Classroom discourse community assignment mau 3 đã chuyển đổi

Classroom Discourse: An Essential Componentin Building a Classroom Community MalindaHoskinsLloyd,NancyJ.Kolodziej,andKathy M.Brashears Abstract Basedonfindingsfromarecentqualitativestudyutilizinggroundedtheory methodology, in thisessay,the authors focus on the building of communitywithintheclassroombyemphasizingclassroomdiscourseasanessential component of instruction in exemplary teachers’ classrooms The authors then provide insights as to how to encourage and support classroomcom-munity through discourse, defined as a written or spoken representationofone’sknowledge.Specifically,the authors present a progressive approach—theFacilitate–Listen–Engage(FLE) model—designed to create a discourse-intensivecommunityoflearners.Inthismodel,whichcanbeappliedtomultiple contentareasandacrossvariousgradelevels,theteacher,servingastheFacilitator,intentionallyplanslessons,engagingstudentsindiscourse.Classroommembers then participate in theListenphase in which teacher and students cohesivelyexchangeinformationthroughbidirectionalcommunication.IntheEngagephase,theteacherp urposefullyprovidesopportunitiesforstudentstoengage in rich discussions which stimulate the development ofcommunity.Ultimately,thisprogressiveframeworkisdesignedtoestablishasenseofbelongingforallstudentswhileactivelyengagingtheminthelearningprocess,forgingtheideat hateverymemberoftheclassroomisvalued.Finally,theau-thors describe three instructional strategies for promoting classroom discourse,supporting practitioners as they translate theory intopractice School Community Journal, 2016, Vol 26, No Available athttp://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx 291 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL KeyWords:classroomdiscourse,studentengagement,activelearning,communityoflearners,teacherasfacilitator,facilitate–listen–engage,dialogue Introduction Graspingcopiesofthebook,AcrossFiveAprils,afifthgradeteacherandsix ofherstudentsgatherataroundtableinthebackoftheclassroom.Respondingtotheteacher’sutterance,“Arethesenotthemostexcitingtwochapters? Tellmeinyourownwordswhathappened!,”astudentsays,“Myfavoritepart was…”towhichtheteacherresponds,“Hah!Whywasthatimportant?”Withoutfurtherteacherprompting,otherstudentsaddtotheconversation,looking intentlyatoneanotherastheyacknowledgeandexpandoneachother’scomments.Atonepointtheteacherinterjects,“Whateventshappenedbeforethisthatledyoutobeli evethiswouldbetheoutcome?”Again,withoutadditional teacherdirection,thestudentsconverseontopic.Listeningintently,theteachercomments,“Iwouldneverhavedreamedthathewouldgetaletterback! Iwasshocked.Wereyou?”Repeatedly,eachstudent,independentoftheteacher,contributes to the livelyconversation Thevignettedescribedabovewascapturedinthefieldnotesandobservationaldataofarecentqualitativestudy(Lloyd,2016).Whileobservingmultipleteachers during literacy instruction in exemplary schools, researchersnotedseveralcommonalitiesamongtheteachers’practices,includingcreati ngacommunityofrespectfulnessandtheextensiveengagementofstudentsinclassroomdiscourse.Int hesewell-establishedlearningcommunities,studentdiscourse, resultingfromcarefulplanningandteachertalk,wasapartoftheclassroom cultureinwhichteachersclearlywelcomedstudentopinionsandquestionsandvalued a conversation-like approach to classroom dialogue According to KentandSimpson(2012),abenefitofsuchanapproachistheopportunityitpro- vides teachers to better understand their students; in fact, they suggest that“allowingstudentstimetodiscuss,analyze,andreflectonthereadinginsmall groupsorpairs isagreatwaytofacilitatecommunity”(p.30).Structuring theclasstosupporttheserichconversationsorcommunity-buildingactivities alsohelpspromoteasenseofbelongingwithintheclassroom(Chakraborty& Stone,2010).Inthesesupportiveenvironments,teacherscanpurposefullypromoteindependentthinkingandself-efficacyamongtheirstudents