productive talk: accurate knowledge · to science content, its primary purpose is to acquaint...

SPArk – Skill Practicing Add-On Productive Talk: Accurate Knowledge

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

High School Science

© 2017 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH – SPArk: Productive Talk: Accurate Knowledge 3

Licensing Copyright © 2017 University of Pittsburgh

All rights reserved. No part of these materials may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system.

In accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, the scanning, uploading, and electronic sharing of any part of these materials without the permission of the publisher constitute unlawful piracy and theft of the author’s intellectual property.

To contact please address: Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: The IFL MATERIALS are provided “as is.” The UNIVERSITY does not warrant the IFL MATERIALS will meet Your requirements, operate without interruption, or be error free. UNIVERSITY makes no representations and extends no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement.

INDEMNIFICATION: The entire risk as to the use and performance of the IFL MATERIALS is assumed by You. You shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless UNIVERSITY, its trustees, officers, employees and agents, for and against any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including but not limited to attorneys’ fees), relating to or arising from any use or disposition by LICENSEE of the IFL MATERIALS.

MAINTENANCE: UNIVERSITY is not obligated to provide maintenance or updates for the IFL MATERIALS. However, any maintenance or updates provided by UNIVERSITY shall be covered by this Agreement and may, at UNIVERSITY’s discretion, require payment of an additional license fee.

TERMINATION: This Agreement and the license granted herein shall remain effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement and the license at any time by destroying all IFL MATERIALS in Your possession or control. The Agreement will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with the limitations described herein. On termination, You must destroy all copies of the IFL MATERIALS.


Table of Contents

Introduction

SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On) Overview ............................................................................... 9

SPArk Outline .............................................................................................................................. 12

Materials by Task ....................................................................................................................... 13

Kill 'Em All podcast by Radiolab

Pre-Work: Accountability to Accurate Knowledge .............................................................. 15

What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? ............................................................................. 22

Norms for Working and Talking Together ............................................................................... 23

Speaking with Accurate Knowledge ........................................................................................ 24

Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves ................................................................... 26

Task 1: Dissecting an Argument—Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge ........... 27

Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge ................................ 33

Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves ................................................................... 35

Organizing Your Thinking ......................................................................................................... 36

Resources

An Overview of Accountable Talk Practices ......................................................................... 39

Accountable Talk Moves and Functions in Science .............................................................. 49

Standards Addressed in the SPArk ......................................................................................... 51

Accountable Talk is a registered trademark of the University of Pittsburgh.


Introduction: Productive Talk: Accurate Knowledge


SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On) Overview

What is a SPArk? SPArk stands for Skill Practicing Add-On. A SPArk is a series of tasks designed to provide an opportunity for students to develop and practice new skills. While the SPArk exposes students to science content, its primary purpose is to acquaint students with new skills. The skills learned during the SPArk can be utilized during future instruction to support the learning of science content and practices.

A SPArk works to empower students by providing a context for them to practice becoming self-sufficient problem solvers. To be self-sufficient, students need a toolbox of skills to aid them in approaching new content, practices, and experiences. Students must have rich opportunities to engage safely with new skills, materials, and experiences outside of their comfort zone. This engagement happens within the context of the SPArk, but teachers must also provide and carefully facilitate opportunities for students to engage with these skills in conjunction with the content and practices explored in future science instruction. Language throughout the SPArk refers to student empowerment, working to shift learner mindsets.

A SPArk serves as an add-on to complement and to be used in conjunction with more in-depth science content instruction. The tasks and materials contained in this SPArk work towards supporting the implementation of standards found in both the Next Generation Science Standards and the Common Core State Standards. A more detailed description of the standards addressed can be found on page 51.

What is this SPArk about? In this SPArk, students will study talk that values staying accountable to accurate knowledge by being exposed to ideas, moves, and norms around this type of talk. Students will consider talk moves that encourage the use of evidence and references to sources. Students will work to dissect an argument and distinguish between the different perspectives presented in the Radiolab podcast Kill ‘Em All, which tackles the idea of eliminating mosquitoes. Throughout the SPArk, students will be asked to use productive talk to communicate the evidence and reasoning gathered from the podcast. Students will articulate these ideas while working to stay accountable to accurate knowledge. This provides an opportunity for students to put their learnings into action.

