lisa m. barker, column editor under discussion: teaching ... · teaching speaking and listening...
TRANSCRIPT
110 English Journal 104.5 (2015): 110–113
Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening
Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor
I developed to support this work is an analytic rubric for assessing students’ speaking and listening skills during teacher- facilitated whole- class discussion. In this piece, I share the current draft of this rubric (see Figure 1), reflect on the theories that informed its design, and invite readers to adapt this tool for their own purposes and contexts.
The Rubric
The first column of the rubric dis-plays the criteria categories: Com-munity, to listen actively, speak clearly, and respond thought-fully; Argumentation, to support claims with warranted evidence; and Knowledge, to use discipline-specific vocabulary and syntax and explicit textual references (CAKe). Each row aims to demys-tify these criteria by arraying bul-leted descriptors across four levels of competency: (4) Exemplary, (3) Accomplished, (2) Develop-ing, and (1) Emerging. An asses-sor highlights the descriptors that most closely capture the quality of a student’s contributions over multiple observations, since it is rarely possible for all students in a single discussion to have ample opportunities to exhibit the full range of CAKe skills. The Com-ments box provides space for the
Defining “Participation”: A Rubric for Assessing Discussion Skills
I frequently reflect on my beginning- En glish- teacher self: inexperienced, energetic, inept. Despite my best intentions, I was unconsciously incompetent at leading whole- class discussion. Don’t get me wrong— we had dis-cussions, and sometimes they even felt productive. I used discus-sion to informally assess students’ understanding of content (How are they making sense of this piece of literature?), but I did not teach and assess speaking and listening skills themselves (To what extent are students building on previous speakers’ ideas?). Walter C. Parker and Diana Hess termed these two pedagogical purposes “teaching with discussion,” or using dis-cussion as a forum for learning important content, and “teaching for discussion,” “where the subject matter is discussion itself— its worth, purposes, types, and proce-dures” (273). As a novice educator, I taught with, but not for, discus-sion; I did not provide explicit instruction on discussion skills, nor did I even see this omission.
I taught and assessed the other domains of En glish language
arts— reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary— so why did it not strike me to approach speaking and listening with the same inten-tionality? Perhaps it did not occur to me that discussion skills need to be taught. I was never explic-itly taught how to participate during whole- class discussion, and remember few opportunities to engage in text- based discussion as a student— omissions consis-tent with the lack of discussion in American high school classrooms (Cazden; Nystrand and Gamoran; Nystrand et al.). Excuses aside, my oversight was a disservice to my students. To hold discus-sions in a linguistically heteroge-neous classroom without explicit instruction on the “rules of the game” was to keep hidden from students “the forms and norms of discourse that support and pro-mote equity and access to rigor-ous academic learning” (Michaels, O’Connor, and Resnick 285). In not demystifying the moves that make for effective discussion, I shortchanged my students, espe-cially those whose home language varieties did not neatly map onto the codes of academic discourse.
Now that I teach prospec-tive and practicing teachers, I explicitly teach and assess their skills as both participants in and facilitators of discussion. A tool
CR
ITE
RIA
(4)
EX
EM
PL
AR
Y
(3)
AC
CO
MP
LIS
HE
D(2
) D
EV
EL
OP
ING
(1)
EM
ER
GIN
G(0
) =
not
att
empt
ed w
ith
prom
ptin
g
Com
mun
ity:
Lis
tens
act
ivel
y an
d sp
eaks
cle
arly
, res
pond
ing
thou
ghtf
ully
to
div
erse
per
spec
tive
s in
way
s th
at
supp
ort
liste
ners
in f
ollo
win
g th
e th
read
of
the
conv
ersa
tion
.
•Li
sten
s ca
refu
lly w
ith a
lert
pos
ture
, tr
acki
ng e
ach
spea
ker.
Mon
itors
par
-tic
ipat
ion
so t
hat
he o
r sh
e lis
tens
m
ore
than
spe
aks.
•Sp
eaks
loud
ly a
nd s
low
ly e
noug
h fo
r al
l par
ticip
ants
to
unde
rsta
nd. M
akes
ef
fect
ive
use
of e
ye c
onta
ct w
ith p
ar-
ticip
ants
whi
le s
peak
ing.
•R
espo
nds
to s
peci
fic c
ontr
ibut
ions
by
rest
atin
g an
d bu
ildin
g on
oth
ers’
id
eas-
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)
agre
eing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
follo
w-
up q
uest
ions
, syn
thes
izin
g sp
eake
rs’
com
men
ts.
