1

Contemporary Practice in Educational Research (EDUC 5204)

Action Research Proposal

Encouraging Student Participation in the Triadic Dialogue

Jonathan Fritsch 100082230

 2

1.0 Introduction
In common teaching discourse, the teacher initiates a question; students are called on by the
teacher to answer it and the teacher provides a follow-up based on the student’s response
(Mercer et al. 1999). According to Lemke (1990), this three-part exchange structure is known
as the ‘triadic dialogue’. The literature reveals the dichotomisation of teacher and student
roles in this rhetorical structure. It has been argued that the exchanges in this structure is very
controlling as it gives students less chance to initiate responses, which in turn limits their
participation (Lemke 1990, citied in Nassaji & Wells 2000). The structure has predominantly
been used as way for teachers to assess students learning and direct dialogue though
questions towards a topic under consideration in the classroom. The pattern has been
described as a dominating teaching approach, which tends to the teacher rather than the
students, as the student take on a more passive role in classroom discourse. Alternatively,
more recent studies have found teachers ‘using more discourse actions in the first and third
turns of the triadic dialogue, have contributed to more participation by students.

As a pre-service primary classroom teacher, with a large number of students in the class, of
thirty or more students, I find the three-part exchange structure very functional and necessary.
Since, most of the talk between the teacher and student has a pedagogical purpose, the
structure includes a final turn, which allows the teacher to initiate a content repair in order to
clarify meaning and ensure the discussion proceeds in an ordinarily manner. Conversely the
problem I face is extending the structure so students ‘contribute to, and benefit from, the co-
construction of knowledge that is the purpose of the discourse’ (Nassaji & Wells 2000, p. 4).
On my recent pre-service teaching experience, I had a challenging time balancing teacher -
student dialogue. My limited experience in accommodating communicative classroom
teaching and learning was at times most evident during the lesson, when I asked too many
information type questions and didn’t allow for students to participate and express their own
responses to topics under consideration, and thus it did not create for genuine communication
for my students.

The review suggest that the supplementary aspect of directed instruction and unidirectional
instruction actions at each turn of the three-part exchange structure can play a significant role
in encouraging student participation, especially at the third turn which has not sufficiently
been recognised. According to the review more favourable contributing actions would
appear to be associated with collaborative discourse patterns that display genuine interest in
the student’s contribution and build on, and respond to, the students turn, can draw more out

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 3

of students’ and create an equal flow of dialogue to the topic under consideration. Since, I
am seriously interested in considering my future students’ responses to topics at hand; I have
concern within the primary years’ classroom, as a future practicing teacher towards student
participation in teacher – student dialogue. This research is therefore pedagogically oriented
and will assist my own professional practice and development in the future. Furthermore,
the research ought to improve the general patterns of teacher-student dialogue, allowing the
co-construction of new meanings to be continuous between the teacher and student

2.0 Research Purpose/Question

The purpose of the action research is:

1. to enhance teacher knowledge on how to use directed instruction and unidirectional

instruction actions in the three-part exchange structure.

2. to review the effectiveness of these contributing actions via student participation.

My research question is framed to guide and facilitate a meaningful enquiry to provide

opportunities to deepen and broaden my personal growth as a teacher. My research question
is: ‘How can my contributing actions, affect the nature of my students’ participation at each
turn of the triadic dialogue?’