To strengthen student learning and understanding, consider how to connect what students learn throughout this SPArk with the science content and practices they are exploring in the classroom. The practice of productive classroom talk and articulating ideas backed by evidence and reasoning should be asked of students continuously as they engage in learning science. This SPArk also builds on the ideas presented during the SPArk: Productive Talk: Building Community. Students should continue to work on building the learning community as they now incorporate the idea of valuing accurate knowledge in productive talk.


What practices will students use? Students are supported to develop practices and habits such as how to

• engage in productive talk that values and stays accountable to accurate knowledge. • engage in productive talk that deepens their own learning and the learning of others. • communicate understandings, ideas, and conclusions backed with evidence and

reasoning. • participate in routines such as completing quick writes, sharing in small groups,

participating in whole group discussions, and regularly reflecting on learning.

What practices will you be using? SPArks are designed to introduce and give students opportunities to practice new skills. As educators, we too are continually honing and developing our skills. During this SPArk, students are practicing listening, organizing, and accurately communicating the different perspectives shared in the podcast. Students are also listening to and building upon the ideas of others. Students are working to do this through productive talk and the use of talk moves to encourage staying accountable to accurate knowledge.

Listening to and deciphering what students are saying are also important skills for a teacher, as is pushing for clear evidence and reasoning. Frequently in discussions, the teacher’s voice becomes the dominant and most often heard. During this SPArk, you will be asked to practice active listening and to monitor your air time to make sure student voices are the most often heard during the discussions. One way of achieving this is through the carefully chosen prompts and questions we ask students. The students’ main focus will be using talk moves to support evidence backed in accurate knowledge. You also will be working towards this goal, but as the facilitator of the learning, you will also need to push to continue building the learning community and for rigorous thinking by encouraging students to link evidence and reasoning to their conclusions. These practices are referred to throughout the SPArk. Additional resources to aid in thinking through and the implementation of these practices are provided in the Resource section beginning on page 37.

During the SPArk, students are reminded to Always Be Thinking (ABT). As educators, it is important that we are mindful of this reminder as well. We want students to think deeply about what they are learning, to question why they are learning it, and to reflect on the benefits and limitations of what they are learning. To achieve this, we too must think deeply. We must consider why we are teaching what we are teaching, what goals we are trying to help students achieve, and what is the purpose of the discussions we engage students in and the questions we ask. Like students, we too must always be thinking.

How long will it take to engage students in the SPArk? This SPArk spans approximately three instructional days, assuming a 45- to 60-minute class session. The tasks in the SPArk are designed to be implemented sequentially in order to support students to achieve the instructional goals. As such, the pacing of the lessons will depend on the time students need to achieve these goals. However, guidelines for time are provided throughout.


Recommended times throughout the SPArk are based on the instruction described. If deviating from the described instruction, be sure to have a clear purpose and desired outcome (instructional goals). Additional instruction will increase the time needed; therefore, the added material should be worthy of the time spent and enhance the learning process and student understanding.


SPArk Outline

Overarching Goals Students will be able to • engage in productive talk that values and stays accountable to accurate

knowledge. • engage in productive talk that deepens their own learning and the learning

of others. • communicate understandings, ideas, and conclusions backed with evidence

and reasoning.

Podcast Kill ‘Em All

by Radiolab Pre-Work: Accountability to Accurate Knowledge How does productive talk that values and stays accountable to accurate knowledge deepen and promote learning?

Task 1: Dissecting an Argument—Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge What does talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge look and sound like in action?


Materials by Task

Task Materials

Pre-Work

• Handout: What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? • Handout: Norms for Working and Talking Together • Handout: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge • Handout: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves • Chart: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: What does it

look and sound like? • Chart paper and markers

1

• Kill ‘Em All podcast by Radiolab1 • Handout: Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable to

Accurate Knowledge • Handout: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves • Organizer: Organize Your Thinking • Kill ‘Em All transcript2 • Chart: Dissecting an Argument: Kill ‘Em All • Chart paper and different color markers

Important: Save all created charts throughout the duration of the SPArk.

1 Podcast can be downloaded from http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/ 2 Transcript can be found in the SPArk – Skill Practicing Add-On Productive Talk: Building Community, Accurate Knowledge, and Rigorous Thinking Student Reader.


Pre-Work: Accountability to Accurate Knowledge • How does productive talk that values and stays accountable to accurate

knowledge deepen and promote learning?