•Li
sten
s w
ith a
lert
pos
ture
and
tra
cks
spea
kers
. Lis
tens
mor
e th
an s
peak
s.•
Spea
ks lo
udly
eno
ugh
for
all p
artic
i-pa
nts
to h
ear.
Mak
es e
ye c
onta
ct
with
par
ticip
ants
.•
Res
pond
s to
con
trib
utio
ns b
y bu
ild-
ing
on o
ther
s’ id
eas—
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)a
gree
ing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
follo
w- u
p qu
estio
ns,
synt
hesi
zing
spe
aker
s’ c
omm
ents
.
•A
ttem
pts
to (
or, w
ith p
rom
ptin
g, c
an)
liste
n w
ith f
ocus
ed p
ostu
re a
nd t
rack
sp
eake
rs. S
omet
imes
nee
ds p
rom
pt-
ing
to s
peak
, or
ofte
n sp
eaks
a
disp
ropo
rtio
nate
num
ber
of t
urns
.•
Spea
ks lo
udly
eno
ugh
for
mos
t pa
r-tic
ipan
ts t
o he
ar. L
ooks
in t
he g
ener
al
dire
ctio
n of
oth
ers
whi
le s
peak
ing.
•A
ttem
pts
to (
or, w
ith p
rom
ptin
g, c
an)
resp
ond
to c
ontr
ibut
ions
by
rest
atin
g an
d bu
ildin
g on
oth
ers’
idea
s—pr
o-vi
ding
rea
sons
for
(di
s)ag
reei
ng w
ith
an id
ea, a
skin
g fo
llow
- up
ques
tions
, sy
nthe
sizi
ng s
peak
ers’
com
men
ts.
•W
ith p
rom
ptin
g, a
ttem
pts
to li
sten
with
fo
cuse
d po
stur
e an
d tr
ack
spea
kers
. Sp
eaks
onl
y w
hen
prom
pted
, or
dom
i-na
tes
by s
peak
ing
mor
e of
ten
than
lis
teni
ng.
•Sp
eaks
loud
ly e
noug
h fo
r pe
ers
near
by
to h
ear.
Spea
ks in
the
dire
ctio
n of
the
di
scus
sion
lead
er o
r do
wn
at d
esk.
•W
ith p
rom
ptin
g, a
ttem
pts
to r
espo
nd t
o co
ntrib
utio
ns b
y re
stat
ing
and
build
ing
on o
ther
s’ id
eas—
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)a
gree
ing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
fol-
low
- up
ques
tions
, syn
thes
izin
g sp
eake
rs’
com
men
ts.
Arg
umen
tati
on: S
uppo
rts
clai
ms
wit
h w
arra
nted
evi
denc
e fr
om m
ulti
ple
sour
ces
to s
tim
ulat
e a
thou
ghtf
ul, w
ell-
reas
oned
exc
hang
e of
idea
s.
•O
ffer
s cl
ear,
rele
vant
cla
ims
that
fue
l th
e di
scus
sion
. •
Supp
orts
and
cha
lleng
es c
laim
s us
ing
mul
tiple
pie
ces
of e
vide
nce.
•U
ses
war
rant
s to
exp
lain
cle
arly
the
co
nnec
tion
betw
een
clai
ms
and
evid
ence
.
•O
ffer
s cl
ear,
rele
vant
cla
ims.
•
Supp
orts
cla
ims
usin
g m
ultip
le p
iece
s of
evi
denc
e.
•U
ses
war
rant
s to
exp
lain
the
con
nec-
tion
betw
een
clai
ms
and
evid
ence
.
Att
empt
s to
(or
, with
pro
mpt
ing,
can
):
•O
ffer
cla
ims
that
are
cle
ar a
nd
rele
vant
. •
Supp
ort
clai
ms
usin
g ev
iden
ce.
•U
se w
arra
nts
to e
xpla
in t
he c
onne
c-tio
n be
twee
n cl
aim
s an
d ev
iden
ce.
With
pro
mpt
ing,
att
empt
s to
:
•O
ffer
cla
ims,
whi
ch m
ay b
e va
gue,
con
-fu
sing
, or
irrel
evan
t.
•Su
ppor
t cl
aim
s us
ing
evid
ence
. •
Use
war
rant
s to
exp
lain
the
con
nect
ion
betw
een
clai
ms
and
evid
ence
. Ex
plan
atio
n m
ay b
e va
gue,
con
fusi
ng, o
r irr
elev
ant.
