposed to

doing things other than listening.

6. The degree to which humor and laughter are characteristic of the class.

81

7. An estimate of the average amount of teacher talk in class.

8. An estimate of the average amount of homework performed weekly.

To all CCAQ items listed in the Cognitive, Behavioral, and Affective sections,

responses were made based upon how well each sentence described what was stressed in

the class. Responses were made in terms of a 4-point Likert scale of 1 to 4 ranging from

strongly agree (SA) to agree (A), disagree (D), to strongly disagree (SD). Data indicated

that the means and distribution of the responses demonstrated emphasis or deemphasis on

the various dimensions described. Measured was the Perceived Real, represented by an

index of instructors’ actual practices insofar as they were perceived by the students as a

group. Administered to instructors, the means and distribution of responses indicated

intended emphasis or deemphasis on the various dimensions described. Measured was the

instructor’s Ideal, representing an index of the teacher’s intended pattern of emphasis.

Comparison of instructor’s ideal with students’ perceived real provided a measure of

congruence of intent and practice in classroom instruction.

Each factor on the CCAQ was represented by single or paired items that asked the

participants about their perceptions. For each factor, mean responses were determined

using the 4-point Likert scale. According to Steele (1982), mean responses to a factor

between 2.25 and 2.75 are neutral and should be interpreted as demonstrating no real

emphasis or deemphasis. Mean responses to a given factor between 1 and 2.24 show an

agreement emphasis on the factor. Furthermore, agreement emphasis has measured

strength, with 2.00 to 2.24 showing some emphasis and 1.00 to 2.00 showing strong

emphasis. Conversely, mean responses between 2.76 and 4 show a disagreement

82

emphasis for a given factor. Disagreement emphasis also has strength, with 2.76 to 3

showing some emphasis, and mean responses between 3 and 4 showing strong emphasis.

Student and Teacher Opinions

Provided in the final section of the CCAQ was an opportunity for open-ended

responses by the participants. Students and teachers were asked to list the three best

things about the class from their own points of view. A second question asked what three

things they would change about the class if they could. Finally, students were given an

opportunity to make any comments that they wanted to make. To quantitatively represent

the data collected in the Opinion section of the CCAQ, a categorical system was

developed by Lapan for Steele et al. (1971) to classify and quantify the responses.

Identification of the Sample

Population and Sample

A convenience sample of students from the English composition classes was

selected based upon the recommendation of the chair of the community college’s English

department, who reviewed and approved the working definition of dialogic instruction as

used in this study and recommended six instructors believed to be using dialogic

instruction. Each of the six instructors was provided with an informed consent and was

apprised briefly of the type of instruction being examined and the nature of the study.

Each instructor was asked to verify that he or she intentionally used dialogic instruction,

and if so, was subsequently invited to participate. All six instructors agreed to participate.

83

Criteria for Inclusion

The collected data were initially examined to ensure that the classes participating

in the study were dialogic. According to Burbules and Bruce (1995), an instructional

method cannot be characterized as dialogic without a strong emphasis on discussion.

Therefore, the primary qualifying questions from the CCAQ were Items 5 (“The class

actively participates in discussions) and Item 26 (“On the average, how much class time

does the teacher spend asking questions that call for an exchange of ideas?). To be

included in the study, data from each class had to indicate statistical agreement with Item

5, and responses to Item 26 had to confirm a high percentage of time being spent in

meaningful dialogue. For Item 26, there were five choices: 50% or more, (b) 45%,

(c) 40%, (d) 30%, and (e) 10% or less.

Based upon the mean responses of the students in each class, one class, Class 6,

was excluded when the data indicated that the instructor was not using dialogic

instruction. As demonstrated by a mean response of 2.29, students in Class 6 perceived

no emphasis on Item 5. On Item 26, the Class 6 student mean response was 4.24,

indicating that the time the teacher spent asking questions that called for an exchange of

ideas was only between 10% and 30%. Mean responses from the participants in each

class are represented in Table 3.

84

Table 3. Primary Criteria for Inclusion

Class response to primary criteria for study inclusion

5. The class actively participates

in discussions.

26. On the average, how much class time

does the teacher spend asking questions

that call for an exchange of ideas?

Class 1

Students

M response 1.27 1.17

Teacher Response 1.00 1.00

Class 2

Students

M response 1.14 1.36

Teacher Response 1.00 2.00

Class 3

Students

M response 1.12 1.18

Teacher Response 1.00 1.00

Class 4

Students

M response 1.69 1.31

Teacher Response 1.00 1.00

Class 5

Students

M response 1.17 1.17

Teacher Response 1.00 1.00

Class 6

Students

M response 2.29 4.24

Teacher Response 1.00 1.00

Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis is used to portray conditions, populations, and phenomena as

they exist. In quantitative studies, descriptive analysis is achieved by examining

descriptive statistics, which are employed to summarize or describe a set of quantitative

data. Statistics are used by researchers to describe or characterize the target population or

sample being studied. Data collected in this study were the participants’ responses to the

CCAQ. As detailed in the previous chapter, the CCAQ is an accurate index that combines

the observations of the participants to increase the accuracy of statistical reports. Special

scoring procedures were developed and used to verify that the responses were

appropriate. Confidence can be placed in statistical CCAQ results as accurately

describing the instructional environment of the class, as perceived by the participants

85

(House, Steele, & Kerins, 1971). Following are the results of the study, organized

according to the structure of the CCAQ.

Cognitive Domain

Lower Thought Processes

Factor 1: Memory. Responses to paired CCAQ Items 1 and 10 comprised the

Memory factor. When questioned about what actually occurs in the dialogic composition

classrooms, the students’ mean response was 2.41 on Item 1 (“Learning many facts and

definitions is the student’s main job”; SD = .870) and 2.90 on Item 10 (“Great emphasis

is placed on memorizing; SD = .945), indicating a perception of slight deemphasis on the

Memory factor. When questioned on their intended focus on the Memory Factor, the

teachers’ mean response was 2.80 on Item 1 (SD = .447) and 3.6 on Item 10 (SD = .548),

demonstrating a strong intended deemphasis on memory. Data indicated that the teachers’

intended deemphasis on memorizing facts and definitions was stronger than the students’

perceived real (see Table 4).

Table 4. Lower Thought Processes: Memory Factor

Student and Teacher paired item responses: Memory

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

1. Learning many facts and definitions is

the student’s main job. S 83 2.41 .870 .095

T 5 2.80 .447 .200

10. Great emphasis is placed on

memorizing. S 83 2.90 .945 .104

T 5 3.60 .548 .245

Factor 2: Translation. Responses to paired CCAQ Items 9 and 21 comprised the

Translation factor. When asked, “Restating ideas in your own terms is a central concern”

86

on Item 9, students’ mean response was 1.78 (SD = .629). When asked, “Great

importance is placed on paraphrasing and summarizing” on Item 21, students’ mean

response was 1.87 (SD = .766). Data indicated a very clear emphasis perceived by

students on translating and summarizing. Asked the same questions, teachers affirmed the

congruence of intention and actual, with a mean response of 1.80 (SD = .447) on Item 9,

and a mean response of 2.20 (SD = .447) on Item 21. Among the participants, means and

standard deviation indicated that the strong perceived emphasis on this factor was

intentional (see Table 5).

Table 5. Lower Thought Processes: Translation Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Translation

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

9. Restating ideas in your own terms is a

central concern. S 82 1.78 .629 .069

T 5 1.80 .447 .200

21. Great importance is placed on explaining

and summarizing readings and presentations. S 82 1.87 .766 .085

T 5 2.20 .447 .200

Factor 3: Interpretation. Responses to paired CCAQ Item 6 (“Students are

expected to go beyond the information given to see what is implied”) and Item 16

(“Students are expected to discover trends and consequences in the information studied”)

comprised the data examined to statistically describe the Interpretation factor. To Item 6,

students’ mean response was 1.69 (SD = .603), indicating a strong perceived emphasis.

To Item 16, students’ mean response of 2.1 (SD = .532) also showed perceived emphasis.

Teachers reported strong agreement with the intended focus on these items, with mean

response to Item 6 of 1.00 (SD = 0.00) and a mean response of 2.00 (SD = .000) on Item

16 (see Table 6).

87

Table 6. Lower Thought Processes: Interpretation Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Interpretation

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

6. Students are expected to go beyond the

information given to see what is implied. S 83 1.69 .603 .066

T 5 1.00 .000 .000

16. Students are expected to discover trends

and consequences in the information studied. S 83 2.10 .532 .058

T 5 2.00 .000 .000

Higher Thought Processes

Factor 4: Application. Participants’ responses to paired Items 3 and 13 were

examined to elicit students’ perceived real and teacher’s ideal for the Application factor.

When asked, “Students actively put methods and ideas to use in new situations” in Item

3, students’ mean response was 1.5 (SD = .527). For Item 13, “Students often practice

methods in life-like situations to develop skill in using what they have learned,” students’

mean response was 1.70 (SD = .711). Data revealed a strong student perception of

emphasis on this factor. Teachers reported that this focus on interpretation was

intentional, with a mean response of 1.4 (SD = .548) for Item 3, and a mean response of

1.80 (SD = .837) for Item 13 (see Table 7).

Table 7. Higher Thought Processes: Application Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Application

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

3. Students actively put methods and

ideas to use in new situations. S 82 1.50 .527 .058

T 5 1.40 .548 .245

13. Students often practice methods in

life-like situations to develop skill in

using what they have learned.

S 83 1.70 .711 .078

T 5 1.80 .837 .374

Factor 5: Analysis. Data for the Analysis factor were participants’ responses to

paired Item 7 (“Great importance is placed on logical reasoning and analysis”) and Item

88

12 (“Thinking through problems to find what patterns or relationships are there is a major

activity”). Students’ mean response to Item 7 was 1.63 (SD = .534). To Item 12, students’

mean response was 1.73 (SD = .568). Data demonstrated a perception of strong emphasis

on logic and analytical thought. Data revealed that teachers’ intent was also a strong

emphasis on this factor, as demonstrated by a mean response of 1.40 on Item 7

(SD = .894, and a mean response to Item 12 of 1.40 (SD = .548; see Table 8).

Table 8. Higher Thought Processes: Analysis Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Analysis

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

7. Great importance is placed on

logical reasoning and analysis. S 83 1.63 .534 .059

T 5 1.40 .894 .400

12. Thinking through problems

to find what patterns or

relationships are there is a major

activity.

S 82 1.73 .568 .063

T 5 1.40 .548 .245

Factor 6: Synthesis. To determine students’ perceived real and teacher’s ideal for

the Synthesis factor, the participants’ responses to paired Items 11 and 23 were used. To

Item 11 (“Students are urged to build onto what they have learned to produce something

brand new), the students’ mean response was 1.51 (SD = .549). To Item 23 (“Students are

encouraged to use writing, drawing, or symbols to put ideas a new way”), the students’

mean response was 1.63 (SD = .638). Data indicated that perceived focus on the Higher

Thought Process’ Synthesis factor had strong statistical strength. Teacher data displayed

strong agreement that emphasis on synthesizing information was their intent, with a mean

response of 1.20 (SD = .447) on Item 11. To Item 23, teacher mean response was 1.60

(SD = .548; see Table 9).

89

Table 9. Higher Thought Processes: Synthesis Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Synthesis

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

11. Students are urged to build onto what

they have learned to produce something

brand new.

S 83 1.51 .549 .060

T 5 1.20 .447 .200

23. Students are encouraged to use writing,

drawing, or symbols to put ideas a new

way.

S 83 1.63 .638 .070

T 5 1.60 .548 .245

Factor 7: Evaluation. Teacher intent for the Evaluation factor was a strong

emphasis, measured by mean responses to paired Item 2 (“Students must make many

judgments about the validity of information”) and Item 20 (“ ‘Weighing’ the merits or

qualities of things is a central activity”). To Item 2, the teachers’ mean response was 1.40

(SD = .548), and to Item 20, the teachers’ mean response was 1.8 (SD = .837). Students’

perceived emphasis on Evaluation was strong, indicated by a mean response of 1.77

(SD = .631) to Item 2, and mean response of 1.95 (SD = .607) to Item 20 (see Table 10).

Table 10. Higher Thought Processes: Evaluation Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Evaluation

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

2. Students must make many judgments about

the validity of information. S 83 1.77 .631 .069

T 5 1.40 .548 .245

20. “Weighing” the merits or qualities of

things is a central activity. S 82 1.95 .607 .067

T 5 1.80 .837 .374

Behavioral Domain

Classroom Focus

Three factors comprised the Classroom Focus dimension of the Behavioral

domain: discussion, openness, and dialogue.