Haney,Thomas,andVaughn(2011)discussthecomplexprocessofbuilding communitywithintheclassroom;weechotheirstatementsbyurgingteacherstocreateclassroomdialogueanddevelopcommunitiesinwhichstudents can“seethemselvesinothers”(p.55).Additionally,Haneyetal.advocatethatbuildingclassroomco mmunity“fostersbelongingratherthanisolation”(pp 292 56–57).Teachersinterestedinorchestratingclassroomdiscoursemaybenefit fromimplementingthoughtfuldirectivesandquestionssuchasthoseshown in Figure1 Directives Questions  topic or question)- Pair (with your neighbor to discuss)Think (about the What are your thoughts about…? Share (as a whole class)  Where would you like to start your explanation about…? Turn and talk to your neighbor about  How could you add on to what said?  Pair up with someone by sitting knee- to-knee or shoulder-to-shoulder to discuss…  Do you agree or disagree with what said? Why? Find someone in the room who agrees/disagrees with you about… How could we change the conversation by sharing a different view about…? Figure1.DirectivesandQuestionstoPromoteClassroomDiscourse.Thisfigurepresentsexamplesofdirectivesandquestionsthatfacilitatediscourse Discourse Defined Within the Context of Classroom Community AsdefinedbyVandeWalle,Karp,Lovin,andBay-Williams(2014),class- room discourse includes“theinteractions between all the participantsthatoccurthroughoutalesson”(p.20).Gonzalez(2008)furtherdefinesclassroom discourseasanessentialcomponentoflearningthatincludesteacher– studentinteractionsaswellasstudent– studentinteractions.Becauseahealthyexchangeofideasmayincludeopposingviewpoints,itisneces sarytocreateaclassroomcommunitythatisinclusiveandsupportiveofallitsmembers(Sanchez,2008) Booker(2008)suggeststhatthistypeofsupportiveenvironmentisreciprocal in nature: “when students are allowed to voice opinions, collaborate…they havemorepositiveviewsoftheclassenvironment”(p.13) Although classroom discourse may include students’ representationsofknowledgethroughbothwrittenandoralforms,forthescopeofthis article, wewillfocusonoraldiscourse,alsoknownasdialogue,inthespiritoffoster-ing a sense of community within theclassroom Approaches to Discourse Ratherthanpromotinginteractive,student-tostudentdiscourse,teachersoftenuseatraditionalapproachknownastheInitiate– Respond–Evaluate(IRE) model (Gonzalez, 2008; Moss & Brookhart, 2009) In IRE interactions,the teacherdominatesclassroomdiscussionbydeterminingthetopicofdiscussion,leadingtheconversation,initiatingquestions,andprovidingevaluativefeedback to student responses In this traditional structure of classroomdiscourse,teachersroutinelyimplementarapidfiringofquestionsonerightafteranotherwithoutprovidi ngadequatetimeforresponsesorconversation(Moss & Brookhart, 2009) In addition, McElhone (2013) asserts,“Fordecades, researchers and teachers have known that IRE recitation does noteffectivelyengagestudentsorpromotedialogue… butthesepatternsoftalkpersistin manyclassrooms,perhapsbecauseteachershavetroubleenvisioninganden- acting alternatives” (p 12).Further,because of theteacher’sdominant role inleadingandguidingthediscussion,thetraditionalIREmodelperpetuates teacherdictatedcommunication.Withthisassertioninmind,thevignetteat thebeginningofthispapercapturesasignificantchangeinregardstoamore progressive discourseapproach The Facilitate-Listen-Engage (FLE) Model “Althoughlifeintheclassroomisasocialexperience,itdoesnotnecessar- ily constitute a community” (Meltzoff, 1994,p.260) The preceding quote supportsthecallforenactinganapproachmoreconducivetoestablishingcommunityintheclassroomthroughdiscourse.King(1997)advocatesforcreating“mutualenterprises” (p 68) to encourage the sense of belonging for acom- munityoflearners.Haneyetal (2011)proposethenotionofahealthyschool culturepromptedby“continuousdialogueconductedonmutuallyconstructed ground” (p 57).Further,Meltzoff (1994) characterizes communicationandresponsiveness as quintessential