Kno
wle
dge:
Use
s di
scip
line-
spec
ific
vo-
cabu
lary
and
syn
tax
and
expl
icit
te
xtua
l ref
eren
ces
so t
hat
othe
rs c
an
unde
rsta
nd a
nd c
riti
que
the
argu
men
ts
unde
r di
scus
sion
.
•U
ses
acad
emic
lang
uage
(di
scip
line-
sp
ecifi
c vo
cabu
lary
and
syn
tax)
to
clea
rly c
omm
unic
ate
idea
s. W
hen
nece
ssar
y, d
efine
s ab
stra
ct c
once
pts
(e.g
., lo
ve, j
ustic
e) b
y es
tabl
ishi
ng
clea
r cr
iteria
and
off
erin
g co
ncre
te
(cou
nter
)exa
mpl
es.
•Ex
plic
itly
refe
renc
es r
elev
ant
fact
s,
writ
ten
text
s, o
r ot
her
publ
icly
acc
es-
sibl
e in
form
atio
n. O
rient
s lis
tene
rs t
o th
e lo
catio
n an
d co
ntex
t of
spe
cific
te
xtua
l exc
erpt
s or
fea
ture
s, a
nd
wai
ts f
or li
sten
ers
to fi
nd lo
catio
n.•
Mak
es r
elev
ant,
logi
cal c
onne
ctio
ns
betw
een
text
und
er d
iscu
ssio
n an
d m
ultip
le o
ther
kno
wle
dge
sour
ces
(e.g
., ot
her
text
s, t
he h
isto
rical
con
-te
xt o
f a
text
, per
sona
l exp
erie
nce,
ge
nera
l kno
wle
dge,
a p
revi
ous
clas
s).
•U
ses
acad
emic
lang
uage
(di
scip
line-
sp
ecifi
c vo
cabu
lary
and
syn
tax)
to
com
mun
icat
e id
eas.
Whe
n ne
cess
ary,
de
fines
abs
trac
t co
ncep
ts (
e.g.
, lov
e,
just
ice)
by
esta
blis
hing
crit
eria
and
of
ferin
g (c
ount
er)e
xam
ples
.•
Ref
eren
ces
rele
vant
fac
ts, w
ritte
n te
xts,
or
othe
r pu
blic
ly a
cces
sibl
e in
-fo
rmat
ion.
Orie
nts
liste
ners
to
the
loca
tion
and
cont
ext
of s
peci
fic t
ex-
tual
exc
erpt
s or
fea
ture
s.•
Mak
es c
onne
ctio
ns b
etw
een
the
text
un
der
disc
ussi
on a
nd o
ther
kno
wl-
edge
sou
rces
(e.
g., o
ther
tex
ts, t
he
hist
oric
al c
onte
xt o
f a
text
, per
sona
l ex
perie
nce,
gen
eral
kno
wle
dge,
a
prev
ious
cla
ss).
Att
empt
s to
(or
, with
pro
mpt
ing,
can
):
•U
se a
cade
mic
lang
uage
(di
scip
line-
sp
ecifi
c vo
cabu
lary
and
syn
tax)
to
com
mun
icat
e id
eas.
Whe
n ne
cess
ary,
de
fine
abst
ract
con
cept
s (e
.g.,
love
, ju
stic
e) b
y es
tabl
ishi
ng c
riter
ia a
nd
offe
ring
(cou
nter
)exa
mpl
es.
•R
efer
ence
rel
evan
t fa
cts,
writ
ten
text
s, o
r ot
her
publ
icly
acc
essi
ble
in-
form
atio
n. O
rient
list
ener
s to
the
lo
catio
n an
d co
ntex
t of
spe
cific
tex
-tu
al e
xcer
pts
or f
eatu
res.
•
Mak
e co
nnec
tions
bet
wee
n th
e te
xt
unde
r di
scus
sion
and
oth
er k
now
l-ed
ge s
ourc
es (
e.g.
, oth
er t
exts
, the
hi
stor
ical
con
text
of
a te
xt, p
erso
nal
expe
rienc
e, g
ener
al k
now
ledg
e, a
pr
evio
us c
lass
).
With
pro
mpt
ing,
att
empt
s to
:
•U
se a
cade
mic
lang
uage
(di
scip
line-
sp
ecifi
c vo
cabu
lary
and
syn
tax)
to
com
mun
icat
e id
eas.