90

Factor 8: Discussion. Paired CCAQ Items 5 and 15 were examined to determine

the focus on the Discussion factor. For Item 5 (“The class actively participates in

discussions”), the students demonstrated strong agreement, with a mean response of 1.29

(SD = .482) showing perceived emphasis. This response coincided with the students’

strong perception of deemphasis on Item 15 (“There is little opportunity for student

participation in discussions”), with students’ mean response of 3.71 (SD = .574).

Teachers reported congruent intent. The strongly agree responses for Item 5 and the

strongly disagree responses to Item 15 were unanimous. Data indicated that the

dialogical instructors’ intent was to foster an atmosphere of open discussion (see Table

11).

Table 11. Classroom Focus: Discussion Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Discussion

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

5. The class actively participates in

discussions.

S 83 1.29 .482 .053

T 5 1.00 .000 .000

15. There is little opportunity for

student participation in discussions.

S 83 3.71 .574 .063

T 5 4.00 .000 .000

Factor 9: Openness. The participants’ responses to paired Items 8 and 22

provided the results for the student actual and teacher intent for the Openness factor.

When asked, “The exchange of ideas among students is a central activity in this class” in

Item 8, the students’ mean response was 1.39 (SD = .641). When asked, “Many points of

view and solutions to problems are accepted in this class” for Item 22, the students’ mean

response was 1.31 (SD = .461). Data indicated that the students perceived a strong

emphasis on openness in the classroom. Data indicated that the focus on classroom

openness in the exchange of ideas and the acceptance of various viewpoints was

91

intentional, as demonstrated by the teachers’ mean response of 1.20 (SD = .447) for Item

8 and a mean response of 1.40 (SD = .548) for Item 22 (see Table 12).

Table 12. Classroom Focus: Openness Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Openness

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

8. The exchange of ideas

among students is a central

activity in this class.

S 83 1.39 .641 .070

T 5 1.20 .447 .200

22. Many points of view and

solutions to problems are

accepted in this class.

S 83 1.31 .467 .051

T 5 1.40 .548 .245

Factor 10: Dialogue. Data for the Dialogue factor were revealed by the responses

to paired Item 4 (“Students are expected to have ready answers to teacher questions rather

than to explore ideas further”) and Item 26 (“On the average, how much class time does

the teacher spend asking questions that call for an exchange of ideas?”). To Item 4, the

students’ mean response was 1.82 (SD = .603), indicating a perception of slight

deemphasis on teacher expectation for rote response versus exploration of ideas. In

responding to Item 26, 68 of the 83 students answered, “50% or more,” and only two of

the 83 students responded, “30% or less.” Data indicated that the students perceived a

strong emphasis on dialogue in the classroom. Data revealed a strong alignment of

teachers’ intent and students’ perceived actual emphasis on the purposeful exchange of

ideas to create new meaning; the teachers reported an intended strong deemphasis on

Item 4, as demonstrated by a mean response of 3.40 (SD = .548). The teachers

communicated agreement in intent on Item 26, with four responses of “50% or more” and

one response of “45%,” illustrating the teachers’ commitment to spending time on class

dialogue (see Table 13).

92

Table 13. Classroom Focus: Dialogue Factor

Student/Teacher paired item responses: Dialogue

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

4. Students are expected to

have ready answers to

teacher questions rather than

to explore ideas further.

S 83 2.82 .843 .093

T 5 3.40 .548 .245

Affective Domain

Classroom Climate

Perceptions of Classroom Climate related to the Affective domain were assessed

by analyzing participants’ responses to single questions addressing eight separate factors

(see Table 14):

Factor 11: Enthusiasm. Enthusiasm was assessed by analyzing the participants’

responses to Item 19 (“Students are excited and involved with class activities”). The

students’ mean response of 1.53 (SD = .650) concurred with the teachers’ intent,

validated by the teachers’ mean response of 1.60 (SD = .548). Data indicated that the

teachers’ intention was to provide an atmosphere where the students enthusiastically

involved themselves in class activities. Student data confirmed that their perceptions of

actual classroom climate aligned with the intentional teacher focus on enthusiasm.

Factor 12: Independence. Responses to Item 14 (“Students are encouraged to

independently explore and begin new activities”) were used to measure the participants’

perceptions of the Independence factor. The teachers’ intent, represented by a mean

response of 1.60 (SD = .548) indicated a strong focus on independence that was in

agreement with the students’ perceived real, as measured by a mean response of 1.72

(SD = .668).

93

Factor 13: Divergence. The participants’ responses to how they perceived the

Divergence factor were from Item 17 (“Students are encouraged to discover as many

solutions to problems as possible”). The students’ perceptions of a strong emphasis on the

Divergence factor in the classroom were demonstrated by a mean response of 1.66

(SD = .590). The teachers’ intent aligned with the students’ perceptions of actual, as

measured by a mean response of 1.40 (SD = .548).

Factor 14: Humor. Humor was addressed in Factor 14 on the instrument and

evaluated using the participants’ responses to Item 25 (“There is very little joking or

laughing in this class”). The data indicated that students’ perceptions were a strong

deemphasis, with a mean response of 3.58 (SD = .665). The teachers intended an even

stronger deemphasis, with a mean response of 3.80 (SD = .447). The data indicated an

acceptance of and a penchant for humor in the dialogic writing classroom.

Factor 15: Feelings valued. The participants’ responses to Item 18 (“This class

provides much opportunity for students to get to know each other’s thoughts and

feelings”) were used to appraise the Feelings Valued factor. The students reported a

perception of strong emphasis, with a mean response of 1.43 (SD = .545), which aligned

with teachers’ intent, revealed by a mean teacher response of 1.20 (SD = .447). Data

indicated a predisposition toward empathy in the dialogic composition classroom.

Factor 16: Ideas valued. The participants indicated whether their ideas were

valued or not in Factor 16. Ideas Valued was assessed using the participants’ responses to

Item 24 (The ideas studied in this class are more important than grades”). The students’

perceived real aligned almost perfectly with the teachers’ intent. The students’ mean

response was 1.87 (SD = .723), and the teachers’ mean response was 1.80 (SD = .447).

94

These data indicated motivation in the dialogic writing class to appreciate and encourage

the thoughts of others.

Table 14. Classroom Climate

Student/Teacher responses: Classroom climate items

CCAQ item Student (S) and

Teacher (T) n M SD SEM

19. Enthusiasm - Students are excited and

involved with class activities. S 83 1.53 .650 .071

T 5 1.60 .548 .245

14. Independence - Students are

encouraged to independently explore and

begin new activities.

S 83 1.72 .668 .073

T 5 1.60 .548 .245

17. Divergence - Students are encouraged

to discover as many solutions to problems

as possible.

S 83 1.66 .590 .065

T 5 1.40 .548 .245

25. Humor - There is very little joking or

laughing in this class. S 83 3.58 .665 .073

T 5 3.80 .447 .200

18. Feelings valued - This class provides

much opportunity for students to get to

know each other’s thoughts and feelings.

S 83 1.43 .545 .060

T 5 1.20 .447 .200

24. Ideas valued - The ideas studied in this

class are more important than grades. S 79 1.87 .723 .081

T 5 1.80 .447 .200

Factor 17: Teacher query. The participants’ responded to whether the teacher

queried them or not in Factor 17. As measured by Item 26, it was reported earlier that the

vast majority of both students and teachers agreed that at least 45% of class time was

spent by teachers asking questions that called for an exchange of ideas (see Table 15).

Table 15. Teacher Query

Student/Teacher cross-tabulation

On the average, how much class time does the teacher spend asking questions that call for

an exchange of ideas?

Count

S T Total

On the average, how much class

time does the teacher spend asking

questions that call for an exchange

of ideas?

10.0% 1 0 1

30.0% 1 0 1

40.0% 8 0 8

45% 5 1 6

50% or more 68 4 72

Total 83 5 88

95

Factor 18: Homework. Participants responded about the amount of homework in

Factor 18 by using Item 27 (“On average, how much time do you spend preparing for this

class each week?”). The results for the Homework Factor were inconclusive, with a wide

range of responses from both groups (Table 16).

Table 16. Classroom Climate: Homework

Student/Teacher cross-tabulation: Homework

S T Total

On average, how much time do you

spend preparing for this class each

week?

No answer 0 2 2

½ hr 8 0 8

1 hr 19 0 19

1½ hrs 9 0 9

2 hrs 17 0 17

2½ hrs 6 0 6

3 hrs 10 2 12

3½ hrs 3 0 3

4hrs. 8 1 9

5hrs. or more 3 0 3

Total 83 5 88

Student and Teacher Opinions

The CCAQ also measured the student and teacher opinions on three factors by

asking the participants to respond to three open-ended questions:

1. Factor 19: Qualities. List the three best things about this class from your point

of view.

2. Factor 20: Deficiencies. If you could change three things about the class, what

would they be?

3. Factor 21: Comments. If you have any comments, please write them below.

96

Scoring Procedures

Content analysis of trends emerging from the participants’ comments must be

used to identify issues expressed collectively. Eight major categories emerged from the

participants’ comments when examined with various numbers of subcategories. Table 17

presents the trends and topics that emerged. An additional category was used to record

other topics mentioned that were too general or unclear to classify and for comments that

did not pertain to the classroom.

Table 17. Lapan’s Category Scoring System

Qualities Deficiencies Comments

I. Process and content

a. Thought processes 18

b. Subject matter 13

II. Presentation of content

a. Clarity 4

b. Stimulating/challenging 11

III. Purpose of content

a. Relevant 2

b. Preparatory 2

IV. Study conditions

a. Pace and schedule 3 6

b. Workload 5 13

c. Self-initiated activities 4

V. Class opportunities

a. Facilities and materials 7 8

b. Activities 16

VI. Teacher behavior

a. Group atmosphere 65 1

b. Individual acceptance 15

VII. Intellectual environment

a, Teacher competence 41 16

b. Student competence 13 3

VIII. Evaluation procedures

a. Measures 10 2

b. Products 3 3

IX. Other topics

a. Nothing 27

b. Would like longer classes 17

c. Great class 15

Total 232 80 31

97

Student Opinions

Factor 19: Qualities. Data revealed a unanimity of positive students’ responses

to the statement representing the Qualities factor (“List the three best things about this

class, from your point of view”) indicating endorsement of the dialogic composition

classroom. Two categorical dimensions dominated the responses: The Teacher Behavior

dimension, with 65 responses for group atmosphere and 15 for individual acceptance,

was the most represented category. The Intellectual Environment dimension received the

second most responses, with 45 for teacher competence and 13 for student competence.

Third in response total was the Process and Content dimension, with 18 for thought

processes and 13 for subject matter. Each of the categorical dimensions received multiple

responses. The total number of responses to this question was 232 (see Appendix H).

Factor 20: Deficiencies. Of the 80 responses to “If you could change three things

about the class, what would they be?” 44 fit into the Other Topics dimension and were

actually responses better suited to the Qualities factor. Twenty-seven of the responses

indicated that nothing about the class should be changed, and 17 indicated a desire for the

class to last longer. Of the 36 responses that actually fit the Deficiencies factor, the Study

Conditions dimension included six concerning Pace and Schedule and 13 concerning

Workload. The only other subcategory with a significant number of responses was

Facilities and Materials with eight (see Appendix I).

Factor 21. Comments. The participants were allowed to provide comments about

their perceptions. To the question, “If you have any comments, please write them below,”

only two subcategories were represented. In Teacher Competence, a subcategory of the

Intellectual Environment dimension, there were 16 responses, all of which showed the

98

teacher in a positive light. In Other Topics, 15 responses indicated that it was either a

“great class” or a “favorite class.” No negative comments were elicited (see Appendix J).

Teacher Opinions

Five teacher participants were also asked the three open-ended questions.

Responses (see Appendix K) demonstrated an equally favorable overall opinion of

dialogic instruction. Under the factor of Qualities, the participants perceived an emphasis

on student acceptance of the instructional method. In the factor of Deficiencies, only

facilities and scheduling were mentioned. In Comments, only two of the five participants

responded. Both participants spoke favorably of dialogic instruction and its results.