components of a classroomcommunity.Basedonastudyonparentalinvolvement,BennettConroy(2012)assertedthatthe qualityofhomeworkassignmentsaswellasthefrequencyofcompletingthe assignmentssignificantlyincreasedasaresultofatleastfiveminutesofbidirectionalconversationswithparents.Thisbidirectionalmodelsetsthestageforestablis hingteacher–studentandstudent–studentdialogueaswell,thusallowingstudentstobecomeequalandactiveparticipantswiththeirteachersand peersasopposedtoamoreverticalapproachinwhichstudentsarepassiveparticipantswhoonlyreceiveinformation.Additionally,weechoHaneyetal.’scallforestablishin gasenseofconnectednessamongstudentsasopposedtohaving somestudentsremaininvisibleintheclassroom,highlighting“thegroup’scollectivemissiontolearn,grow,andappreciateeachother”(p.69) Inaddition,weencouragetheenrichmentofstudents’personalcompetencieswithinthecontextofaschoolculture(Redding,2014).Thesecompetencies can be enhanced by expanding on astudent’spotential to grow asa learnerandbyviewingthisPersonalCompetencyFrameworkasdescribedbyRedding(2014)asparto ftheacademiccurriculum.Particularly,weemphasizethevalueof the metacognitive competency through which students thinka b o u t theirthinkingandindependentlyapplylearningstrategiestoself-regulateormonitortheirlearning.Withrespecttotheacademiccurriculum,Reddingarguesthat selfregulation—viewed as a tool that can be taught, learned,andprac-ticed— isacomponentofmetacognitionwhichcanboostthelearningprocess.Asaresult,weproposeteach ersdeviatefromthetraditionalInitiate–Re-spond–Evaluate(IRE) model and implement an innovativeframeworkforestablishing classroom discourse, theFacilitate–Listen– Engage(FLE) model.Imaginetheteacher’sroleinthismodelasrepresentativeof“horizo ntalcommunication”asopposedto“verticalcommunication.”Forexample,usingtheanalogyofhorizo ntalcommunication,envisionalevelhorizontalplanewithspeakers, namely the teacher and students, conversing asequalcontributorsinacohesivedialogue,independentintheirthinkingandc ontributions.Incontrast,thetraditionalIREmodelperpetuatesverticalcommunicationhigh lightedbythestudents’submissiveandpassiveroleinclassroomdialogue.InourproposedFLEm odel,theteacherandstudentengageinareciprocalexchange of information ContrarytothetraditionalIREmodel,theFLEmodelplacesstudentsparalleltotheteacher,creatingacontextforareciprocalexchangeofinformation.Additionally, the members of the classroom community learn to valueeachothers’voicesandbecomeactivereceiversandsharersofnewknowledge(Meltzoff,1994).AlthoughinthenextsectionswepresenttheFLEmodelasthree separateentities,theFacilitate,Listen,andEngagephasesaremorecyclical andrecursiveinnatureastheteacher,actingasfacilitator,promoteshorizontaldiscoursethroughtheseseamlesslyinterwovenstages.Thefollowingquotesetsthestageforanapproach toclassroomdiscoursewhichplacesthelearner at theforefront: Astudent’scapacitytolearngrowsnaturallythroughtheexperienceof schooling,justasaroguestalkofcornwillsproutfromanunattended seed, stretching toward the sun Like a plant that is watered andnurtured,however,astudent’scapacitytolearnwillburstforthwhenteach- ers feed its roots (Redding, 2014,p.9) SeeFigure2foracomparisonofthetraditionalapproachversusthemorepro-gressive approach to classroomdiscourse Traditional Approach Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) Model Progressive Approach Facilitate-Listen-Engage (FLE) Model  Teacher-dominated  Student-centered  Teachertalk invokes teacher-to-student discourse  Teachertalk promotes student-to-student discourse  Teacherdetermines topic and controls interactions  Student-to-student discourse creates a supportive classroomcommunity  Teacherposes a question, students respond, and teacher provides some type of quick feedback  Students are given opportunities for “demonstrating communicative competency” (Gonzalez,2008)  Verticalcommunication  Horizontalcommunication Imbalance of power (Moss & Brookhart, 2009)  