Whe
n ne
cess
ary,
de
fine
abst
ract
con
cept
s (e
.g.,
love
, jus
-tic
e) b
y es
tabl
ishi
ng c
riter
ia a
nd o
ffer
ing
(cou
nter
)exa
mpl
es.
•R
efer
ence
rel
evan
t fa
cts,
writ
ten
text
s,
or o
ther
pub
licly
acc
essi
ble
info
rmat
ion.
O
rient
list
ener
s to
the
loca
tion
and
con-
text
of
spec
ific
text
ual e
xcer
pts
or
feat
ures
; alte
rnat
ivel
y, m
ay p
arap
hras
e te
xt e
xcer
pts
or f
eatu
res
from
mem
ory.
•M
ake
conn
ectio
ns b
etw
een
the
text
un
der
disc
ussi
on a
nd o
ther
kno
wle
dge
sour
ces
(e.g
., ot
her
text
s, t
he h
isto
rical
co
ntex
t of
a t
ext,
per
sona
l exp
erie
nce,
ge
nera
l kno
wle
dge,
a p
revi
ous
clas
s);
conn
ectio
n m
ay b
e un
clea
r or
irre
leva
nt.
Com
men
ts:
FIG
UR
E 1.
Rub
ric f
or A
sses
sing
Stu
dent
s’ S
peak
ing
and
List
enin
g Sk
ills
durin
g Te
ache
r- Fa
cilit
ated
Who
le- C
lass
Dis
cuss
ion
112 May 2015
Defining “Participation”: A Rubric for Assessing Discussion Skills
assessor to elaborate on high-lighted descriptors (e.g., provide specific examples of when the student exhibited a particular skill, suggest a strategy for future discussions).
The Design Process
Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Con-nor, and Lauren B. Resnick’s research on Accountable Talk particularly informed the rubric criteria. The authors’ characteriza-tion of discussion as encompassing three interdependent dimensions— “accountability to the learning community,” “accountability to accepted standards of reasoning,” and “accountability to knowl-edge” (283)—inspired me to orga-nize descriptors into the CAKe categories.
The rubric’s design is also informed by my beliefs about both discussion and the components of an effective rubric. I conceptualize whole- class discussion as a teacher- mediated, recurring activity— a yearlong commitment to work-ing toward mastery. The rubric assumes that, along the way, there is active teacher facilitation— the strategic use of “talk moves” to probe student thinking and encourage students to respond directly to one another (Michaels and O’Connor, “Talk” 11). The rubric also assumes student prepa-ration. If students have not read and considered the material at the foundation of the conversation, they are not equipped to partici-pate (How can I build on others’ ideas about a poem I haven’t read?). Teachers play a critical role in scaf-folding this preparation by engag-ing in such activities as setting
expectations, assigning textual annotation tasks, and structuring opportunities for partner or small- group talk.
As I drafted the rubric’s descrip-tors, I aimed to be precise and clear about what listening and speaking look and sound like, thereby avoid-ing the pitfall of assessing students based on the quantity— rather than the quality— of their participa-tion. In general, as I design rubrics, I follow Vicki Spandel’s guide-lines for “good criteria.” I try to draft descriptors that are explicit; exhibit “clear distinctions among performance levels”; “focus on sig-nificant aspects of performance . . . , not on trivia”; are generalizable across discussions; and use positive, student- friendly language so that the rubric is “easy to teach from” (Spandel 18).
Once I had an initial draft of the rubric, I considered the extent to which the descriptors aligned with the Common Core State Standards for Speaking and Lis-tening (CCSS.ELA- LITERACY.SL). Though my review of these standards did not lead to new criteria, I found some of the stan-dards’ wording useful for clarify-ing the language of descriptors (“building on others’ ideas” from SL.1 replaced “using uptake”) and articulating the purpose of the CAKe categories (I borrowed
“respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives” from SL.11- 12.1.D and “to stimulate a thoughtful, well- reasoned exchange of ideas” from SL.11- 12.1.A).
Next Steps
Spandel argued that good rubrics “[a]reforeverchangingaswerefineour thinking” (18). Over the years, I have shared iterations of the rubric with prospective and prac-ticing teachers, who have helped me see its promise and limitations. A rubric, like any tool— a hammer, an interactive whiteboard— is not inherently obvious or useful. Tools require learning, an understand-ing of the context in and materi-als with which the tool is used, and a transformation of the user (Michaels and O’Connor, “Con-ceptualizing”). In other words, the rubric’s value leans on why and how it is used. If simply distrib-uted to students without explana-tion or instruction, the rubric may become a tool for punishment. If descriptors are introduced gradu-ally and partnered with examples (video clips, transcripts, teacher modeling, sentence frames), the rubric has potential to facilitate learning.
