How teachers deliberate policy: Taking a stance on third grade reading legislation in online language teacher education

Abstract In education, decision making frequently involves ethically-imbued choices between two or more solutions to an educational ‘problem.’ Teacher education may utilize asynchronous discussions to prepare teachers to critically navigate this landscape. To understand how participants in an online English language (EL) teacher licensure program manage disagreements as they accomplish taking a stance over critical issues, this study uses a discourse analytic perspective influenced by conversation analysis to examine asynchronous discussions. Analysis illustrates how participants managed their epistemic stance while disagreeing by (1) taking stances that were often softened or hedged; (2) grounding their disagreements through particular discursive strategies including sharing personal experiences or posing rhetorical questions; and (3) making morally-imbued claims that were difficult to disagree with. Findings suggest that although topics may encourage participants to take sides on critical issues, personal stake in the moral matters raised may make it difficult for participants to shift their initial stance.