Balance between teacher talk and studenttalk  Students share in conversation-like dialogue and identify themselves as viable members of their learningcommunity   Students are accustomed to speaking only when invited to so (Moss & Brookhart, 2009) Figure2.AComparisonofApproachestoClassroomDiscourse.Thisfigurecompares the IRE model to the FLEmodel Facilitate ThefirstphaseoftheFLEmodelistheFacilitatephaseinwhichtheteacher laysthefoundationforenactingtheListenandEngagephases.IntheFacilitate phase,theteacherveersfromtheroleofa“conduitofinformation”(Meltzoff, 1994,p.259)andassumesthepositionofacommunitybuilder.Specifically,theteacherpla nsstrategiesandquestionswiththeclearintentionofengaging studentsindiscourseandcreatingasenseofcommunitywithintheclassroom.Inthiscontext,theteac hercreatesgroupsoflearnerswhicharenonexclusive andhavecharacteristicsofanegalitariansociety(King,1997).Teachersmodel forthestudentsandprovideopportunitiestodeveloprelationalskills,whichwillbeusedinp ublicsectorslaterinlife.Inessence,assuggestedbyMeltzoff, theteacheractsasatourguideleadingstudentsthroughaninteractiveprocess oflearning.ActingasthefacilitatorthroughouteachphaseoftheFLEmodel, theteacher,throughreflectionandcarefulconstructionoflessons,plansliteracyinstructionthatpurposelyengagesstudentsintopic-relatedconversations SeeFigure3forrecommendationsforimplementingtheFacilitatephase Add a section to your lesson plan format that specifically and intentionally plans for classroo Begin planning for classroom discourse by first reflecting on a lesson you have recently tau Construct opportunities for classroom discourse that allow students to demonstrate mastery Understand that discourse does not have to consume extensive amounts of your lesson D Figure3.RecommendationsforImplementingtheFacilitatePhaseoftheFLE Model This figure provides recommended starting points for the teachertoimplement the Facilitate phase of the FLEModel Listen During the Listen phase of the FLE model, the teacher and the students are committed to listening to each others’ comments As quoted by Bryant H.McGill,“Oneofthemostsincereformsofrespectisactuallylisteningto what another has tosay”(2014, para 1).Bycreating a community oflearnerswholistentoothers,theteacher,acoparticipant,establishesanexpectation ofrespectwithintheclassroom.Theteacher’sroleaslistenerprovidestheopportunityforformativeassessmentasstudentsexplaintheirthoughts,reason critically,justifyresponses,and“argue”withpeers.Asteachersactivelylisten tostudents’conversations,theyestablishasenseofshared“voiceofauthority”(Cazden & Beck, 2003, p.180) In addition, while listening, students develop a “dynamic understanding that is collaboratively constructed in discussion among students”(Cazden& Beck, 2003, p 165) Using a balance scale to illustrate, the teacher and students are equal participants in classroom discourse, with eachrepresenting equal“weights”in terms of classroom dialogue In other words, inboth teacher–studentandstudent–studentdiscourse,theparticipants(teacherand/ orstudents)naturallyserveasbothspeakersandlisteners Engage The third phase of the FLE model, which occurs concurrently with the Listenphase,isEngage.MuchlikeRichardsonandSt.Pierre’s(2005)assertionthat“writingisthinking”(p.967),engaging inconversationisalsoa waystudentscandemonstratethinking.Infact,engagingindialogueprovidesstudents with opportunities to communicate, giving voice to theirthoughtprocessesandshowingrespectfortheopinionsofothers.Inregardstoagiven conceptortopic,MossandBrookhart(2009)furtherassertthatengagingin dialogue,ratherthanthinkinginisolation,helpsstudentsassesstheirownun-derstanding Students learn by engaging in more authentic tasks, including speakingandlistening,whichparallelthoseneededbyproductivecitizensinaglobalcommunity(Melt zoff,1994).TheEngagephasehighlightsthesebene-fitsofteacher–studentandstudent– studentinteractionsandisanintegralpartof