I invite readers to consider why and how they adapt this tool for their own purposes and contexts. How might the rubric be used for self- assessment? What might it look like to use this assess-ment tool as a tool for evaluation (i.e., grading)? In what sequence should teachers introduce these descriptors to students? How might the rubric need to be modi-fied for particular talk formats (partner talk, Socratic seminars),
I aimed to be precise and clear
about what listening and
speaking look and sound like,
thereby avoiding the pitfall of
assessing students based on
the quantity— rather than the
quality— of their participation.
113English Journal
Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening
Lisa M. Barker, a former high school En glish and drama teacher, is an assistant professor of secondary and middle school edu-cation at Towson University, Maryland. She teaches courses on En glish education and young adult literature, and has been a member of NCTE since 2014. Email: [email protected].
Learning in the En glish Classroom. Ed. Martin Nystrand with Adam Gamo-ran, Robert Kachur, and Catherine Prendergast. New York: Teachers College, 1997. 30– 74. Print.
Nystrand, Martin, Lawrence L. Wu, Adam Gamoran, Susie Zeiser, and Daniel Long. “Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse.” Discourse Processes 35.2 (2003): 135– 96. Print.
Parker, Walter C., and Diana Hess. “Teaching with and for Discussion.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001): 273– 89. Print.
Spandel, Vicki. Creating Writers through 6- Trait Writing: Assessment and Instruction. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn, 2008. Print.
Socializing Intelligence through Aca-demic Talk and Dialogue. Ed. Lauren B. Resnick, Christa S. C. Asterhan, and Sherice N. Clarke. Washington: AERA, in press. Print.
— — — . “Talk Science Primer.” The Inquiry Project: Library of Resources. 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
Michaels, Sarah, Catherine O’Connor, and Lauren B. Resnick. “Delibera-tive Discourse Idealized and Real-ized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 27.4 (2008): 283– 97. Print.
Nystrand, Martin, and Adam Gamoran. “The Big Picture: Language and Learning in Hundreds of En glish Lessons.” Opening Dialogue: Under-standing the Dynamics of Language and
disciplines (history, science), or grade levels? I encourage readers to email me with ideas or submis-sions, and I applaud your com-mitment to teaching with and for discussion.
Works Cited
Cazden, Courtney B. Classroom Dis-course: The Language of Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2001. Print.
Michaels, Sarah, and Catherine O’Connor. “Conceptualizing Talk Moves as Tools: Professional Devel-opment Approaches for Academi-cally Productive Discussion.”
National Council of Teachers of English— Your Partner in Professional Learning
While many know NCTE as the home of award-winning professional journals, national conferences, and the ReadWriteThink website, you might not know we have also been quietly supporting K–12 schools in building effective professional learning plans. We can: • Design professional learning plans that fit any budget and timeline• Select research-based literacy resources applicable across the disciplines• Identifyopportunitiestoevaluate your professional learning efforts and
build long-term capacity
Why partner with NCTE? For over 100 years, NCTE has been at the forefront of fostering effective literacy practices. As the professional home of the literacy community, NCTE is uniquely qualified to provide professional learning that enhances teaching while raising student achievement.
Are you responsible for planning professional learning experiences to address Common Core implementation challenges?
Get started with a free consultation.Contact the NCTE Professional Learning Division at [email protected], or call 1-800-369-6283.
NATIONAL CENTER FORLITERACY EDUCATION
In schools everywhere, educators are getting together to remodel literacy learning.
Share Your Story of Remodeling Literacy Learning! www.literacyinlearning.org/map
Sign your team up for free on the Literacy in Learning Exchange and join the movement of educators who are making change happen in their schools.
22
Remodeling Literacy
Learning Together Paths to Standards
Implementation
NATIONAL CENTER FORLITERACY EDUCATION
http://bit.ly/remodeling-togetherhttp://bit.ly/remodeling-lit-learning
EJ_May_2015_C.indd 115 4/30/15 5:50 PM
Save the date!Save the date!Save the date!
Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of LanguageNovember 19–22
Minneapolis, MNWorkshops: November 19, 22–24
For more information,visit www.ncte.org/annual
20152015 NNCCTTE E Annual ConventionAnnual Convention2015 NCTE Annual Convention
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 2015
Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of Language Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of Language
EJ_May_2015_C.indd 116 4/30/15 5:51 PM