Genevieve Patthey-Chavez has done research in the area and presented a paper
at the '96 AERA meetings titled "Measuring Participation." Basically it
compares 5 classroom events holding constant expert-novice asymmetry. She
first measures participation using a computer assisted form of discourse
analysis for quantitative measurement of participation. At the following
level she factors certain quantifiable features into this analysis. Finally
she does a topic and agenda analysis of participation in the classroom
events.
One of her conclusions is that word-based measures are much more sensitive
for measuring than turn-based measures. She also concluded that the only
way you can get a substantial increase in children's participation with
adults is to distribute expertise among the adults and the children.
You might email her for the paper at ggpcinla who-is-at ucla.edu . It contains a
bibliography that might possibly be useful. It focuses on expert-novice
participation patterns but not peer-group patterns.
Paul Dillon
entrepreneurial anthropologist
"fomenting culture in the most unlikely places"
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 24, 1999 11:55 AM
Subject: Part Struct & Instr Strategy
>
>Dear Colleagues.
>
> I have been wondering about how closely modes of discourse are
>linked to participation structures in classrooms. For example, it seems
>to me that a combination of whole class, recitiation script-like lessons
>and solitary seatwork have a sort of natural affinity for bottom up,
>basic-skills-first instruction.
> Can a whole language approach be as easily carried out in such
>a participation structure?
> Alternatively, if one goes to activity-centered approaches, is
>there a special affordance for Realistic Math or Comprehension-Focused
>reading instruction?
>
> Presumably somone has written pretty definitively on this topic.
>Who and where? And if no one has, could someone offer some assistance
>in thinking about the problem?
>mike
>