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 4

3.0 Related Theory/Literature

Education is a dialogue between the student and teacher. Lave (1993, citied in Sedova &
Salamounova 2016) suggests that learning is the existence of participation in culturally
constructed realities of the everyday life. In accordance with these opinions, individuals who
learn increase their understanding because they participate in interactive social situations
(Melander & Sahlström 2009). Applying this notion, it can be said that it is necessary to
attend to teacher - student dialogue in the classroom. However, this is not to say that any
participation in discourse results in quality learning, the concept of productive classroom
interaction which leads to the creation of a shared understanding is complex, and requires
elements of both structure and dialogue. According to Lemke (1985, citied in Wells 1999 p.
167), the ‘triadic dialogue’, is a structure that controls teacher-student dialogue. The structure
allows knowledge to be moved in a triangle, in which ‘the three points represent, at any stage,
the speaker, the listener, and the topic of joint attention’ (Wells 1987, p. 12). The structure
consist of a recitation script (Heath 1983, citied in Wells 2006), more of a monologic
discourse, that tends to be enacted through the first turn of a initiation of a question, the
second turn which is a response made by the student and then the third turn is a follow up
which concludes the exchange with an evaluation of the correctness or appropriateness of the
student’s response. The ambiguity in its implementation has created criticism to its
effectiveness in the classroom. One of its criticism is it limits opportunities for an open
channel of equal dialogue with the student, since it ends with the teacher responding and
replacing the students response, in turn conditioning students to accept the teacher’s
perspective (Haneda 2005). These de-emphasise the constructivist approach discussed, where
the collaboration and negotiation of learning through social interaction is imbalanced, since it
puts a student at the centre of dialogue, but a teacher can narrow the student’s response with a
follow-up.

Much of the collaboration of teaching and learning between the teacher and student is depended
on the initiation. The question selected in the initiating turn, substantially affects the subsequent
turns in the exchange (Haneda 2005). With emphasis on teacher questioning in the first turn, the
triadic dialogue has been argued that student’s adopt a passive role, offering the minimum by way
of contribution. Information type questions have been recorded in literature as the more common
type of questions used in the initiation turn, which focuses on the student to recite knowledge
from the teacher. Nassaji and Wells (2000) study have noted potential in the triadic dialogue,
serving as a structure to invite students to participate in dialogue, particularly in the first and
third turn.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 5

In their observational studies, when teachers ask referential questions and or divergent
questions in the first turn, it affected student responses in the second turn. The study
showed students’ were producing longer and more complex responses. In context, in the
first turn, a teacher can initiate any type of question that proposes an issue for discussion
and in the third turn, it enables both the student and teacher to ‘contribute substantively in
an attempt to co-construct understanding of an issue, if possible, to arrive at a consensus
after considering a variety of alternatives’ (Nassaji & Wells 2000, p. 33). Furthermore,
serving as an appropriate structure to scaffold student learning in the moment and negotiate
the topical content (Radford et al. 2005).

Several studies have found extending the pauses (wait time) between the first and second turn
increases student participation and the quality of interaction in dialogue between the student
and teacher. According to Rowe (2008) study, when a teacher posed a question and then
waited for at least 3 to 5 seconds, students’ tended to give longer answers and generally
appeared more confident in their answers. In contrast when wait-time was less than three
seconds in the first and second turn of the triadic dialogue. In Ingram and Elliot (2016) study,
extending wait time at this stage should be considered if the ‘question is of a sort who the
students need longer to respond, or because there is trouble in the interaction, or a
combination of the two’ (Ingram & Elliot 2016, p. 49). Further to their study, the
consideration of extending wait time after the student had responded to the question was
found to be better, as the teacher could interpret what students responded and the extra time
gave students ‘the opportunity to extend, repair or finish their turn, rather than immediately
embarking to the third turn of the triadic dialogue’ (Ingram & Elliot 2016, p. 49). Many
researchers have also found the way teachers receive student responses in the second turn
transmits very explicit messages about their expectations of student learning and the
classroom culture. Thus during the first and second turn Godinho and Wilson (2007) suggest
teachers’ to use non-verbal signals during the wait time, to arouse students’ interest which
can increase participation, these included smiling and reflective listening.

In Radford et al. (2005) study, when a ‘teacher initiated a genuine question’ (p. 5), the
students’ were found to formulate opinions to the topic, which resulted in less of an
evaluating response by the teacher in the third turn. According to Nassaji and Wells (2010)
study, teachers’ who frequently gave an evaluation follow-up in the third turn to student

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 6

responses, suppressed extended student participation. The evaluation strategy has also been
instinctively linked to limiting student full response, since it can interrupt students’ answers.
Also, during this turn research by Kamins and Dweck (1999), found that praising a student’s
response in the third turn, can silence an alternative response. Alternatively, the use of
repetition and sustaining follow-ups during this moment would extend students’ contributions
and engage them more in the exploration of the topic (Nassaji & Wells 2000). Similarly are
recast, which are another type of helpful interactional process which can supply corrective
feedback to learners during this turn, to encourage further participation (Mackey 2006).