Additional Research Questions

Demographic questions related to the ages of the participants and gender also

were examined to determine what role, if any, these elements played in their responses to

the questions. Also examined in this study were the following questions: (a) Does age

have any role in students’ perceptions of dialogic instruction? (b) Does gender have any

role in students’ perceptions of dialogic instruction? The role of dialogic instruction in

the students’ perceptions was explored in various age ranges, and the role of dialogic

instruction in the students’ perceptions was examined categorically by gender. In this

study, the sample comprised 58 female and 25 male students who ranged in age from 18

to 59 years.

Role of Age in Respondents’ Perceptions

Sixty-five of the 83 students participating in this study were between the ages of

18 and 29. To separate the students into representative groups, five age groups were used:

99

(a) 18 to 19 years (24 students), (b) 20 to 29 years (41 students), (c) 30 to 39 years (10

students), (d) 40 to 49 years (4 students), and (e) 50 to 59 years (4 students). Comparing

the mean responses of each age group to the CCAQ items for all factors yielded no

significant conclusions about age-dependent differences in perceptions of the cognitive,

behavioral, or affective domains (see Table 18).

Age and Cognitive Domain Perceptions

Lower thought processes by age group. The greatest variance in students’ age

group responses emerged in the Memory factor of the Lower Thought Processes

dimension. On Item 1 (Learning many facts and definitions is the student’s main job), the

three age groups ranging from 18 to 39 saw very little emphasis, with mean responses

between 2.24 and 2.67. The mean response of students in the age group of 40 to 49 was

1.75, indicating a fairly strong emphasis, whereas the mean response of 3.25 by the age

group of 50 to 59 years showed a strong deemphasis. In the paired item for the Factor,

Item 10 (Great emphasis is placed on memorizing), this phenomenon was not replicated,

with all age groups showing a deemphasis on the item. None of the other factors in the

Lower Thought Processes dimension had any significant variation in mean response by

age group.

Higher thought processes by age group. Data represented as the mean responses

by the different age groups yielded no significant variations in any of the eight items

comprising the four Higher Thought Process factors.

Age and behavioral domain perceptions: Classroom focus. Little variation in

perception by age group was drawn from the data collected for the three factors

comprising Classroom Focus, as indicated by the mean responses of the five age groups,

100

with the notable exception of the Dialogue factor, where the 40- to 49-year age group’s

mean response of 2.00 showed a disparate emphasis on Item 4 (Students are expected to

have ready answers to teacher questions rather than to explore ideas further). None of the

remaining age groups replicated this perception of emphasis on the expectation of having

ready answers.

Age and affective domain perceptions: Classroom climate. As indicated by the

data, age was not a significant factor in this dimension, with no significant variation in

mean response on any of the factors.

Age and student opinions. Because of the open-ended nature of the questions in

this dimension, the role of age on students’ perceptions was not analyzed.

Summary. Although two exceptions emerged in the Memory and Dialogue

factors, age did not appear to play a significant role in students’ perceptions of dialogic

instruction in the community college composition classroom.

101

Table 18. Mean Response by Age Group to All CCAQ Questions

Student Ms by age range in years

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Total

n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD

1. Learning many facts and

definitions is the student’s main

job.

24 2.67 .816 41 2.24 .830 10 2.40 .699 4 1.75 .500 4 3.25 1.50 83 2.41 .870

2. Students must make many

judgments about the validity of

information.

24 2.13 .448 41 1.66 .656 10 1.50 .527 4 1.50 .577 4 1.75 .957 83 1.77 .631

3. Students actively put methods

and ideas to use in new

situations.

23 1.43 .590 41 1.49 .506 10 1.70 .483 4 1.50 .577 4 1.50 .577 82 1.50 .527

4. Students are expected to have

ready answers to teacher

questions rather than to explore

ideas further.

24 3.04 .550 41 2.73 .949 10 3.00 .667 4 2.00 .816 4 2.75 1.25 83 2.82 .843

5. The class actively participates

in discussions.

24 1.46 .588 41 1.22 .419 10 1.30 .483 4 1.25 .500 4 1.00 .000 83 1.29 .482

6. Students are expected to go

beyond the information given to

see what is implied.

24 2.04 .624 41 1.56 .550 10 1.60 .516 4 1.25 .500 4 1.50 .577 83 1.69 .603

7. Great importance is placed on

logical reasoning and analysis.

24 1.87 .537 41 1.49 .506 10 1.80 .422 4 1.25 .500 4 1.50 .577 83 1.63 .534

8. The exchange of ideas among

students is a central activity in

this class.

24 1.54 .721 41 1.37 .623 10 1.20 .422 4 1.50 1.00 4 1.00 .000 83 1.39 .641

9. Restating ideas in your own

terms is a central concern.

24 1.87 .537 40 1.75 .670 10 1.80 .632 4 2.00 .816 4 1.25 .500 82 1.78 .629

10. Great emphasis is placed on

memorizing.

24 3.13 .947 41 2.73 .923 10 3.00 .943 4 2.50 1.00 4 3.50 1.00 83 2.90 .945

11. Students are urged to build

onto what they have learned to

produce something brand new.

Table Cont’d

24 1.54 .509 41 1.49 .597 10 1.60 .516 4 1.50 .577 4 1.25 .500 83 1.51 .549

102

Student Ms by age range in years

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Total

n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD

12. Thinking through problems

to find what patterns or

relationships are there is a major

activity.

24 1.96 .464 41 1.68 .610 9 1.67 .500 4 1.50 .577 4 1.25 .500 82 1.73 .568

13. Students often practice

methods in life-like situations to

develop skill in using what they

have learned.

24 1.71 .751 41 1.68 .722 10 1.80 .632 4 1.75 .957 4 1.50 .577 83 1.70 .711

14. Students are encouraged to

independently explore and begin

new activities.

24 1.96 .464 41 1.71 .750 10 1.70 .675 4 1.00 .000 4 1.25 .500 83 1.72 .668

15. There is little opportunity for

student participation in

discussions.

24 3.71 .550 41 3.71 .512 10 3.80 .422 4 3.25 1.50 4 4.00 .000 83 3.71 .574

16. Students are expected to

discover trends and

consequences in the information

studied.

24 2.08 .504 41 2.12 .557 10 2.20 .422 4 2.00 .816 4 1.75 .500 83 2.10 .532

17. Students are encouraged to

discover as many solutions to

problems as possible.

24 1.67 .482 41 1.63 .623 10 1.70 .675 4 1.50 .577 4 2.00 .816 83 1.66 .590

18. This class provides much

opportunity for students to get to

know each other’s thoughts and

feelings.

24 1.50 .590 41 1.44 .550 10 1.40 .516 4 1.50 .577 4 1.00 .000 83 1.43 .545

19. Students are excited and

involved with class activities.

24 1.71 .751 41 1.51 .637 10 1.40 .516 4 1.25 .500 4 1.25 .500 83 1.53 .650

20. “Weighing” the merits or

qualities of things is a central

activity.

24 2.12 .612 40 1.83 .501 10 2.00 .471 4 1.75 .957 4 2.25 1.25 82 1.95 .607

21. Great importance is placed

on explaining and summarizing

readings and presentations.

23 2.13 .626 41 1.78 .791 10 1.80 .632 4 1.25 .500 4 2.00 1.41 82 1.87 .766

103

Student Ms by age range in years

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Total

n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD

22. Many points of view and

solutions to problems are

accepted in this class.

24 1.33 .482 41 1.29 .461 10 1.50 .527 4 1.25 .500 4 1.00 .000 83 1.31 .467

23. Students are encouraged to

use writing, drawing, or symbols

to put ideas a new way.

24 1.71 .751 41 1.56 .550 10 1.70 .675 4 1.50 .577 4 1.75 .957 83 1.63 .638

24. The ideas studied in this

class are more important than

grades.

24 2.17 .565 38 1.89 .798 9 1.56 .527 4 1.50 .577 4 1.00 .000 79 1.87 .723

25. There is very little joking or

laughing in this class.

24 3.67 .482 41 3.56 .709 10 3.30 .949 4 3.50 .577 4 4.00 .000 83 3.58 .665

Student/Teacher = S/T

104

Role of Gender in Respondents’ Perceptions

The role of gender in students’ perceptions was analyzed (see Table 19). Data

indicated that gender did not make any significant difference in the students’ perceptions.

Mean responses to all CCAQ items were very similar, with the greatest male/female

variance of only .28 in Item 21 (“Great importance is placed on explaining and

summarizing readings and presentations”), with the male mean response being 1.68 and

the female mean response being 1.95. Data revealed no significant difference in male and

female students’ perceptions of dialogic instruction in the writing classroom.

Table 19. Mean Response by Gender

Student means by gender

CCAQ item Gender n M SD SEM

1. Learning many facts and definitions is the student’s

main job.

M 25 2.40 .913 .183

F 58 2.41 .859 .113

2. Students must make many judgments about the

validity of information.

M 25 1.64 .700 .140

F 58 1.83 .596 .078

3. Students actively put methods and ideas to use in new

situations.

M 25 1.52 .510 .102

F 57 1.49 .539 .071

4. Students are expected to have ready answers to

teacher questions rather than to explore ideas further.

M 25 2.72 .891 .178

F 58 2.86 .826 .108

5. The class actively participates in discussions.

M 25 1.24 .436 .087

F 58 1.31 .503 .066

6. Students are expected to go beyond the information

given to see what is implied.

M 25 1.68 .557 .111

F 58 1.69 .627 .082

7. Great importance is placed on logical reasoning and

analysis.

M 25 1.48 .510 .102

F 58 1.69 .537 .070

8. The exchange of ideas among students is a central

activity in this class.

M 25 1.40 .707 .141

F 58 1.38 .616 .081

9. Restating ideas in your own terms is a central concern.

M 25 1.88 .600 .120

F 57 1.74 .642 .085

10. Great emphasis is placed on memorizing.

M 25 2.72 .891 .178

F 58 2.98 .964 .127

11. Students are urged to build onto what they have

learned to produce something brand new.

M 25 1.40 .500 .100

F 58 1.55 .567 .074

12. Thinking through problems to find what patterns or

relationships are there is a major activity.

M 25 1.56 .507 .101

F 57 1.81 .581 .077

13. Students often practice methods in life-like situations

to develop skill in using what they have learned.

M 25 1.84 .800 .160

F 58 1.64 .667 .088

14. Students are encouraged to independently explore and

begin new activities.

Table Cont’d

M 25 1.68 .690 .138

F 58 1.74 .664 .087

105

Student means by gender

CCAQ item Gender n M SD SEM

15. There is little opportunity for student participation in

discussions.

M 25 3.76 .523 .105

F 58 3.69 .598 .079

16. Students are expected to discover trends and

consequences in the information studied.

M 25 1.96 .455 .091

F 58 2.16 .556 .073

17. Students are encouraged to discover as many solutions

to problems as possible.

M 25 1.52 .510 .102

F 58 1.72 .615 .081

18. This class provides much opportunity for students to

get to know each other’s thoughts and feelings.

M 25 1.56 .583 .117

F 58 1.38 .524 .069

19. Students are excited and involved with class activities.

M 25 1.52 .586 .117

F 58 1.53 .681 .089

20. “Weighing” the merits or qualities of things is a

central activity.

M 25 1.88 .526 .105

F 57 1.98 .641 .085

21. Great importance is placed on explaining and

summarizing readings and presentations.

M 25 1.68 .748 .150

F 57 1.95 .766 .101

22. Many points of view and solutions to problems are

accepted in this class.

M 25 1.48 .510 .102

F 58 1.24 .432 .057

23. Students are encouraged to use writing, drawing, or

symbols to put ideas a new way.

M 25 1.60 .500 .100

F 58 1.64 .693 .091

24. The ideas studied in this class are more important than

grades.

M 24 1.92 .717 .146

F 55 1.85 .731 .099

25. There is very little joking or laughing in this class.

M 25 3.64 .569 .114

F 58 3.55 .705 .093

Student/Teacher = S/T

Summary

The CCAQ was used to identify emphases and reveal variations between

teacher’s intent and students’ perceived real in community college composition

classrooms where dialogic instruction is used. Specific emphases on thought processes

and classroom conditions were found. Some factors were less strongly emphasized than

others, but patterns were exhibited by the uniform alignment of teachers’ intent and

students’ perceived real. Students showed consistent patterns of emphasis characteristic

of the content area in each of the 21 factors comprising the CCAQ. The only significant

difference between the two groups surfaced in the analysis of the Cognitive Domain’s

Memory factor, where teachers’ intent was a greater deemphasis on memorizing than

students perceived as actually occurring. Analysis of the participants’ responses disclosed

106

a statistical description of the students’ perceived instructional climate of the classroom

that aligned with the teachers’ intentions.

