Chuck, the study did not treat disciplines other than literature or talk
about other disciplines in literature classes. As I recall, the open-ended
discussion unrelated to literature occurred most often in lower track
classes, where it did have to do with time off task talk (shooting the
breeze with the students, as Ellice Forman suggests.) You can ask Nystrand
himself for more details on the coding methods. [Martin Nystrand
<NYSTRAND who-is-at ssc.wisc.edu>].
The book is published by Teachers' College Press (for details see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0807735744/4120-4321978-114286
>David, could you expand on the paragraph I append? Does this mean that
>open-ended questions were not effective in subject areas other than
>literature? Or that open-ended questions off the academic topic equated
>with time off academic task? Or something else?
>Chuck Bazerman
>
>p.s. And best for the new year to you and all XMCA.
>
>On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, David R. Russell wrote:
>
>>
>> His central finding is that what he terms dialogic instruction-based on
>> open-ended discussion about literature rather than recitation-had a strong
>> correlation with learning. This is especially telling since the average
>> class engaged in less than one minute of it a day. Open-ended discussion
>> unrelated to literature had a negative effect on learning (which may
>> suggest why there were similar rates of open-ended questioning in all
>> tracks, but greater learning in high track classes, where authentic
>> questions were focused on literature). In general, extended writing
>> enhanced recall and understanding, short answer writing degraded recall and
>> understanding.
>>
David R. Russell
Associate Professor
English Department
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011 USA
(515) 294-4724
Fax (515) 294-6814
drrussel who-is-at iastate.edu