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 7

4.0 Definition of Terms

These are specific terms which have been identified in the literature, which are significant
in to this action research.

Triadic Dialogue

For this research, the triadic dialogue is defined as a three-part exchange structure,
consisting of a teacher’s initiation, a student’s response and a teacher’s follow-up.

Contributing Actions

For this research, contributing actions is defined as, encouraging and discouraging teacher
directed and unidirectional instruction actions, presented to guide the student and solicit
participation in formal classroom discourse. Types are classified in table 1 below, outlining
the response and purpose they serve.

Table 1: Contributing Actions

Directed Instruction Description

Divergent ‘Necessitate more wide-ranging, longer responses with higher level
thought processing (Moritoshi n.d. p. 3).’
Referential ‘Those to which the questioner does not know the answer and is
genuinely seeking information (Moritoshi n.d. p. 3).’
Convergent ‘Often have short answers which ‘encourage similar student responses’
and require low level thought processing (Moritoshi n.d. p. 3).’
Information ‘Questions that have no communicative purpose and to display student
understanding of knowledge (Moritoshi n.d. p. 3).’
Recast ‘If a student is struggling to answer a question either redirect it to
another or rephrase it so it is clearer (Shahrill 2013, p. 227).’
Repetition and Sustain ‘Ask students more questions in order to elaborate and clarify on their
answer, to support a point of view, or to extend their thinking to
discover new information (Shahrill 2013, p. 227).’
Evaluation Correcting a student response.
Praising ‘Acknowledge and emphasise correct responses and reward good
answers justly (Shahrill 2013, p. 227).’
Unidirectional instruction Description
3 to 5 second wait time ‘Give students time to think when responding (Shahrill 2013, p. 227).’
Non Verbal Cue Acknowledging response.
1 second or less wait time ‘Give students time to think when responding (Shahrill 2013, p. 227).’
Student Participation

For this research, student participation is defined as a student’s motivation to participate in

dialogic discourse with the teacher. More specifically, participating in formal classroom
back and forward exchanges of dialogue that connotes equal status, intellectual openness,
and possibilities for creative thought to support learning and thinking towards a topic.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 8

5.0 Methodology and Analysis

5.1 Procedure of Action
The inquiry uses a Practical Action Research methodology. Mills (2003) defines Practical
Action Research, as a ‘systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers to gather
information about…how they teach, and how well their students learn. The information is
gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice, effecting positive
changes in the school environment and on educational practices in general, and improving
student outcomes (p.4).’ This expands the notion that the teacher is actively involved in the
research process, through action, observation and reflection. This research uses a model,
adapted from Mills (2003) dialect research spiral, shown below in Figure 1. Each stage will
feed into and inform the next, as the research naturally unfolds.

Step 2: Plan of Action

Step 1: Identify Focus
Encouraging and discouraging, directed instruction
How can my contributing actions, and unidirectional instructional action at each turn
affect the nature of my students’ and its level of change to student participation
participation at each turn of the
triadic dialogue?

Step 4: Analysis and Reflect Step 3: Implement and Data Collection

Week 4 Week 1- over 5 days at a 1 hour lesson

1. Conducting analysis based
on the data gathered: Baseline teaching

i. Daily Teacher - Student Week 2- over 5 days at a 1 hour lesson

Participation Checklist
ii. Student feedback slip Encouraging directed instruction and
iii. Teacher journal entries unidirectional instructional action.

2. Reflection on effectiveness of Week 3 - over 5 days at a 1 hour lesson

action.
Discouraging directed instruction and
3. Teacher to prepare the report
unidirectional instructional action at each turn.
writing for the action research.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 9

5.1.1 Identify Focus

In step 1 the focus is derived from the concern I have within the primary years’ classroom, as
a future practicing teacher towards the triadic dialogue and its affect on students’
participating in teacher – student dialogue.