Conclusion

Data examined in this chapter revealed the perceptions of teachers and students

involved in the dialogic delivery of English composition instruction in a community

college classroom. Clarification of the research questions provided insight into the

learning activities and classroom environment. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the

themes that emerged from the study and discusses their relevance to the literature. In

addition, these themes are placed in the context of the findings, conclusions, and

suggestions for policy, practice, and future research.

107

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the perceptions of students

and teachers using dialogic instruction in the community college composition classroom.

The study also examined the roles, if any, played by age and gender in students’

perceptions. Furthermore, the research was designed to determine whether statistically

significant differences existed in teachers’ intent and students’ perceived real based upon

mean responses to questions on the CCAQ.

Participants included in the investigation were Midwestern community college

instructors and students in English composition classes, where dialogic instruction is

used. Chapter 5 provides a summary, analysis, and interpretation of the findings;

implications of these findings for community college writing programs; and

recommendations for future research.

Demographic Information

At the time of this study, the selected Midwestern community college campus had

an enrollment of just over 16,000 students, whose average age was 28.5 years. Students

in all degree programs are required to take English Composition I and II. The sample

comprised 83 community college students from a variety of academic fields who ranged

in age from 18 to 59 years. Of the 83 students, 58 (69%) were female, and 25 (31%) were

male. The sample also comprised six teachers, one of whom was later excluded when

data indicated that the teacher’s instructional methods were not dialogic, who ranged in

age from 28 to 63 years. Chosen instructors were identified by the English department

108

chair as being ones using dialogic instructional methods. In addition, each instructor self-

identified as purposely employing dialogic instructional methods. One instructor’s class

was excluded because the data indicated that the instructional method being used was not

dialogic. It might be useful to note that student data from the excluded monologic class

indicated a strong distaste for the class environment, the class activities, and the

instructor.

Summary of Results

The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency

and percentage distributions and means and standard deviations, to quantifiably represent

the perceptions of students and instructors. A comparison of means through an

independent t-test analysis was used to determine whether significant differences in

students’ perceptions existed between genders and among the various age groups.

Analysis of the data collected is offered in the summary of results that follows.

Primary Research Question

The primary research question addressed the perceptions of students and teachers

in English composition classrooms at a Midwestern community college where dialogic

instruction was used. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations,

were analyzed to explore how students and instructors perceived the dialogic

instructional methods across the cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains. In addition,

students were asked three open-ended questions to determine perceived qualities and

deficiencies, and to provide an opportunity for additional comments if desired. A

category system developed by Lapan for Steele et al. (1971) covering relevant

109

dimensions of the classroom situation was used to sort the participants’ opinions into

categories and quantified according to the nature of the comment. Data suggested a

uniform and consistent positive perception across all factors examined. Analysis of the

data indicated a favorable attitude toward the cognitive, behavioral, and affective

activities employed in the dialogic composition classroom. Also indicated was a

consistent favorable student view of teachers using dialogic methods.

Research Subquestions

Research Subquestion 1 explored the students’ perceived real, as represented by

the mean response for single or paired items on the CCAQ for a given factor. Data

indicated that students had a strongly favorable perception of dialogic instruction.

Research Subquestion 2 explored the teacher’s ideal, as represented by the mean

response for single or paired items on the CCAQ for a given factor. Data indicated the

teachers’ intentions for the dimension of classroom activity were rooted in the CCAQ,

based upon Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in Bloom et al., 1956).

Research Subquestion 3 examined whether statistically significant alignment

existed between intent (i.e., teacher’s ideal) and actual practice (i.e., students’ perceived

real). The only significant detachment was found in the memory factor, where teachers

intended a greater deemphasis on memorizing than students perceived actually occurred.

The analysis of student judgments disclosed an instructional climate of the classroom that

aligned with the teachers’ intentions.

Research Subquestion 4 examined the ways in which the students perceived the

dialogic writing classroom in regard to learning environment. Perceptions were assessed

by mean responses to single questions addressing the following six factors:

110

1. Enthusiasm: On Item 19, “Students are excited and involved with class

activities,” the students’ mean response of 1.53 demonstrated a strong

perceived emphasis.

2. Independence: On Item 14, “Students are encouraged to independently

explore and begin new activities,” the students’ mean response of 1.72

indicated a strong perceived emphasis.

3. Divergence: On Item 17, “Students are encouraged to discover as many

solutions to problems as possible,” strong student perception of emphasis was

demonstrated by a mean response of 1.66.

4. Humor: On Item 25, “There is very little joking or laughing in this class,”

student perception was a strong deemphasis, with a mean response of 3.58.

5. Feelings valued: On Item 18, “This class provides much opportunity for

students to get to know each other’s thoughts and feelings,” students

perceived a strong emphasis with a mean response of 1.43.

6. Ideas valued: On Item 24, “The ideas studied in this class are more important

than grades,” student-perceived real, a strong emphasis, was indicated by a

mean response of 1.87.

Research Subquestion 5 examined how teachers perceived the dialogic writing

classroom in regard to learning environment. Perceptions, as was the case in Research

Subquestion 4, were assessed by mean responses to single questions addressing the

following six factors:

1. Enthusiasm: On Item 19, “Students are excited and involved with class

activities,” the teachers’ mean response of 1.60 indicated a strong emphasis.

111

2. Independence: On Item 14, “Students are encouraged to independently

explore and begin new activities,” teachers’ intent, represented by a mean

response of 1.60, showed a strong emphasis.

3. Divergence: On Item 17, “Students are encouraged to discover as many

solutions to problems as possible,” teachers’ perception, as measured by a

mean response of 1.40, demonstrated a strong emphasis.

4. Humor: On Item 25, “There is very little joking or laughing in this class,”

teachers perceived a strong de-emphasis, with a mean response of 3. 80.

5. Feelings valued: On Item 18, “This class provides much opportunity for

students to get to know each other’s thoughts and feelings,” teachers’

perceptions, as shown by a mean response of 1.20, indicated a very strong

emphasis.

6. Ideas valued: On Item 24, “The ideas studied in this class are more important

than grades,” the teachers’ mean response was 1.80, indicating a strong

emphasis.

Additional Research Questions

The potential roles of gender and age in the students’ perceptions also were

examined. Data indicated very little variation in the mean responses of male versus

female participants or among the various age groups.

Discussion of Results

The purpose of this study was to add to the limited body of knowledge about

dialogic instruction used in writing classes by community college instructors. Research

112

on the perceptions of community college faculty and students toward dialogic writing

instruction has been scant; therefore, this study was designed as a descriptive, exploratory

study. In addition, an intact survey created by Steele (1969) and revised for use in college

classrooms in 1981 was used for the study design. Data were collected from community

college English composition classes in the Midwest comprising five faculty members and

83 students. Original calculations of response rates dictated that approximately 50 student

respondents were required to produce generalizable data. Consisting of 83 student

participants, the study data could be used to generalize to the overall community college

population.

Primary Research Question

The primary research question addressed the perceptions of students and teachers

perceptions of dialogic instruction used by community college instructors in English

composition classrooms. Analysis of the participants’ responses to the CCAQ revealed a

strong, uniformly favorable perception in both subsamples. It is important to note that on

the three open-ended questions, there were only positive responses; nothing negative

regarding dialogic instruction was recorded. Therefore, the data indicated that the

community college instructors as well as the students preferred dialogic writing

instruction.

Research Subquestions

Research Subquestion 1 explored the actual classroom environment, as perceived

by the students (i.e., students’ real), based upon the mean responses to the questions on

the CCAQ designed to assess dimensions based upon Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in

Bloom et al., 1956). The analysis of the data revealed that the students uniformly

113

perceived dialogic instruction positively. Answers to the open-ended CCAQ questions

showed a pattern of student preference of dialogic instruction when evaluated against

their previous experiences. These results warrant further investigation to determine the

generalizability of these findings. The data analysis demonstrated that the dialogic

instructional methods being used by community college writing instructors were

preferred over monologic instructional methods. However, more information is needed to

more accurately assess students’ perceptions of monologic writing instruction.

Research Subquestion 2 explored the classroom environment that the teachers had

intended to create (i.e., teacher’s ideal) based upon the mean responses to the questions

on the CCAQ designed to assess dimensions based upon Bloom’s taxonomy (as cited in

Bloom et al., 1956). The analysis of the data revealed that the teachers uniformly

perceived dialogic instruction positively. The results were strikingly uniform but

somewhat limited because of the low number of only five teacher participants. Although

the limited findings of this investigation are significant, further investigation is

warranted. Given the data, the results indicated that the community college instructors

valued the use of dialogical instruction techniques that gave students the opportunity to

construct meaning through an interactive, participatory process.

Research Subquestion 3 examined whether statistically significant differences

existed in the alignment of teacher’s ideal and students’ perceived real. Analysis was

accomplished by comparing the teachers’ mean responses with the students’ mean

responses for the given factors. The only factor showing a significant difference was

lower level thought process memory. The data indicated that faculty put more

deemphasis on memorizing than students actually perceived. The remaining results

114

indicated that what the students perceived as actually occurring in the classroom was

what the teachers had intended. Given the tight alignment of teacher ideal and student

perceived real indicated by the results, more research is warranted to determine the

generalizability of the results to other 2- and 4-year colleges.

Research Subquestions 4 and 5 explored the ways in which the students and

teachers perceived the dialogic writing classroom specifically in regard to the learning

environment. The apparent congruence of favorable teacher and student mean responses

to all of the questions in the Behavioral and Affective Domain sections of the CCAQ

suggested that dialogic instruction was successful in creating a safe and effective learning

environment. Further research is warranted to determine whether dialogic instruction in

the writing classroom is preferable to monologic instruction. Comparing the academic

results of both methods could yield valuable inferences as to which method provides

higher levels of achievement. Additional analysis was performed to determine the role, if

any, that age and gender played in the students’ perceptions. The data revealed very little

variance between genders and across age groups.

Findings and Conclusions

The findings provide an initial understanding of the perceptions of students and

teachers about the dialogic instruction used by community college writing instructors.

The study was based upon a limited sample of students and teachers at a Midwestern

community college. Although there is a need for a more comprehensive empirical base of

research, some broad conclusions and recommendations can be elicited from the results.

115

The results revealed that the students and the teachers alike had a strong favorable

view of all aspects of composition classrooms where dialogic instruction was being used.

Data obtained from the open-ended questions of the CCAQ further reported uniform

favorable student perceptions of teachers who used dialogic methods. No negative

comments were recorded about the classroom environment. Opinions of students and

teachers reflected the positive and enjoyable learning environment that resulted from the

dialogic techniques being employed.

In addition, faculty reported that they predominantly use dialogic instruction as a

way to engage students and make them part of their own and their classmates’

educational process. Halpern’s (2003) definition of critical thinking, “cognitive skills and

strategies that increase the likelihood of a desired outcome… thinking that is purposeful,

reasoned, and goal-directed- the kind of thinking involved in solving problems,

formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (p. 6), coincided

with Frijters et al.’s (2008) assertion that instructional designs geared toward critical

thinking stress the importance of interaction between and among students. Together, they

agreed with Paul’s (1992) argument that students learn the most efficaciously when their

thinking involves an extended exchange of points of view or frames of reference.

The study data suggested that the teachers were using dialogical instruction to

promote critical thinking. Thus, these community college instructors appeared to value

the importance of the learning environment and the need to promote students’ critical-

thinking skills. Moreover, it must be noted that the sample comprised faculty who

purposely chose to use a dialogical instructional methods, eschewing the traditional

monologic lecture and essay method.

116

The study data revealed a strong alignment indicating that what the teachers

intended (i.e., teacher’s ideal) and what was perceived by students (i.e., students’

perceived real) actually occurred in the classroom. A significant finding, as demonstrated

by the students’ responses to the open-ended CCAQ questions, was that dialogic

instruction produced a classroom environment that made learning enjoyable, even for

students who reported a dislike of academic writing. Many of the students reported the

favorability of dialogic over monologic instruction in the writing classroom, stating that

they appreciated the interactions with their classmates as a learning tool.

In addition, instructors and students uniformly reported favorable emphases and

deemphases on all factors of the CCAQ regarding the cognitive, behavioral, and affective

domains on which the instrument was based. The only statistically significant difference

in mean response was in the cognitive domain, that is, the lower level thought process

memory factor, where teachers intended a stronger deemphasis on memorizing than the

students actually perceived.