the recursive FLE model (see Figure4) Figure4.TheFacilitate–Listen– Engage(FLE)Model.Thisfigureillustratestheroleoftheteacherasthefacilitatorandrepresentst hehorizontalcommunica- tion established throughout the FLEModel Community-Building Strategies for Promoting Discourse Meltzoff(1994)characterizestheroleoftheteacherasonewhoskillfullyweavesteachingandlearning,createsaninterconnectednessamonglesson concepts, and guides students in developing rich relationships within the classroom.Inaddition,teachingshouldbeabidirectionalprocessbetweenstudentsandteachers.Whileengagingstudentsindiscourse,itisimperativeforteacherstoack nowledgeindividualdifferencesofstudentswhilecreatinganinterconnectedness within the classroom.Todo this, we share thefollowingthreestrategiesaspracticalimplementationoftheFLEModelandasawayof promotingcommunityanddiscourseintheclassroom—Inner– OuterCircle,Numbered HeadsTogether,and DiscussionWebs Inner–Outer Circle Inner–OuterCircleisahighlyversatilediscoursestrategythatcanbeaseg-ment of a planned lesson or that can be spontaneously implemented at any pointinalesson.TofacilitatetheInner–OuterCircleactivity,directyourstudentstocountoffbysaying“1,2,1,2,”andsoon,withthe“1s”representing theinnercirclemembers,andthe“2s”representingtheouter-circlemembers Instructthe1stocreateacircle,withallstudentsfacingoutwardfromthecircle(seeFigure5).Next,directthe2stocreateanothercircleoutsidethefirstwitheachstude ntfacinganinnercirclemember.Poseaquestionortopicfordiscussionandprovideampletimeforstudentstoe ngageinactivediscussion Next,whiletheinnercirclemembersremainintheirplaces,havetheoutercirclemembersrotatethecirclecounterclockwisesothateachpersonwillbestandingacross fromanewinner-circlemember.Eitherdirectthestudentsto discussthesamepromptorposeanewpromptfordiscussion Inner–OuterCirclepromotesactivediscussioninasecure,one-on-oneset-ting within the classroomcommunity,allowing students to leave theirseatsandengageindiscoursewiththeirpeers.Itsversatilityallowsittobeusedas anintroductiontoanewtopic,aquestion-and-answersession,orareviewfor alessonorunit.Inner– OuterCircleisaneasilyimplementedstrategyandisbeneficialasanimpromptuactivity duringthosemomentswhenstudentsap-pearlethargicorhesitanttorespondinawholeclasssetting Figure Inner–Outer Circle Formation This figure illustrates thearrangementofstudentsduringtheInner–OuterCirclestrategywith“1s”formingtheinner circle and“2s”forming the outercircle Numbered Heads Together Numbered HeadsTogether(NHT) holds all students accountable for respondingtoagivenquestionorprompt,promotingactivestudent-to-student discourse.Researchers(Maheady,Michielli-Pendl,Mallette,&Harper,2002) foundthatanaverageof98%ofstudentsrespondedtoquestionsposedusing theNHTstrategyascomparedto15%ofstudentsthatrepliedtowhole-class, teacherledquestioning.Theteacheractsasthefacilitatorbypreplanningques- tions and/or prompts forNHT,setting the stage for students to engage in meaningfuldiscourse Tofacilitate the NHTstrategy,cluster students into groups offour.Then, assigneachstudentinthegroupanumberfromonetofour(seeFigure6).Tellstudentsthatallgr oupmembersmustputtheir“headstogether”toengageinadiscussionaboutthequestion,lis tentotheirpeers,decideuponthebestanswer,andverifythateachgroupmemberispreparedtorespond.Presentthe entireclasswiththequestion,andthengiveadequatetimetodiscussthere-sponse Next, randomly call on one of the numbers, directing students who wereassignedthisnumbertoraisetheirhands.Calloneachofthesestudents torespondtothequestionuntilacompleteandsufficientresponseisobtained.Tomaintainanatmosphereo ffairness,usearandomizationmethodtochoosethenumbers,suchaspullingpopsiclesticks withnumbers1through4writtenonthemorbyusingarandomnumbergeneratorapp.Forexample,ifthe teacherdrawsthenumber2,allstudentswhowerea2shouldrespondtothe question.DuringtheNumberedHeadsTogetherstrategy,besuretovarythe numbers so all students have a