Duration Approximately 60 minutes

Why This Task Now? Academically productive talk is important in promoting students’ learning. Articulating understandings helps teachers and students know what they do and do not understand. Accountable Talk practices help to promote academically productive talk. The three Accountable Talk features work to build productive classroom talk. The three features are Accountability to the Learning Community, Accountability to Accurate Knowledge, and Accountability to Rigorous Thinking. This task will focus on introducing students to the second feature, accurate knowledge, as a foundation to build talk.

This task asks students to read about talk as it relates to being accountable to accurate knowledge and then consider talk moves that encourage and value speaking with accurate evidence. Students are asked to consider the intentions behind the moves as they prepare to use and form their own during Task 1.

Materials • Handout: What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? • Handout: Norms for Working and Talking Together • Handout: Speaking With Accurate Knowledge • Handout: Speaking With Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves • Chart: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: What does it look and sound like? • Chart paper and markers

Important Complete the tasks described in the SPArk prior to implementation so you are able to best lead your community of learners. Take into account where students might find success or struggles and how you can support them in this endeavor. Ideas to help with this process are included throughout the SPArk.

The steps in the subsequent Teaching Approach are to guide planning and implementation. As you plan and implement the SPArk, consider how you best connect to your community of learners. Adjust the instruction to make it your own, but be mindful that you maintain a clear understanding of the purpose and desired outcome of the task as it is currently written. Keep in mind that these tasks have been carefully chosen and considered to reach a desired outcome.


Teaching Approach Setting Up the SPArk: Whole Group (5 minutes) Purpose: To introduce students to the SPArk. • Provide students with the handout titled What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? (found

on page 22). Ask students to individually read the description of the SPArk and record any questions they have.

• Review the description with students, giving them an opportunity to ask questions and share their initial thoughts.

• Let students know that during the next few days, they will be thinking about how we work to stay accountable to accurate knowledge as we talk—they will read about talk, think about the intentions behind the words we use, and then try out some talk moves as they use evidence and reasoning to discuss the argument presented in the Radiolab podcast Kill ‘Em All. Make sure students understand that the purpose of the SPArk is to develop new and strengthen existing skills.

• Post the italicized questions found below and on the What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? handout. Keep the questions posted throughout implementation to serve as a reminder for students to consider throughout the SPArk. o How does this information further my learning? o What are the benefits and limitations to what I am learning? o What else might I need to learn or seek out?

Teacher Note The What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? handout introduces students to the idea behind a SPArk. You will notice that the handout introduces new learning goals, but that the majority of the text stays the same between SPArks. If you have recently reviewed this with students, decide how to best use this time. It may be helpful to ask students to read it again and reflect on how their understandings around SPArks have grown. Or this might be a good time to bring students’ attention to the learning in a past SPArk and how this SPArk builds on previous learnings, being careful to briefly introduce some connections to prompt students to think about making connections themselves. Be purposeful if you decide to deviate from the instructions above.

Norms: Whole Group (5 minutes) Purpose: To introduce or remind students of the idea of establishing norms to encourage talk. • Provide students with Norms for Working and Talking Together (found on page 23) as a

handout or as a group poster. Ask students to read the norms. • Ask students what stands out and if they have anything to add.


Teacher Note Have you already clearly established and articulated norms in your classroom? Consider how these norms add to or complement the norms you have established. It may be helpful to have a conversation with students around norms, previous and newly introduced, so they clearly understand the role of norms in creating a community of learners and in using productive talk.

These norms were also introduced during the SPArk: Productive Talk: Building Community. If you have already introduced the norms, this may be a good time to review them with students and discuss if there is anything to add as you continue to build norms into your learning community.

Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge: Individual Work (7 minutes) Purpose: To introduce students to the idea of staying accountable to accurate knowledge. • Provide students with the handout titled Speaking with Accurate Knowledge (found on

page 24). Ask students to individually read the sheet. • Ask students to mark what they find confusing, interesting, or surprising in the text as they

read and to be prepared to discuss what they have read with others. • Ask students to individually respond to the quick write question at the end of the sheet.

Teacher Note Notice that students are often asked to “mark what they find confusing, interesting, or surprising” the first time they read a text. Forming thoughts and questions around new information should become routine as students read and engage with text. It may be helpful to point this out to students so they are thinking about the habits of mind they are forming.

Monitoring Student Thinking: Small Group Work (5 minutes) Purpose: To provide a safe environment for students to share their ideas and to hear the ideas of others. • Ask students to meet in pairs or trios to share their thoughts about the quick write

question What does this kind of talk look like in action? on the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge sheet. Ask students to record their thoughts as they discuss.