Relationship of Results to Literature

Given the study results and the review of the literature, analysis of the data

collected suggested that community college faculty using dialogic instruction in the

writing classroom understand and value purposeful discussion. Instead of focusing on

learning as stimulus response, constructivism views learning as a process in which the

learners actively construct meaning and new knowledge through their experiences.

Dialogic teachers believe that they cannot impart knowledge, but must help students to

construct that knowledge. Rather than requiring students to recall information through

117

lectures and subsequent essay assignments, instructors are taking advantage of dialogue

that requires students to think through the material and learn through a mutual exchange

of ideas.

Dialogic instruction involves and embraces the input of all participants (Pratt,

1991). The teacher’s ability to allow and encourage individuality is emphasized, and

rather than being the final objective, dialogue is an ongoing and expanding activity that

promotes the creation of new meaning (Arnett, 1992). Conversely, the traditional

monologic lecture method of instruction focuses on the teacher and does not elicit the

power or voices of the students (Guilar, 2006). The concept of dialogic instruction was

based upon an ongoing conversational connection of the participants, a purposeful

discussion established in a relationship of mutuality and reflexivity (Burbules & Bruce,

1995). Using the aforementioned concept as a guideline, the results indicated that the

instructors in this study were using the dialogic approach to provide an opportunity for

students to create and apply knowledge, and to develop their critical-thinking skills.

Therefore, the data suggested that these dialogic community college writing instructors

were promoting a constructivist approach to learning by using active learning tactics that

involved student-student and student-teacher interactions.

Implications for Instruction

Data indicated that the community college instructors who participated in this

study were using dialogic instructional techniques to provide students with an active,

safe, and interactional learning environment. In addition, the data revealed the majority of

student respondents favored dialogic instruction as a method promoting critical thinking

118

and preparing students for their academic and professional careers. Analysis of the data

suggested that dialogic instruction could serve as a model for academic writing

instruction in higher education.

Results from this study identified many factors that can be influenced by the type

and style of instruction used. Knowledge gained provided awareness that can be

employed to discern the need for faculty development and training. Given that the data

showed that the instructors’ intent (i.e., teacher’s ideal) aligned closely with what the

students perceived as actually occurring in the classroom (i.e., students’ perceived real), it

appears that dialogic instruction provided the learning environment and factors of the

cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains that the teachers intended. Professional

development opportunities for instructors that emphasize the positive attributes of

dialogic instruction could support and promote more efficacious academic writing

instruction at the community college level. Moreover, the majority of student respondents

reported that they would change nothing about their dialogic writing class if given the

opportunity. Along with the numerous comments from students about “favorite class”

and “great instructor,” the data suggested that instructors new to teaching could benefit

from the findings of this study.

Implications for Practice

One implication of the results is that community colleges should consider

allocating professional development opportunities for academic writing faculty in regard

to dialogic instruction. In addition to faculty development programs, another implication

is that a formal mentoring program should be in place that allows new writing faculty to

119

observe classes where faculty are using dialogic writing instruction. Furthermore, new

faculty could be allowed to observe classes where the monologic style is employed so

that they have a more complete frame of reference upon which to base their own teaching

styles.

Implications for the Field

Data from this study will contribute to an understanding of the perceptions of

teachers and students about the use of dialogic writing instruction in community college

English composition classes at a community college in the Midwestern United States.

The collected data also might add to the literature on dialogic instruction to serve as a

resource for additional research. In addition, the findings provide a resource for college

writing programs and a foundation for 2-year college administrators in the development

of writing programs to improve instructional practices of faculty in the Midwest and on a

national level to provide a safe and effective learning environment as well as promote

critical thinking among students.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study about the perceptions of students and teachers of dialogic instruction in

community college writing classes was conducted at a community college in the

Midwestern United States. Based upon the findings, the researcher suggests that further

research on dialogic writing instruction is warranted because this study was limited to

one Midwestern community college. Moreover, data are needed to confirm the study

120

findings. Study results and a review of the literature advocated the following

recommendations for further research:

1. The study could be replicated at other community colleges in other areas.

Additional research could build on this study and help to inform the limited

knowledge available on this topic to provide further information about the

dialogic instruction used by community college writing instructors. By

examining dialogic writing instruction at other institutions, broader

generalizations could be made about the results.

2. Future research should focus on uncovering whether community college

instructors should favor dialogic instruction over other instructional

techniques. Although many inferences can be taken from this study, the exact

reasons remain unknown. In addition, because of the limited scope of this

study in terms of the number of faculty and student responses, a more

comprehensive investigation involving 2- and 4-year colleges is strongly

recommended to provide additional insight into the use of dialogic instruction

by academic writing instructors.

3. Given the quantitative design of this study, it also is recommended that a

qualitative investigation be conducted to better capture the practices and

opinions of students and instructors. As noted previously, it is difficult to

quantify students’ responses to open-ended questions. Although Lapan’s

classification system, which had been developed for Steele et al. (1971), made

it possible to detect relationships and tendencies, it is prudent to qualify the

results of this foundational study with verbal and written data to uncover

121

broader patterns and trends regarding dialogic instruction used by college

instructors of academic writing. A qualitative research approach could be

designed to include a focus group, personal interviews, and record reviews to

provide in-depth information and a better understanding.

4. Because there has been little research on the dialogic instruction used by

academic writing instructors at 2-year institutions, additional research is

needed. A long-term study comparing the use of dialogic instruction with the

monologic lecture and essay model will be insightful. Foundational data might

then be compared at the institutional level to thoroughly understand

perceptions and the suggested favorability of dialogic instruction used by

community college writing instructors. In addition, the data might indicate

whether the use of dialogic instruction plays a role in student performance.

5. Given the positive perceptions revealed by this study, it would be prudent to

investigate whether the desirability of dialogic writing instruction equates to

better academic performance. A long term study comparing the writing of

students in monologic and dialogic writing classrooms could encourage

monologic teachers to consider change if the results were favorable.

Additionally, research that identified and categorized the various activities and

techniques used by dialogic instructors could prove beneficial to monologic

teachers who wanted to change.

122

Conclusion

The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the perceptions of students

and teachers about dialogue-based (i.e., dialogic) instruction in the community college

English composition classroom. This study sought to discern whether a dialogic approach

to teaching writing had any significant role in the perceptions of the stakeholders. This

study examined the perceptions of the usefulness of discussion and formal dialogue, and

the existence of multiple possibilities for interpretation. The constructivist theoretical

underpinnings used to clarify the role of discussion in stimulating students’ grasp of

topics developed mainly from sociocognitive and sociocultural theories. The research

instrument used was the CCAQ (Steele, 1982), which was based upon the work of Bloom

(as cited in Bloom et al., 1956).

The current study succeeded in examining the perceptions of students and

teachers of the dialogic writing instruction used in their community college writing

classes and adding to the base of knowledge on the use of dialogic instruction in adult

education. A thorough analysis and review of the collected data led to significant findings

and recommendations for further research. It is hoped that the insights uncovered by this

investigation will lead to future research on the nature of instructional methods used in

the community college setting. The results from this study suggested that students and

teachers had favorable perceptions of dialogic instruction and preferred it over the

traditional lecture and essay (i.e., monologic) model. The findings will provide

community colleges with initial information to support the need for professional

development. Moreover, the data also led the researcher to conclude that community

college writing instructors who employ the dialogic style value constructivism and use

123

techniques that provide students with a safe and efficacious learning environment give

them the opportunity to create and apply knowledge and develop critical-thinking skills.

When instructors use dialogic instruction, evidence indicates that it leads to

students developing better critical-thinking skills. Use of dialogical techniques gives

students the opportunity to think about course concepts in new and original ways and

develop their skills through the mutual exchange of ideas. Although the traditional lecture

and essay model is useful to ensure that students read the text and have a base of

knowledge about the concepts of the course, the results of the current study aligned with

those of Burns (2009), who argued that the orthodox processes of the current traditional

lecture and essay model fail to motivate disengaged and passive students, who

subsequently are less successful and achieve less than they anticipated. As Burns further

stated, these dissatisfied and passive students blame their writing instructors, who were

simply attempting to meet the objectives of standardized outcomes.

Dialogic instruction fosters an environment that allows students to explain and

exchange ideas and thoughts rather than merely recount or recite memorized facts and

details. When discussing, learners are not submissive recipients of the information being

transmitted from a teacher. Faculty and learners benefit as communication improves

between teachers and students, along with students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive

learning and levels of critical thinking.

124

REFERENCES

Abrego, P. C. (2009). Perceptions of campus administrators, teachers, and students on

use of interactive videoconferencing for the delivery of high school algebra in

selected rural public high schools in South Texas (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

Adler, M., Rougle, E., Kaiser, E., & Caughlan, S. (2004). Closing the gap between

concept and practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts

classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 312-322.

Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-

based programs. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in

classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 107-146.

Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S.-Y.,

Reznitskaya, A., … Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of

ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and

Instruction, 19, 1-46.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., 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), 685-730.

Arhar, J., Holly, M., & Kasten, W. (2001). Action research for teachers: Travelling the

yellow brick road. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Armfield, S. W. J. (2007). A descriptive case study of teaching and learning in an

innovative middle school program (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3257719)

Arnett, R. (1992). Dialogic education: Conversations about ideas and between persons.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Aulls, M. W. (2004). Students’ experiences with good and poor university courses.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 303-335.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M.

Holquist, Ed. & Trans., & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans., Vol. 8).

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

125

Bakhtin, M. M. (1985). A critique of marxist pologias. Soviet Psychology, 23(3), 213-

220.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1996). Speech genres and other late essays (W. Vern, Trans.). Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Barrow, M. R. (2009). Talking about literature: Student perceptions and experiences in

the community college literature classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College,

Columbia University.

Barth, R. S. (2007). Culture in question. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational

leadership (2nd

ed., pp. 159-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't

write (pp. 134-165). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Battle, J. (1995). Collaborative story talk in bilingual kindergarten. In N. L. Roser & M.

G. Martínez (Eds.), Book talk and beyond: Children and teachers respond to

literature (pp. 157-167). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Berlin, J. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 477-

494.

Billington, D. D. (1990). Developmental aspects of adult education: A comparison of

traditional and nontraditional self-directed learning programs. Journal of

Continuing Higher Education, 38(1), 31-38.

Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of

educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:

Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the

classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. New York, NY: Longman.

126

Borton, S. C., & Huot, B. (2007). Responding and assessing. In. C. L. Selfe (Ed.),

Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 99-111). Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton.

Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new

approach to public relations. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 188-202.

Bowick, J. E. (2010). Hearing Darius: A Bakhtinian study of the voice of Darius in the

Behistun inscription, Herodotus’ The Histories, and Ezra-Nehemiah (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/

Boyd, R. D., & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of

Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261-284. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete

database.

Braxton, J. M., Bray, N. J., & Berger, J. B. (2000). Faculty teaching skills and their

influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student

Development, 41, 215-227.

Broeckelman, M. A. (2005). An analysis of the meaning of individual events forensics

ballots based on judge and competitor metaphors. Forensic, 90(1), 3-18.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore

alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist

classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of

metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1,

pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College

English, 46(7), 635-652.

Buenger, C., Forte, M., Boozer, R., & Maddox, E. (2007). A study of the applicability of

the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS) for use in the university

classroom. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 34,

294-301.

Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

127

Burbules, N. C., & Bruce, B. C. (1995). This is not a paper. Educational Researcher,

24(8), 12-18.

Burns, S. M. (2009). Relationship between admission selection criteria and academic

progression for student nurse anesthetists (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

Butler, S. M., & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher's guide to classroom assessment:

Understanding and using assessment to improve student learning. San Francisco,

CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching (pp. 432-463). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Chen, Y. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the worldwide web learning

environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4),

459-470.

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), 249-286.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. Glasgow: Fontana/ Collins.

Coulter, D. (1999). The epic and the novel: Dialogism and teacher research. Educational

Researcher, 28(3), 4-13.

Courtright, R. D. (1987). The three-tier model, a continuum of services program for the

gifted and talented: A formative evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for

educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for

educators of adults (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (2009). Transformative learning: Q & A. Retrieved from http://www.faculty

focus.com/

Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment

of the “chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23, 10 1-122.

128

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

de Jager, B., Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. (2002). The effects of teacher training on

new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 18(7), 831-842.

Dewey, J. (1981). John Dewey: The later works. Vol. I (J. Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale

and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Dobrovolny, J. L., & Fuentes, S. C. G. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation:

A tool to decide which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 7-14.