chance torespond Figure6.TheNumberedHeadsTogether(NHT)Strategy.Thisfigurerepresents student roles during teacher-facilitated discussions, with each student beingassignedanumberandbeingaccountableforparticipatinginthediscussions Discussion Webs DiscussionWebsare ideal for facilitating opinion-oriented discussions.Thegraphic organizer in Figure is an example of a DiscussionWebactivityin whichstudentsreflectonaquestion,discussopinionswithpartners,andthen presenttheirideastotheclass.Forexample,afterreadingthebookHey,LittleAnt(Hoose, Hoose, &Tilley,1998), students use this organizer tofacilitate discourseandengageinhigherlevelthinkingtoanswerquestionsfromtheper-spectivesofbothmaincharacters— thelittleboywhowasgoingto“squish”theantandthelittleboywhopleadedforhislife.Asad vocatedintheCommon CoreStateStandards,DiscussionWebspromotecriticalthinkingandprovideastructureforstu dentsto“evaluateothers’pointsofviewcriticallyandcon- structively” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p.7) YES Should the boy squish the ant? NO Conclusion Figure7.DiscussionWebGraphicOrganizer.ThisgraphicorganizerisastudenthandoutthatisusedtofacilitatetheDiscussionWebstrategy TobegintheDiscussionWebstrategy,directstudentstoindependentlywrite theirresponsesinatleastoneofthe“Yes”or“No”boxesontheweb.Then, placestudentswithapartneranddirectthemtofillinasmanyofthe“Yes”and“No”boxesaspossible,discu ssingrationaleforbothsidesoftheargument,regardlessoftheirpersonalstances.Tellthestudentstodiscuss,ratherthansimply read,theirresponses.Next,combinepairsofstudentstoformgroupsoffour students, and prompt each group to discuss their ideas, addingpeers’informationtotheirwebs.Afterwards,engagestudentsinawhole-classdiscussion abouttheresponsesontheirwebs.Finally,provideafewminutesforstudents toindependentlyreflectontheinputoftheirpeersandwriteapersonalconclusionontheirwebs.TheDiscussionWebstrategycanculminateatthispoint,or thecompletedwebscanbeusedasabasisforavarietyoffollow-upactivities, includingadebate,televisionorradioadvertisement,orwrittenresponse Closing Thoughts for Achieving Classroom CommunityThrough Discourse Withoutquestion,theFLEmodelprovidesasoundframeworkforteacherstoconsiderastheyestablishaclassroomenvironmentconducivetostudent discourse and rich incommunity.The importance of planning foreffectiveclassroomdiscourseis,perhaps,besthighlightedbyGonzalez(2008):“Or alcommunicationis…thesinglemostimportantvehicleofinteractionbetweenteacher and students, as well as among students.Itis also the principalwaythroughwhichlearningisdemonstrated”(p.139).Pohan(2003)assertsteacher educatorsshouldabandontraditionalapproachesandstriveforcommunityrichclassroomsthatequipyouth“withtheknowledge,skills,anddispositions neededforeffectiveandproductiveparticipationinanincreasinglydiversesociety”(p.370).Toscaffoldthisendeavor,weencouragetheimplementationof theFLEcomponents— Facilitate,Listen,andEngage.Wehaveidentifiedand described three strategies—Inner–Outer Circle, Numbered HeadsTogether,andDiscussionWebs— thatcanbeutilizedwiththeFLEmodel,thuspromot- ing rich and thoughtful communicative competency instudents References Bennett-Conroy,W.(2012).Engagingparentsofeighthgradestudentsinparent–teacherbidirectionalcommunication.SchoolCommunityJournal,22(2),87–110.Retrievedfromhttp:// www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx Booker, K (2008) The role of instructors and peers in establishing classroom community Journal of Instructional Psychology,35(1), 12–16 Cazden,C.B.,&Beck,S.W.(2003).Classroomdiscourse.InA.C.Graesser,M.A.Gernsbacher,&S.R.Goldman(Eds.),Handbookofdiscourseprocesses(pp.165–197).Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Chakraborty,B.,&Stone,S.(2010).Classroomidea-sparkers:Buildingcommunitywiththe “important book.”Childhood Education, 86(3),168G–168J Gonzalez, J M (2008).Encyclopedia of bilingual education Los Angeles, CA: Sage Haney,K.G.,Thomas,J.,&Vaughn,C.