• Ask students to refer back to and mark places in the text as they discuss, in order to keep their discussion focused. Remind students that this is a good time to practice speaking with accurate evidence and references to the text.

• Remind them to be ready to share their ideas with the whole group.


Important Throughout the SPArk, you will notice boxes titled “Notes from the Field.” These notes are observations and ideas from teachers who have implemented the SPArk and identified possible additions or helpful suggestions.

Notes from the Field Asking students to work in pairs and small groups can be done creatively, giving students a chance to physically move around. One example is giving students different color sticky notes and asking them to quickly find someone with the same or different color. Be sure whatever method you choose, students can partner quickly and easily.

Accountability to Accurate Knowledge Talk Moves: Individual Work (5 minutes) Purpose: To introduce students to the idea of talk to stay accountable to accurate knowledge. • Provide students with the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves handout (found

on page 26). Ask students to individually read the sheet. • Ask students to mark what they find confusing, interesting, or surprising in the text as they

read.

Monitoring Student Thinking: Pair Work (7 minutes) Purpose: To provide a safe environment for students to share their ideas and to hear the ideas of others. • Ask students to meet in pairs to brainstorm together about the two quick write

questions on the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves sheet. Ask students to record their thoughts as they discuss.

• Ask students to refer back to the talk moves as they are sharing with their partner, in order to keep their discussion focused.

Guiding Students to Consensus: Whole Group (10 minutes) Purpose: To enable students to reach a common understanding about talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge and to share understandings about what this type of talk looks like in action. • Bring students together as a whole group. • Ask students to bring everything together and share their thoughts around What does

this kind of talk look like in action? • Remind students to refer to specific places in the texts Norms for Working and Talking

Together, Speaking with Accurate Knowledge, and Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves to support their responses.

• Record students’ responses on chart paper. Title the chart Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: What does it look and sound like?

• Keep this chart posted as a reference throughout the SPArk. Let students know the chart is not finished. Ask students to continue to add ideas to the chart as they engage in the SPArk.


Teacher Note Fully plan the whole group discussion prior to engaging students. What are the goals or the desired outcomes for the discussion? What do you need students to understand now that they will use later?

For example, the purpose of this discussion is to expose students’ current understandings around talk and the idea of staying accountable to accurate knowledge. Students should be quickly sharing examples of what productive talk that values accurate knowledge looks like in action. Students will use these understandings as they begin to use the talk moves.

One useful part of planning is reading and answering the question on the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge sheet and developing your own responses prior to facilitating instruction. Based on your experience and knowledge of your students, you can form questions and prompts to guide the discussion towards the learning goals.

Teacher Note This is a good time to practice talk moves to encourage the continued building of community and pushing for clear evidence and reasoning as you lead the discussion about the talk and staying accountable to accurate knowledge.

Things to think about: • What talk moves do you have prepared to move the conversation towards the

desired outcome and encourage participation? • What contributions can you make to guide the discussion without dominating the

discussion? • What is the ratio of your voice being heard versus the voices of students? • Are you listening to student responses so that you can appropriately respond or

guide the discussion so others can respond? • Would it be helpful to revisit the norms or the student talk moves to remind

students to practice them during the discussion?

Use the Teacher Note box on page 20 to help you facilitate the discussion. If you feel comfortable, you can share with students that you are also practicing some new skills: active listening, monitoring your voice, encouraging all members of the community to actively participate and speak, and using talk moves to push for clearly communicated evidence and reasoning.


Teacher Note Accountable Talk Practices One way to monitor your contributions is to carefully choose the prompts and questions you direct towards students. Many prompts and questions encourage student contributions to the discussion, thus allowing you to direct the discussion with limited voice time. Try some of the examples below. Additional examples can be found in the Resources section in the back of the SPArk (see page 49).

Teacher Move

Function Example

Keeping the channels open

Ensure that students can hear each other, and remind them that they must hear what others have said.

“Did everyone just hear that?” “Please say back what _____ just said.”

Keeping everyone together

Ensure that everyone not only heard but also understood what a speaker said.

“Do you agree or disagree with what _______ just said? Explain your thinking.”

Linking contributions

Make explicit the relationship between a new contribution and what has gone before.

“Who wants to add on to…?” “What do you notice is missing?”

Pressing for accuracy

Hold students accountable for the accuracy, credibility, and clarity of their contributions.

“Where can we find that…?” “What is your evidence for that conclusion?” “Help us understand the idea you are referring to.”