5.1.2 Plan of Action

In step 2 the action will take place in a general primary classroom setting in a South
Australian school. The classroom year level is unknown, however it is predicted that the
participants will be of different levels of language proficiencies. The independent
variables will be the directed instruction and unidirectional instructional action at each
turn of the triadic dialogue, which have been theoretically selected based on the reviews
findings. The research will categorised and assigning the contributing actions by
encouraging and discouraging at each turn. The dependant variables will be the student’s
level of change to their participation at each turn.

5.1.3 Implement and Data Collection

In step 3 the implementation of the contributing action will take place, over a 3 week
structure. In week 1, a baseline of teaching, including a total of 5 lessons at a hour of
classroom discourse, will be used prior to the contributing actions, to serve as a starting point
for the actions. In week 2 a total of 5 lessons at hour of classroom discourse will include
encouraging actions. In week 3, a total of the same 5 lessons at hour of classroom discourse,
will include discouraging actions. Refer to (appendices 1 and 3) anticipated time frame and
encouraging and discouraging actions (i.e. contributing actions). As practical action research
is concerned with representing the experiences of teacher and students in classroom
discourse, the data source method of collecting descriptive accounts and transcripts of
dialogue, including measuring student responses has been avoided and refrained due to
ethical considerations. Thus to resolve any objectively and unbiased observations, the
discourse between the students will be unstructured in naturalistic settings in the classroom,
in which will incur greater ecological validity, in addition, the comparative nature of the
implementation will offer objectively and unbiased observations. Additionally, qualitative
data will be collected; based on the three E’s, experiencing, enquiring and examining, to
increase the credibility and validity of the research question. Experiencing through an
interaction observation checklist will collect the frequency of the directed instruction and
unidirectional instructional action at each turn and the effectiveness to the level of change to
student participation (see appendices 2 section 1).

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 10

The collection will occur at regular intervals and or action based, where recording is done
when the action occurs. Enquiring, will follow the lesson, with an informal student feedback
slip (see appendices 2 section 3), will be handed out to the student’s to allow them to
evaluate their participation in the teacher-student throughout the lesson structure. Examining,
using a journal entry at the end of the day, which will be used to record and summarise the
lesson. The recording and managing of data will align with a descriptive label (a ‘code’) (see
appendices 2 section 4) that will be assigned to each data category to reduce time writing full
original accounts throughout the lesson and keep student’s responses and behaviours
anonymous.

5.1.4 Analysis and Reflect

In step 4, week 4, the data will be analysed separately into a categorical template to
determine frequency and then compared and combined into similar themes. This framework
method will start the process of abstracting the data to be interpreted and analysed. This step
of the action research will bring the research together, providing a summary of critical
conclusions and recommendations to anchor the research and provide a clear picture of
what works best with students’ in the classroom.
 11

6.0 Significance
The outcomes of this research will enhance teacher knowledge on how to use directed
instruction and unidirectional instruction actions in the three-part exchange and determine
the effectiveness according to the level of student participation. According to Whitton et al.
(2004) ‘reflection without action is not true reflection but merely recording experience (p.
226).’ According to Reagan et al. (2000) when a teacher is involved in active and deliberate
reflection and analysis regarding those events it can lead to formulating new strategies for
changing behaviour in the classroom. Since this research is an effort to improve the quality
of my own practice, the self-reflected nature of this research will provide an opportunity to
self-evaluate and self-examine my own teaching practice, to implement and utilise the
findings immediately. The need to implement effective teaching and learning is addressed in
the Australian Professional Standards for Graduate Teachers (pp. 12-13.) Standard 3.5
highlights for graduate teachers to demonstrate knowledge of practical teaching strategies
and a range of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to support student
engagement and improve student learning.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 12

Appendices 1
Research Plan Over Four Weeks
Week Step To - Do Lesson
1 Implement and Collect Data Baseline 5 various lessons. An hour
daily

2 Implement and Collect Data Encouraging Actions 5 various lessons. An hour

daily

3 Implement and Collect Data Discouraging Actions 5 various lessons. An hour

daily
4 Analysis and Reflect Teacher to prepare the
report writing for the
action research.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 13