Dorestanni, A. (2005). Is interactive learning superior to traditional lecturing in

economics courses? Humanomics, 21(1/2), 1-20.

Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures of teaching

for active learning. Bioscience, 47(9), 601-607.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process.

New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Emerson, C. (2004). On the generation that squandered its philosophers (Losev, Bakhtin,

and classical thought as equipment for living). Studies in East European Thought,

56(2-3), 95-117.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance

Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Fallon, D. (1995). Making dialogue dialogic: A dialogic approach to adult literacy

instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 138-147.

Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’

contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 82-96.

129

Feito, R. (2004). ¿En qué puede consistir ser «buen» profesor? Cuadernos de Pedagogía,

332, 85-89.

Feldman, R. (2000). Essentials of understanding psychology (4th

ed.). Amherst:

University of Massachusetts.

Fernandez-Balboa, J., & Marshall, J. (1994). Dialogical pedagogy in teacher education:

Toward an education for democracy. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 172-

182.

Fish, S. E. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Point

Reyes, CA: Edgepress.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Frechtling, J., & Westat, L.S. (Eds.). (2002). The 2002 user-friendly handbook for project

evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York, NY: Continuum.

Frijters, S., Ten Dam, G., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on

value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18, 66-82.

Gadamer, H. G. (1982). Truth and method (B. Barden & J. Cumming, Trans.). New

York, NY: Crossroad.

Galbraith, M. W. (1994). Connecting instructional principles to self-esteem. Adult

Learning, 5(3), 24.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th

ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2004). Applying education research: A practical

guide (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research (8th

ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

130

Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (4th

ed.). New York, NY: Merrill.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK:

Falmer.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology

(2nd

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1-11.

Grabov, V. (1997). The many facets of transformative learning theory and practice. In P.

Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. New

directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 89-96). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Guilar, J. (2006). Intersubjectivity and dialogic instruction. Radical Pedagogy, 8(1).

Retrieved from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harpaz, Y., & Lefstein, A. (2000). Communities of thinking. Educational Leadership,

58(3). Retrieved from www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/

Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of

knowledge acquisition. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.),

Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development

(pp. 153-166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2003). Investigating sense of

belonging in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4,

227-256.

Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart,

D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives

(pp. 114-122). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London, UK: Routledge.

Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (2nd

ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

131

House, E. R., Steele, J. M., & Kerins, T. (1971). The development of educational

programs; Advocacy in a non-rational system. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the

mixed age college classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 384-405.

Howard, J. R., James, G. H., III, & Taylor, D. R. (2002). The consolidation of

responsibility in the mixed-age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 30, 214-

234.

Howard, J. R., Short, L. B., & Clark, S. M. (1996). Student participation in the mixed age

college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 24, 8-24.

Huitt, W. (2009). Constructivism. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:

Valdosta State University.

Hyde, C. A., & Ruth, B. J. (2002). Multicultural content and class participation: do

students self-censor? Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 241-257.

Illeris, K. (2003, June 27-29). From vocational training to workplace learning. Paper

presented at the conference on researching learning outside the academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, June 27-29.

Imel, S. (1998). Using adult learning principles in adult basic and literacy education.

Retrieved from http://www.calpro-online.org/

Jarvis, P. (Ed.). (1987). Twentieth century thinkers in adult education. London, UK:

Routledge

Johannesen, R. L. (1996). Ethics in human communication (4th

ed.). Prospect Heights, IL:

Waveland Press.

Johnson, D. R., Alvarez, P., Longerbeam, S., Soldner, M., Inkelas, K. K., Leonard, J. B.,

& Rowan-Kenyon, H. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year

undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student

Development, 48(5), 525-542.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 36(9),

28-33.

Kain, D. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing constraint and

theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104-115.

132

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. B. (1991). College teachers’

misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say and do.

Communication Quarterly, 39, 309-324.

Kearsley, G. (n.d.). Explorations in learning & instruction: The theory into practice

database. Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org/

Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. D. (2001). User attitude as a mediator

of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment:

An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 541-583.

Key, J. (1997). Descriptive research. Retrieved from http://www.okstate.edu/

Kitano, H. (2003). A graphical notation for biochemical networks. Biosilico, 1, 169-176.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. A guide for learners and teachers.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to

andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In K. A. Feldman & M.

B. Paulsen (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the college classroom: An Ashe

reader (pp. 127-137). Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Kritskaya, O. V., & Dirkx, J. M. (2000). Mediating meaning-making: The process of

symbolic action in transformative learning. In Proceedings of the 41st

annual adult

education research conference, T. J. Sork, V. Chapman, & R. St. Clair (Eds;

pp. 216-220). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Lansford, J. E., Miller-Johnson, S., Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G.

S. (1995). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: A prospective

longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12, 233-245.

Lapan, S., Steele, J. M., House, E. R., & Kerins, T. (1970). Instructional climate in

Illinois gifted classes. Illinois gifted program evaluation. Urbana: Center for

Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.

Larson, B. E. (2000). Classroom discussion: A method of instruction and a curriculum

outcome. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 661-677.

133

Linell, P. (1979). Psychological reality in phonology. A theoretical study. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Macovski, M. (Ed). (1997). Conversation as dialogue. dialogue and critical discourse:

Language, culture, critical theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Maharg, P. (2006). Authenticity and professionalism: transactional learning in virtual

communities. In G. Minshull & G. Mole (Eds.), Innovating e-learning practice,

The proceedings of Theme 3 of the JISC online conference, Innovating E-

Learning 2006 (pp. 33-42). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/

documents/programmes/elearning_pedagogy/webook_theme3_a4.pdf

Marchenkova, L. (2005). Language, culture, and the self: The Bakhtin-Vygotsky

encounter. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marcenkova (Eds.), Dialogue with

Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning (pp. 171-188). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Marion, R. (2004). The whole art of deduction: Research skills for new scientists.

Retrieved from http://www.sahs.utmb.edu/

Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

Mauk, J., & Metz, J. (2010). The composition of everyday life (Brief, 3rd

ed.). Boston,

MA: Wadsworth/Cengage.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice

Hall.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?

American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

McIntyre, L. L., Blancher, J., & Baker, B. L. (2006). The transition to school: Adaptation

in young children with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual

Disability Research, 50, 349-361.

McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory

for college and university teachers (11th

ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social constructivism and the world wide web - A

paradigm for learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth,

Australia.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford, UK: Martin Robinson.

134

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Mercer, N. (2002). Developing dialogues. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for

life in the 21st century (pp. 141-153). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking:

A sociocultural approach. London, UK: Routledge.

Merriam, S. (1991). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A

comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Merriam, S., Courtenay, B. C., & Cervero, R. M. (2006). Global issues and adult

education: Perspectives from Latin America, Southern Africa, and the United

States. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merys, G. M. (2006). Teaching freedom: The de-colonized classroom, empowerment, and

first-year writing (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100-110. Retrieved

from Academic Search Complete database.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly,

44(4), 222-232.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.).

Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. New directions for

adult and continuing education (pp. 5-12). Retrieved from Academic Search

Complete database.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow (Ed.) Learning as

transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Michel, N., Carter, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An

empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 20(4), 397-418.

135

Miner, F. C., Jr., Das, H. & Gale, J. (1984). An investigation of the relative effectiveness

of three diverse teaching methodologies. Organizational Behavior Teaching

Review, 9(2), 49-59.

Minsky, M. (1988). The society of mind. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Moll, L. C., & Whitmore, K. F. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from

individual transmission to social transaction. In E. A. Forman & N. Minick & C.

Addison Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s

development (pp. 19-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. In R. D. Boyd, J. W. Aps, & Associates (Eds.),

Redefining the discipline of adult education (Vol. 5, pp. 16-31). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M. G. (1983). On a theory of independent study. In D. Stewart, D. Keegan, & B.

Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 69-94).

New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance

Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical

principles of distance education (Vol. 1, pp. 22-38). New York, NY: Routledge.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York,

NY: Wadsworth.

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F.

(2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level

comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,

740-764.

Myrick, F., & Tamlyn, D. (2007). Teaching can never be innocent: Fostering an

enlightening education experience. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(7), 299-303.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neal, A. D. (2008). Seeking higher education accountability: Ending federal

accreditation. Change, 40(5), 24-29.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

136

Nielsen, H. D., & Kirk, D. H. (1974). Classroom climates. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.),

Evaluating educational performance (pp. 57-79). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1993). From discourse communities to interpretive

communities. In G. E. Newell & R. K. Durst (Eds.), Exploring texts: The role of

discussion and writing in the teaching and learning of literature (pp. 91-111).

Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue:

Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Park, B. (2009, September 23). From a flat classroom to a flat world [Blog post].

Retrieved from http://flatclassroomconference.ning.com/

Paul, R. C. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly

changing world (Rev., 2nd

ed.). Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. C. (1994). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense. In K. S. Walters (Ed.),

Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 181-198). Albany:

SUNY Press.

Piaget, J. (1928). The child’s conception of the world. London, UK: Routledge.

Porter, E. C. (2004). A typology of virtual communities: A multi-disciplinary foundation

for future research. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).

Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/

Pratt, M. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33-40.

Preskill, J., & Brookfield, S. (2009). Learning as a way of leading. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of

Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Renshaw, P. (2004). Dialogic learning, teaching and instruction: theoretical roots and

analytical frameworks. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic

learning (pp. 1-15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., &

Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse

Processes, 32, 155-175.

137

Richmond, V. A., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Teacher immediacy and

teacher-student relationship. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey

(Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical & relational

perspectives (pp. 167-194). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Robinson, E., Thomas, G., Parton, A., & Nye, R. (1997). Children’s overestimation of the

knowledge to be gained from seeing. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 15, 257-273.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Rossiter, M. (2007). Possible selves: An adult education perspective. New Directions for

Adult and Continuing Education, 2007(114), 5-15.

Rowe, V. A. (1996). Transactional learning for learning-disabled (LD) adolescents:

Facilitating teacher change and curriculum development (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history (2nd

ed.).

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Saba, F. (1989). Integrated telecommunications systems and instructional transaction. In

M. G. Moore & G. C. Clark (Eds.), Readings in principles of distance education:

Number 1 (pp. 29-36). University Park, PA: American Centre for the Study of

Distance Education.

Saba, R. L., & Shearer, C. (1994) Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model

of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1) 36-59.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review

of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.

Sappington, T. E. (1984). Creating learning environments conducive to change: The role

of fear/safety in the adult learning process. Innovative Higher Education, 9(1), 19-

29.

Sarason, Y., & Banbury, C. (2004). Active learning facilitated by using a game-show

format or who doesn’t. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 509-518.

Saussure, F. de. (1964). Cours de linguistique generale. Paris, France: Payot.

Schwab, J. J. (1954). Eros and education: A discussion of one aspect of discussion.

Journal of General Education, 8, 54-71.

138

Scott, S. M. (1997). The grieving soul in the transformation process. In P. Cranton (Ed.),

Transformative learning in action: insights from practice. New directions for

adult and continuing education (pp. 41-50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Severiens, S., ten Dam, G., & Blom, S. (2006). Comparison of Dutch ethnic minority and

majority engineering students: Social and academic integration. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(1), 75-89.

Shearer, R. L. (2009). Transactional distance and dialogue: An exploratory study to

refine the theoretical construct of dialogue in online learning (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

Shepherd, D. (2005). La pensée de Bakhtine: Dialogisme, décalage, discordance. In K.

Zbinden & I. Weber Henking (Eds.), La quadrature du cercle Bakhtine:

Traductions, influences et remises en contexte (pp. 5-25). Lausanne, France:

Centre de traduction littéraire de Lausanne.

Simpul, N. G. (1998). A survey of the perceptions of teachers and students related to the

instructional-cognitive emphasis and classroom learning conditions of Adventist

upper secondary schools in East Malaysia. Retrieved from http://CIRCLE.

adventist.org

Solomon, Y. (2007). Not belonging? What makes a functional learner identity in

undergraduate mathematics? Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 79-96.

Spellmeyer, K. (1989). A common ground: The essay in the academy. College English,

51, 262-276.

Splitter, L. J., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom

community of inquiry. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Steele, J. M. (1969). The Classroom Activities Questionnaire. Mansfield Center, CT:

Creative Learning Press.

Steele, J. M. (1971). Instructional climate in Illinois gifted classes. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press.