(2011).Identitybordercrossingswithinschoolcommunities,precursorstorestorativeconferencing:Asymbolicinteractioniststudy.SchoolCommunity Journal, 21(2), 55–80 Retrieved fromhttp://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx Hoose, P M., Hoose, H., & Tilley, D (1998).Hey, little ant Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press Kent, A., & Simpson, J (2012) The power of literature: Establishing and enhancing the young adolescent classroom community.Reading Improvement, 49(1), 28–32 King,N.R.(1997).Playandcommunityintheclassroom.SchoolCommunityJournal,7(2),65–76 Retrieved fromhttp://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx Lloyd, M (2016) Commonalities among exemplary teachers.Literacy Practice andResearch,41(3), 17–22 Maheady,L.,Michielli-Pendl,J.,Mallette,B.,&Harper,G (2002).Acollaborativeresearchprojecttoimprovetheacademicperformanceofadiversesixthgradescienc eclass.TeacherEducation and Special Education, 25(1),55–70 McElhone,D (2013).Pressingforelaborationinstudenttalkabouttexts.JournalofClassroomInteraction,48(1),4– 14 McGill,B.(2014).Oneofthemostsincereformsofrespectislistening.[SimpleReminders quote by author.] Retrieved fromhttp://bryantmcgill.com/20150209215955.html Meltzoff,N.(1994).Relationship,thefourth“R”:Thedevelopmentofaclassroomcommunity.SchoolCommunityJournal,4(2),259–274.Retrievedfromhttp://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx Moss,C.M.,&Brookhart,S.M.(2009).Advancingformativeassessmentineveryclassroom:Aguide for instructional leaders Alexandria,VA:ASCD NationalGovernorsAssociationCenterforBestPractices(NGA)&CouncilofChiefStateSchool Officers (CCSSO) (2010).Common core state standards for Englishlanguageartsandliteracyinhistory/socialstudies,science,andtechnicalsubjects.Washington,DC:Aut hors.Pohan,C.(2003).Creatingcaringanddemocraticcommunitiesinourclassroomsandschools Childhood Education, 79(6), 369–373 Redding,S (2014).Personalcompetency:Aframeworkforbuildingstudents’capacitytolearn.Philadelphia,PA:C enteronInnovationsinLearningatTempleUniversity.Retrievedfromhttp://www.centeril.org/ publications/Personal_Compentency_Framework.pdf Richardson, L., & St Pierre, E (2005) Writing: A method of inquiry In N Denzen & Y.Lincoln (Eds.),The Sage handbook of qualitative research(pp 959–978) Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Sanchez,R.(2008).Integratingcommunityinculturallyconscientiousclassrooms.EducationDigest,63(7),53–57 VandeWalle,J.A.,Karp,K.S.,Lovin,L.H.,&Bay-Williams,J.M.(2014).Teachingstudent-centered mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for grades 3–5(2nd ed.) Bos-ton, MA:Pearson Withover25yearsinthefieldofeducation,MalindaHoskinsLloydisan assistantprofessorandcurrentlyteachesorhastaughtliteracy,mathematics,andscience methodscoursesatTennesseeTechnologicalUniversity.Dr.Lloyd’scurrentresearchint erestsincludebestpracticesinliteracyinstruction,thehis-tory of reading instruction, undergraduate teacher education programs, and thecomparisonofpedagogicalknowledgetobackgroundexperienceinteachers.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticlemaybeaddressedtoDr.Malinda Hoskins Lloyd,TennesseeTechnological University,Department of Curric- ulum & Instruction, Box 5042, Cookeville, TN 38505, or emailMLloyd@tntech.edu Nancy Kolodziej has been teaching undergraduate and graduatecoursesinliteracyatTennesseeTechnologicalUniversitysince2004.Prio rtoteach-ing at the university level, she taught grades K through in California and Pennsylvania.Dr.Kolodziej’sresearchinterestsincludeteachereducationand instructionalpracticesforteachingliteracy A former elementary teacher and principal, Kathy BrashearscurrentlyservesasaprofessoratTennesseeTechnologyUniversitywheresheteache slit-eracy courses for both undergraduate and graduate students.Dr.Brashear’sresearchandpublicationsfocusprimarilyonstudentliteracypracticesandcu l-turalawareness