Building on prior knowledge

Tie a current contribution back to knowledge accumulated by the class at a previous time.

“How does this connect…?” “How do we define ______ in this context?” “What else comes to mind given our discussion about ____?”

Pressing for reasoning

Elicit evidence and establish what contribution a student’s utterance is intended to make within the group’s larger enterprise.

“Why do you think that…?” “What evidence from the text supports your claim?” “How does this idea contrast with _____?”


Reflecting on Learning: Pair Work (10 minutes) Purposes: To give students a moment to reflect on what they learned. To make what students learned visible to themselves and others. • Post the following questions and ask students to take a few minutes to individually

respond to them: o What did you learn from today’s task? o What are some benefits of what you learned? o What are some limitations to what you learned?

• Ask students to take 5 minutes to discuss these questions with a partner. • Ask students to add to and record additional thoughts as they discuss the questions

with their partner. • Ask students to keep their reflections in a safe place to revisit during Task 1.

Teacher Note Be mindful of the vocabulary words built into this task. For example, in the reflection question “What are some limitations to what you learned?” it may be helpful to have students discuss their understanding of “limitations.” Students may have different interpretations of this word. While it is important that students have an accurate understanding of limitations, it is okay if they interpret its application to the question in different ways, based on their interpretation of the learning materials. Different interpretations lead to a more lively conversation!

Notes from the Field Students struggled with the reflection question concerning limitations. It may be beneficial to work with students to define the word and address that this question can be tackled in a variety of ways. The variety of responses lends interest and depth to the conversation. The What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? handout loosely defines limitations as “something that limits, a restriction.” Many students focused solely on their own limitations. Work to expand the conversation beyond this viewpoint. For example, are there limitations in the educational setting that limit the opportunities to engage in this type of talk, or is this way of speaking perceived differently in different communities?

You may have discussed this with students during SPArk 1: Productive Talk: Building Community. Continue to refine the conversation here as needed to push student understandings and thinking. Provide students the opportunity to think deeply about talk.


What Is a SPArk (Skill Practicing Add-On)? A SPArk is a series of tasks designed to help you develop and practice new skills and to strengthen the skills you already have. These skills are valuable not only in learning science, but also in other academic subjects and outside of the classroom. Well-developed skills are empowering. They can help you to be in control of your learning.

This SPArk works to help you achieve several goals. By the end, you will be able to • engage in productive talk that values and stays accountable to accurate knowledge. • engage in productive talk that deepens your own learning and the learning of others. • communicate understandings, ideas, and conclusions backed with evidence and

reasoning.

Fully participate in your education. The gains you make belong to you. Learning new skills and information can be invigorating, but learning can also be difficult and filled with struggle. The key is to Always Be Thinking (ABT). You will be reminded to ABT throughout the SPArk.

Part of participating in your education is reflecting on what you have learned and how you have learned it. Throughout this SPArk, you will be asked to reflect on your learning.

You also will be asked to consider the benefits and limitations of what you have learned. One definition of limitation is “something that limits, a restriction.” “Something” can be interpreted in many ways. “Something” could be in or outside of the classroom environment, a personal limitation, or a limitation in the scope or application of the learned knowledge. “Something” could have another interpretation as well. This question’s purpose is to encourage you to think deeply about and question the information you engage with.

It is important to question what you are learning. Throughout this SPArk, think about the following:

• How does this information further my learning? • What are the benefits and limitations to what I am learning? • What else might I need to learn or seek out?

Here’s your first reminder, Always Be Thinking.

A spark has the power to ignite a fire. This SPArk was designed to be one more tool to add to your academic toolbox to help ignite the flame that empowers you.


Norms for Working and Talking Together3 Academically productive conversations are valuable for promoting learning, although at first these conversations may be uncomfortable. In academically productive conversations, we expose our thinking to our learning community and make ourselves vulnerable to disagreement, challenge, or criticism. We ask each other to put our best thinking on the line before we are experts or certain we are correct. This means sharing our thoughts as we are still in the process of learning. We also ask each other to respond and challenge shared ideas in ways that might be construed as critical or unfriendly. We pose challenging problems, with no obvious or simple answer. We offer multiple solutions, develop alternative approaches, and argue with one another and with text. This kind of “exploratory” talk requires trust and respect. One way to help facilitate trust and respect is by establishing norms.