Appendices 2
Data Sources

Section 1: Teacher Contributing Action Checklist

Lesson Number Lesson Topic

Teacher Follow-Up
Student Response
Teacher Question

EA3/5WT

DA1WT
EANVC
DACQ
EADQ

EARQ

EARS
DAIQ

DAE

DAP
EAR
Level of Change
Student Participation
Making comments related to the
topic
Not making comments related to
the topic
Making comments with the group
Raising hand
Asking Questions
Flow of dialogue
Responding to teacher questions
Incomplete Responses
 14

Section 2: Student Feedback Slip

Lesson Number Lesson Topic

Please check the statement below that best corresponds to your honest assessment.

Student Feedback Slip

Yes No

I was able to contribute in class discussion

Did the teacher invite students to speak

Did the teacher affirm or value your

contribution to the discussion
Did the teacher give feedback

Did the teacher listen to student responses

Did the teacher show genuine interest in

students responses
Did the teacher gives you enough time to
think about the questions he asked before
asking for the answer
Most of the questions the teacher asked me,
required me to discuss further
 15

Section 3: Teacher Journal

Lesson Number Lesson Topic
Turn Journal Entry
Questioning

Responses

Follow-ups

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 16

Section 4: Coding

CATEGORY CODE
Divergent Question EADQ
Referential Question EARQ
Non Verbal Cue EANVC
3 to 5 second wait time EA3/5WT
Recast EAR
Repetition and Sustain EARS
Convergent Question DACQ
Information Question DAIQ
1 second or less wait time DA1WT
Evaluation DAE
Praising DAP

CATEGORY CODE
Making comments related to the topic MC
Not making comments related to the topic NMC
Raising hand RH
Making comments with the group MC
Asking Questions AQ
Flow of dialogue FD
Responding to teacher questions RQ
Incomplete responses IR

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 17

Appendices 3
Encouraging and Discouraging Actions

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 18

References
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. 1999, ‘Person versus process praise and criticism:
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping’. Developmental Psychology, vol 35, pp. -
835-847.
Sedova K & Salamounova Z, 2016, ‘Teacher expectancies, teacher behaviour and students
participation in classroom discourse, Journal of Educational Enquiry, University of South
Australia, vol 15, no. 1pp. 44-61.

Ingram J & Elliot V, 2016, ‘A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom
interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviours’, Cambridge
Journal of Education, vol. 46 no 1.

Lemke, J. L. 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ñorwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mackey, A. 2006, Feedback, Noticing, and Instructed Second Language Learning. Applied
Linguistics, vol. 27, no. 3 pp 405-30.
Mercer, N, Wegerif, R & Dawes L 1999, Children's talk and the development of reasoning in
the classroom, British educational research journal, vol. 25 no 1. 1999, pp. 95-111.

Mercer, N. 1995, ‘The Guided Construction of Knowledge’, Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Mills, G.E. 2003, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (2nd ed.). New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Moritoshi P, n.d. Teacher questioning, modification and feedback behaviours and their
implications for learner production: an action research case study.

Nassaji, H., & Wells G. 2000, What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of
teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, vol. 21, no 1, pp 333– 363.

Skidmore D, Kyoki Zhao X & Murakami K. 2016, Dialogic Pedagogy, Great Britian, CPI
Books Group.

Shahrill , 2013, ‘Review of Effective Teacher Questioning in Mathematics Classrooms,’

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 3 no. 17.

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230

 19

Heath, S. B. 1983, Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rsdford J, Ireson J & Mahon M, 2005, ‘Triadic dialogue in oral communication tasks: what
are the implications for language learning?’ Language and Education.

Wells, G. 1999, Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of

Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. 1987, The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to
Learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Wells G & Arauz R, 2006, Dialogue In the Classroom, The Journal Of The Learning
Sciences, vol. 15 no. 3, pp. 379–428.

Vygotsky, LS, 1978, ‘Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes,’
Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.

Wong J, 2015, The Psychology of Encouragement: Theory, Research, and Applications, The
Counselling Psychologist, vol. 43 no. 2 PP 178–216

Jonathan Fritsch ID: 100082230