Steele, J. M. (1981). The College Course Activities Questionnaire. Mansfield Center, CT:

Creative Learning Press.

Steele, J. M. (1982). Assessing instructional climate; The Class Activities Questionnaire.

Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Steele, J. M. (1984). Interpreting the Class Activities Questionnaire: An example.

Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

139

Steele, J. M., House, E. R., Kerins, T., & Lapan, S. D. (1971, February). Assessing

instructional climate: Development of the Class Activities Questionnaire. Paper

presented at the American Educational Research Association convention, New

York, NY.

Stewart-Wingfield, S., & Black, G. (2005). Active verse passive course designs: The

impact of student outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 119-125.

Taylor, E. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review

(Information Series No. 374). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,

Career, &Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for

Employment, College of Education, the Ohio State University.

Taylor, E. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow &

Associates, Learning as transformation (pp. 285-328). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, M. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language

learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Thompson, T. (2004). Constructivist practice in the age of accountability: Kindergarten

teacher beliefs and practices (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

Transformative Learning Center. (2010). About the Transformative Learning Center.

Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/

Triplett, C. F. (2002). Dialogic responsiveness: Toward synthesis, complexity, and

holism in our responses to young literacy learners. Journal of Literacy Research,

34(1), 119-158.

Twomey-Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practices.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college

faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2),

153-185.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1979). Belmont report: Ethical

principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.

Retrieved from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/

Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London, UK: Sage.

140

Van Voorhis, J. L. (1991). A descriptive study of cooperative learning as it relates to

instruction in an undergraduate teacher education course (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

Vanderburg, R. M. (2006). Reviewing research on teaching writing based on Vygotsky’s

theories: What can we learn? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 375-393.

Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). Blended faculty community of inquiry: Linking

leadership, course design, and evaluation. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI)

Annual meeting, San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from http://communitiesof

inquiry.com/files/ELI 2008 Final.pdf

Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R.

Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wahlstrom, M. W. (1971). Factorial validation of the class activities questionnaire.

Paper accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, New York, Ontario, Canada, OISE.

Wattiaux, M. A., & Crump, P. (2006). Students’ perception of a discussion-driven

classroom environment in an upper-level ruminant nutrition course with small

enrollment. Journal of Dairy Science, 89(1), 343-352.

Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College

students’ perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570-601.

Wee, L. (2010). Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines. In M. J. Ball (Ed.),

Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world (pp. 108-116). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual

reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of

cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493-516.

Wells, G. (Ed.). (2000). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Wertsch, J. V., Del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (Eds.). (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

141

Whetten, D. A., & Clark, S. C. (1996). An integrated model for teaching management

skills. Journal of Management Education, 20, 152-181.

White, E. J. (2009). Bakhtinian dialogism: A philosophical and methodological route to

dialogue and difference? Annual conference of the Philosophy of Education

Society of Australia (PESA), Honolulu, HI.

Wlodkowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide

for teaching all adults (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yeager, W. L., Jr. (2004). The effect of the capturing kids hearts staff development

program in fostering positive teacher-student relationships at Jane Long Middle

School in Bryan ISD (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.

proquest.com/

Yu, H. (2008). Contextualize technical writing assessment to better prepare students for

workplace writing: Student-centered assessment instruments. Journal of Writing

and Communication, 38(3), 265-284.

142

APPENDIX A. CCAQ

From The College Course Activities Questionnaire, by J. M. Steele, 1981, Creative

Learning Press. Copyright 1981 by J. M. Steele. Reprinted with permission.

For each sentence below, circle the letters which

show the extent to which you AGREE or

DISAGREE.

Base your answer on how well each sentence

describes what is stressed in your class - what

your teacher has you do.

1. Learning many facts and definitions is the student’s

main job.

SA A D SD

2. Students must make many judgments about the validity

of information.

SA A D SD

3. Students actively put methods and ideas to use in new

situations.

SA A D SD

4. Students are expected to have ready answers to teacher

questions rather than to explore ideas further.

SA A D SD

5. The class actively participates in discussions. SA A D SD

6. Students are expected to go beyond the information

given to see what is implied.

SA A D SD

7. Great importance is placed on logical reasoning and

analysis.

SA A D SD

8. The exchange of ideas among students is a central

activity in this class.

SA A D SD

9. Restating ideas in your own terms is a central concern. SA A D SD

10. Great emphasis is placed on memorizing. SA A D SD

11. Students are urged to build onto what they have learned

to produce something brand new.

SA A D SD

12. Thinking through problems to find what patterns or

relationships are there is a major activity.

SA A D SD

13. Students often practice methods in life-like situations to

develop skill in using what they have learned.

SA A D SD

14. Students are encouraged to independently explore and

begin new activities.

SA A D SD

15. There is little opportunity for student participation in

discussions.

SA A D SD

16. Students are expected to discover trends and

consequences in the information studied.

SA A D SD

17. Students are encouraged to discover as many solutions

to problems as possible.

SA A D SD

18. This class provides much opportunity for students to get SA A D SD

Circle - SA If you STRONGLY AGREE

with the sentence

Circle – A If you AGREE moderately

with the sentence

Circle – D If you DISAGREE

moderately with the sentence

Circle – SD If you STRONGLY

DISAGREE with the

sentence

143

to know each other’s thoughts and feelings.

19. Students are excited and involved with class activities.

SA A D SD

20. “Weighing” the merits or qualities of things is a central

activity.

SA A D SD

21. Great importance is placed on explaining and

summarizing readings and presentations.

SA A D SD

22. Many points of view and solutions to problems are

accepted in this class.

SA A D SD

23. Students are encouraged to use writing, drawing, or

symbols to put ideas a new way.

SA A D SD

24. The ideas studied in this class are more important than

grades.

SA A D SD

25. There is very little joking or laughing in this class. SA A D SD

Did you circle an answer for each question?

On the average, how much class time does the teacher spend asking questions that call for

an exchange of ideas (circle): 50%or more, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%or less

On average, how much time do you spend preparing for this class each week? (circle)

0 ½ hr. 1 hr. 1½ hrs. 2 hrs. 2½ hrs. 3 hrs. 3½ hrs. 4 hrs. 5 hrs. more

Your age in years: ______

Your gender (circle): M F

List the three best things about this class, from your point of view:

1. __________________________________________________________________

2. __________________________________________________________________

3. __________________________________________________________________

If you could change three things about the class, what would they be?

1. __________________________________________________________________

2. __________________________________________________________________

3. __________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS: If you have any comments, please write them below:

144

APPENDIX B. CAQ/CCAQ RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

From Interpreting the Class Activities Questionnaire: An example, by J. M. Steele, 1984.

Reprinted with permission.

145

146

APPENDIX C. INTERPRETING CCAQ

From Structure of the CCAQ, by J. M. Steele, 1984. Reprinted with permission

147

APPENDIX D. ANALYSIS OF STUDENT COMMENTS: CATEGORY

DEFINITIONS

I. Process and Content: How the student views the level of thought and nature of the

subject matter.

A. Thought Process: Does the student think the process is rational, logical,

divergent, complex, judgmental, or qualitative OR doe she view it as irrational,

illogical, onvergent, simple, absolutistic, or quantitative.

B. Subject Matter: Does the student find the subject matter comprehensive,

conceptual or idea oriented OR does he find it isolated, specific, or fact-oriented.

II. Presentation of Content: How the student regards the content as it is presented to him.

A. Clarity: As it is being presented does the student believe the content to be

understandable, communicable, organized, or concise OR does the student believe

it to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, disorganized, or cumbersome.

B. Stimulating/Challenging: As it is being presented does the student find it

interesting, exciting or generally provocative OR does he find it boring, dull, or

generally "old repetitive stuff".

III. Purpose of Content: How the student views the reason and rationale for the use of this

particular content.

A. Relevant: As the student appraises the content does he find it topical, current,

or presently applicable OR does he find it unfitting, out-of-date, or presently

inapplicable.

B. Preparatory: As the student appraises the content does he find it a prerequisite,

basic to future study, or basic to vocation OR does he find it not a prerequisite,

not helpful for future study, or not basic to vocation.

IV. Study Conditions: How the student views the speed and amount of work to be

completed.

A. Pace and Schedule: Does the student view the material and work as being fast

moving, ahead of other groups, related to how fast the individuals in the class can

work, or well scheduled OR does he view it as being slow moving, similar to

other groups, the same pace for the whole class or poorly scheduled.

B. Workload: Does the student view the material and work as being not too much

for available school time, a similar amount as to what other groups do or adequate

as a homework assignment OR doe she view it as being too much for school time,

more than other groups, or too much for homework.

C. Self - initiated activities: Does the student have the freedom to choose what

activities he will pursue OR is he always told what to do and when to do it.

V. Class Opportunities: How the student reacts to class options or alternatives available

to him.

148

A. Facilities and Materials: Does the student feel that the equipment, space, or

materials are adequate, available, or there for his choosing OR does he feel they

are limited, controlled, or dispensed by someone.

B. Activities: Does the student find the activities fun, interesting, or what he likes

to do OR does he find the activities uninteresting, or feel that they should be

changed.

VI. Teacher Behavior: How does the teacher conduct and manage the class.

A. Group atmosphere: Does the student describe the class as containing

discussions, interplay between students, or open, Informal activities include

humor OR does it contain few discussions, mostly teacher control, or a closed,

formal atmosphere.

B. Individual acceptance: Does the student describe the teacher as supporting,

rewarding, or believing in individual students OR does he describe him as being

aloof, impersonal, or rejecting individual students.

VII. Intellectual Environment: How does the student view the teacher and/or other

students in terms of intellectual behavior.

A. Teacher competence: Does the student view the teacher as being highly

qualified, smart or intelligent OR doe she view the teacher as average, below

average or not really qualified.

B. Student competence: Does the student view the other students as being smart,

willing to learn, or a faster group OR does he view the other students as being

dull, troublemaking, or not willing to learn.

VIII. Evaluation Procedures: How does the student view the manner in which his work is

judged.

A. Measures: Does the student describe the tests, quizzes, or other performance

tasks as being representative of his ability, fair, the right accent given, or the

proper emphasis given OR does he describe them as being inappropriate

measures, unfair, too many or too few, or given too much or too little emphasis.

B. Products: Does the student describe projects, homework, or other material to

be judged as emphasized appropriately, judged fairly, or representative of his

ability OR does he describe them as inappropriately emphasized, unfairly judged,

or not representative of his ability.

IX. Other Topics: Comments which do not relate to any of the categories above, and

those which are too general or confusing to classify.

149

APPENDIX E. TAXONOMY OF INTELLECTUAL

ABILITIES

150

APPENDIX F. STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CLASS QUALITIES

List the three best things about this class, from your point of view: - Student Responses

The instructor’s ability to remain objective, yet still charismatic, was of note. He was able to question ideas without making people defensive, and without resorting to "playing devil's advocate." It was almost Socratic.

In this class I learned so much more about critiquing, citing, and expanding my own ideas and that really helped me do a better job at writing my papers.

I enjoyed different points of view, I learned "to write like a thinker, and not think like a writer.” Professor helped make critical thinking fun.

You learn important writing information, you are free to write about what is important to you, you have the freedom to think on your own.

Flexibility to think outside the box. Different opinions and points of view are welcomed. Ability to write freely without narrow parameters.

1) Learning through real life situations 2) The humor within the work 3) Learning while having fun and communicating with others

Innovative, refreshing because of teaching style and absolutely fun

Discussion. Thought provoking questions/scenarios. Listening to other students' ideas on issues and topics.

The instructor makes learning the topic better understanding. The instructor likes to hear everyone’s point of view. The instructor provides great teaching strategies.

Our teacher, my accomplishments, and my fellow students.

The Teacher, class discussion, and how material was presented

"Help" was always readily available when it was needed. All students were involved in class discussions, and there was no judging of others with different opinions. We studied interesting topics to learn different ways in writing. It helped keep the class entertaining.

First thing is that the teacher is very encouraging Second thing is that teacher wants and helps you better understand the material Third great teacher I'll recommend to anyone

1. Great instructor 2. Open to all ideas and thoughts 3. Not a tough grader

It was open, fun and I learned a lot.

We were given the opportunity to express our ideas Creativity was always excepted Discussion topics were relevant to the topics we were writing about

Discussions, Games, Freedom to write what we want

Getting to know everyone, The activities we did, The group discussions

Very interactive Interesting Creative

Structure, we were able to have fun, and instructor was always available for help.

I loved the ice breakers (hot seat) that we used to get to know each other, I loved that EVERY lesson was opened with a discussion, and I liked that the ideas that we learned in class were showed to us in some media form (mostly videos, music, etc)

His Style Friendliness environment Happy hellos & knowing everyone by name.

lively, educating, motivating

Getting to know fellow students through activities Using different activities to understand our assignment Not worrying so much about the length and peer reviews and rough drafts, but about the concept of the paper and the content in it. Journals

Class involvement, Teacher involvement, and the method by which the class was taught.

1. Class discussions/activities 2. Encouragement from the teacher to think deeper 3. The helpfulness from the teacher

I loved that the class was not just based on the concrete principles but more based on how it's used in really life. I also liked how the class was not all about the length of the papers but the quality of the writing. I liked that when we stepped into class it took away some of the boring school aspect and made it more open and entertaining with the discussions.

151

Interaction between students and students with instructor. Instructor pushes for new ideas to be expressed. Lighthearted approach to learning fostered by instructor.

Open discussions. Exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Classroom arrangement.

The joking. The discussions. Some of the texts we have read

Discussions. Reading. Prof.

Every idea or subject is open for discussion. An open forum to express your own ideas. Open humor to help absorb the material.

That students are free to express their own ideas. Listening to other students is interesting and helps me understand better.

Getting to know classmates on deeper level. Feeling like my own ideas are valuable/acceptable. No boring lecture.

Deeper understanding of the material. Presentation of multiple viewpoints. Purposeful discussion

Class discussions. Professor's way of explaining terms. Material chosen to discuss.

Communication. Relationships. Atmosphere.

Debating/Discussing. Theories of reading. We run the discussion.

Connecting new terms and strategies. Learning to handle complex texts better. Getting to express myself academically.

Discussion time in class and on Blackboard. Readings themselves. Writing assignments.

I enjoy the debates that manifest critical thinking. The camaraderie of the class. My instructor's disposition.

The writing assignments and activities are interesting. Everyone interacts with each other well with group activities. No peer editing being done in this class.

No peer edits. Write the essay once and review, turn it in. The instructor is Great.

Great learning experience. Teacher and students are great. Writing topics are good.

Instructor makes it a point to greet every student by name as they arrive to class. Our papers aren't graded by how many words or pages written. All ideas are accepted and encouraged.

Exchange ideas. The teacher's methods are very good.

This class effectively balances a lot of material and discussions. It assumes we are very capable learners and uses our full capacity to learn new ideas and critically think.

You get to know the people in the class. Open discussions in class are better than lecture.

Discussions about interesting ideas. Networking with students. Not as stressful as others.

Being able to have an opinion without being judged. Having activities by getting to know classmates and teacher. The instructor makes the class interesting.

The grading of papers. The discussions. The journals.

I love the class discussions. We are always having a fun time and always laughing. I feel more comfortable writing because of this teacher.

The discussions. How the teacher speaks to us as equals. Entertainment.

The teaching strategy. Class discussions. The entire environment in this class.

We have a lot of discussions. Instructor encourages discussions. We all know each other; it's like a family.

Everyone participates because they want to.

Open discussions. Allowed to have own opinion. Professor relates to students well.

Open exchange of ideas encouraged by instructor. Encouraged exploration of the thought and reasoning process. Fun and insightful discussions among classmates.

A lot of group work. Very discussion oriented. Open to opinions.

Class is very comfortable sharing- no criticizing of other's ideas. Teacher is well informed and easy to understand. Learning how to make writing easier by using teacher's pre-writing.

Teaches you strategies and helps with outcomes of it. Very well organized, she knows exactly what route to go. Helpful and very reliable- reasonable.

Others' opinions. Laughing in class. Group activities.

152

Attendance is part of our grade. Professor is very clear. Grades are fair.

The students are outgoing. It's hands on instead of straight book work. The teacher is kind of nice.

Teacher is understanding. Little homework. Flexible.

Easy to talk with the professor. Professor is very flexible to students' needs. Relaxed learning environment.

Learning more new things. Discussing my ideals. Learning new things.

The homework is easy. Teacher is willing to help out. It is easy to learn new things.

The teacher is always willing to help. Everyone's opinions are accepted. The teacher is very laid back.

We get to revise papers. I always learn something I didn't know. Organized.

The energy. Participation/discussion. Laughter.

We talk a lot to each other. Teacher gives us time for our homework. She explains things very well.

Teacher. Thought provoking. Classmates.

Writing papers. Logical fallacy study. Class activities.

Discussion. The instructor. Fellow students.

Lots of discussion. All course content explained will. Professor is friendly and will help you.

I'm learning how to write. I’m exploring brighter and more ideas. Reading is cool, and makes you smarter.

Class is less boring than just being lectured. It's nice to hear others' opinions. More interactive.

One day a week.

153

APPENDIX G. STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED CLASS DEFICIENCIES

If you could change three things about the class, what would they be? - Student Responses

I would make it a higher level class! I would love to have this style of open dialogue in all of my classes. We got so much done. I think some of the younger students may have taken for granted how easy this class was. It's not that we weren't doing anything, it's that we were learning so efficiently, it didn't seem like work.

There's nothing I would change about this class. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

To have taken the class in the summer time rather than the spring semester( I hate going out in the cold)

None

Excuse the students from class that are not interested in being involved. Skip the final exam. It is pointless to the class. Review the writing guidelines in the beginning of the semester instead of having to look them all up in the Compact Handbook (just the basic writing guidelines).

I honestly would not change a thing. Mark is a great teacher and I never left that class without this good feeling. I was learning and enjoying it (which isn't common in a 2nd year college student!) It was truly one of my most memorable classes I have ever taken.

None

I wouldn't.

Nothing Nothing And nothing.

Class would not be in college hall. Otherwise nothing.

nothing, I enjoyed [teacher’s name] comp 2 class

I would have wanted to spend more time in this class. I feel we could have gotten more discussions in, instead of being rushed to get through the lesson plan of the day. There was honestly nothing wrong with this class to change. I was always eager for this class, and it never disappointed.

Nothing I wouldn't change anything because he's that great of a teacher

nothing

The time, some of the people, and nothing else.

More creative writing More of the group activities in class

I would have wanted a longer class time, so we could explore more.

That is a hard question to answer- there was nothing in the class that I disliked

I would want to spend more time on things, I felt some things were rushed

I actually wouldn't change a thing in the Comp II class. I loved the teacher and I also loved how comfortable we were with each other. I seemed to retain more information because it wasn't a focus on learning... we learned (it felt like) by "accident". I know that the interpersonal communication has become a large and a great factor that I took out of this class.

nothing.

Maybe a couple more group activities, other than that I thought it was great.

Honestly nothing.

I wouldn't change anything.

I don't think I would change anything about the class.

Change classroom to a conference room. Longer class time.

Nothing

Nothing.

Longer times.

Being forced to participate by asking questions. There would be no presentation. The classroom would be set up normally.

Wish class would be longer.

Longer time periods.

154

Nothing

Offer snacks. Better table setup.

Get students to do their readings more on time. More in-class activities to see if we are getting it. Comparison of old texts to newer ones.

That class was a 3 hr. lecture. That it was 3 days a week. Outside the classroom activities.

Longer hour. Slides.

None.

Not a thing.

Not as many journal prompts.

None.

The assignments in this class are brilliant. Sociology topics are a perfect choice for a paper writing exercise. The only thing that can be improved is the importance of status updates of where we should be in our papers, if we have any questions about them, and reminders or notices of when assignments are due. I'm a forgetful student so the little things always help.

I wouldn't change anything.

NOTHING!

Nothing.

I would make this class longer. I would like to have more than one discussion each day.

It would be great to be seated in a circle so everyone can be seen.

A bit less group work. More discussion of the book we're reading.

Less writing (length of papers).

Over worked tends to lead to stress. More times to be able to meet.

I would like to better understand the assignments. More general essays to write (very confusing). Read more books.

Extra credit. Less homework. Didn't have a book to read throughout this semester.

Less homework. Explanation of essay topics better. More time.

Fewer essays.

Longer deadlines. Less essays.

Working in groups so much. Teacher doesn't explain enough. Too much work

It can be a little stressful. Homework is easy, but there is a lot of it.

Less reading material for homework.

The length of class time. More visuals. More papers, there aren’t' enough, so if you do badly you don't have many chances to do better.

Less papers. Less bookwork. More discussion?

No homework. Long class time. Doing the essay in the classroom.

Amount of homework. Extra credit options. Less writing.

Less homework. No reading work. Less textbook use.

Length (that's my fault). Times a week we meet (again my fault). Comp is just difficult for me.

Later time in the day. More time for papers. Better writing prompts.

3 papers :) instead of 4

A little more time for papers.

More lecture. More explanation of what teacher wants in assignments.

Grading on assignments. Easier material.

155

APPENDIX H. STUDENT COMMENTS

COMMENTS: If you have any comments, please write them below: - Student Responses

While I listed only 1 hour of preparation time, this doesn't include the time my wife, who was also a classmate, and I spent talking about class before and after. We spent easily another two hours per week "preparing" for class this way.

[instructor name] was honestly one of the best English teachers I've had. He was extremely helpful and made everything as clear as possible.

Very enjoyable class.

Loved this class! Best professor to teach Composition I've had. Highly recommend.

I definitely recommend this instructor for someone who wants to explore different styles of learning and not the same old boring experience

This was one of the most engaging classes I've ever taken. I loved the family type atmosphere we created because everyone felt comfortable having discussions even when our views differed. It allowed for an openness that many classes just don't have. I think learning from your classmates as well as your instructor is essential and this class provided that opportunity.

This teacher is thus the best instructor I've had so far, if there could only be more like him, I will continue on with college for many more years. He's the best

Great class. I am extremely happy that I had composition early. It has helped me tremendously throughout college. Thank you.

Thanks again for everything sir. One of the best teachers I have ever had.

I do not like writing papers, but this class helped me with it. I can now comfortable write a paper and have confidence in my writing abilities. This class was my best class throughout college.

Was the best instructor ever.

I learned a great deal from this class. It helped to teach me how think outside of the box when writing papers, and also gave me the tools that I needed write successful papers in other classes

This class is still my favorite, of all the classes I have taken.

[instructor name] is a fantastic teacher who knows how to get information across.

A+ teacher.

The teacher of this class is by far the best one I have ever had. He knows how to make learning an activity based lesson, opposed to the lecture and memorize lesson. His method of teaching really gets the students involved in learning, which is a great accomplishment.

The class was one of the best I've ever taken. The teacher captured my interest and helped me to apply it in my writing well. English is NOT one of my favorite subjects, but I really enjoyed learning, and applying what I learned, in this class. The method was excellent and I would refer everyone to this class.

Every class should be this way.

I find that group discussion helps my understanding of the material discussed a lot more than just listening to my professor explain terms.

Great class and this method works beautifully because students actually hold onto the class learning long term and benefit. But you got to keep on some students because the setting is related; new younger students tend to slack.

The instructor is great and makes the students comfortable with answering questions.

Great Instructor.

I signed up for my first composition class and dropped the class 3 times because I was scared of writing until I took this instructor. He helped me get over my fear of writing and I waited until I could get the same instructor for my next class.

The class is one of my favorite classes.

It's a great class. My favorite class out of all the classes I take.

I think that the teacher itself is a very important factor when learning regardless of the teaching style.

156

I couldn't pick 3 things to change because this is a good class with a great teacher.

This is my first writing experience since high school and it has been a pleasant surprise.

157

APPENDIX I. TEACHER RESPONSES TO CCAQ OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

List the three best things about this class, from your point of view: - Teacher Responses

Learning to write essays. Exploring ideas.

Discussion video clips Hot Seat

Students are expected to come in with questions and ideas based on reading. Students value divergent points of view. Response and sharing are crucial to success.

Willing students. Discussion. Group activities.

Student participation. Easygoing environment. Student preparation.

Students may develop their own ideas. Students may revise for a higher grade. Conversation/exchange.

If you could change three things about the class, what would they be? – Teacher Responses

larger room better mediation longer class time

A bit smaller- we max out at 15. Some students like to share more than others.

Longer meeting times.

Types of assignments I have freedom to give. Importance of grades in college environment. Technological resources.

Fit in more activities. Empower students. More time to discuss writing process.

COMMENTS: If you have any comments, please write them below: - Teacher Responses

In dialogic education, we always get to the core issues and concepts. I've never known it to fail. Students always come prepared.

In my opinion, these students have done a great job with preparation and participation in discussions.