Norms for Working and Talking Together • Be present and engaged. • Include everyone’s voice—monitor air time and share your voice. • Challenge with respect. • Risk productive struggle.

You have the right to… You are obligated to…

• Make a contribution to an attentive, responsive audience.

• Ask questions that clarify and advance your understanding.

• Be treated civilly.

• Have your ideas discussed.

• Speak so that everyone can hear.

• Speak one at a time.

• Listen for understanding.

• Agree or disagree (and explain why) in response to other people’s ideas.

• Critique ideas, not people.

What, if anything, would you like to add?

3 Adapted from Setting the Stage for Accountable Talk Practices: Norms for Equitable and Respectful Participation


Speaking with Accurate Knowledge4 Accountable Talk conversations do not automatically spring from our mouths. It takes time and effort to create an environment in which this kind of talk is valued and is an integral part of the learning community. It requires active participation, attention to norms, trying out new ways to speak and engage in discussion, and listening to truly hear what others are communicating. Accountable Talk conversations are accountable to the learning community, to the knowledge and standards of evidence that are appropriate for the subject, and to generally accepted standards of reasoning. Here we focus on accountability to accurate knowledge.

Accountability to Accurate Knowledge Accountability to accurate knowledge means that when speakers make an observation or claim, they try to be as specific and accurate as possible, not just saying anything that comes to mind. Speakers should be concerned that what they are saying is true or supportable—that is, that they have their facts straight. If they make a statement or claim based on a text they have read, their reference to the text must be accurate and appropriate. In classrooms where accountability to accurate knowledge is the norm, students expect to ask and answer challenging questions, to work hard at “getting it right”: Is that data accurate? Where did it come from? What is your basis for that conclusion? Who said that? Where did you find that evidence? Their responses to such questions may cite specific evidence or an explanation gathered from text, data, or observations gathered from an investigation, or the responses may reference knowledge and understandings built in the course of discussion. Or they might offer an explanation or example grounded in knowledge from outside the classroom. But even this outside knowledge will be accurate, relevant, and accessible to the whole group—that is, something the group can refer to together. Students do not shut down discussion with emotive statements of personal preference or opinion that defy challenge.

How can we tell whether the talk in a classroom is accountable to accurate knowledge? There are consistent signs in such classrooms that both students and teacher consider themselves responsible for the accuracy and truth of their claims. We would see many instances in which students make specific reference to their classroom community’s previous “findings” to support their arguments and assertions. Topics they have studied together in the past are referred to in later discussions, where relevant. The learning community builds on the knowledge it has collectively acquired.

We will see students make reference to specific information: the source might be textbooks, books they have read inside or outside of class, or other sources including scientific investigations, data sets, models—3-D and virtual—visual representations, videos, and personal 4 Adapted from An Overview of Accountable Talk Practices


experience. The information—used to support claims and to strengthen an argument—will be specific and open for verification by others. In classrooms that are accountable to knowledge, we see teachers and students questioning unsupported claims and asking for additional information, facts, or knowledge that could be used to strengthen those claims. Students and teachers ask others to define terms; they also seek to define terms themselves. Finally, students and teachers will be on the lookout for points where additional knowledge is necessary. They will seek to identify factual evidence that is needed to address an issue. And they will frequently discuss how one might find the knowledge needed to make progress in a particular enterprise or problem.

Once again, in classrooms where students engage in this kind of talk, we can be sure that we will find a community that has invested time and effort in making sure to develop and sustain the relevant values and habits. We are likely to observe a wide array of teacher and student moves that support accountability to accurate knowledge, moves that will ensure that every discussion and instructional conversation values and pushes for accurate and relevant knowledge.

Quick Write: Take a moment to individually reflect on and brainstorm about talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge. Use the following question to guide your brainstorm:

• What does this kind of talk look like in action?

Always Be Thinking—Remember sources of inspiration are also found outside of traditional academic settings!

Be prepared to share your thoughts with others.


Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves Below are some ways to get started with talk and to be accountable to accurate knowledge. This list is not exhaustive. And the talk moves below might not be worded exactly how you might say something. Think about the intentions of the words. What are you trying to achieve with the words? What is the effect of your words? The way we use language is powerful in how we learn. Think about the power of your language.

• Wait, can you say that again? I want to make sure I understand your idea.

• Okay, let’s try to put our ideas together.

• Anybody notice anything that we are missing?

• I agree (or disagree) with (idea) because…

• Do you agree or disagree with what _______ just said?

• So far, we have discussed the following… What else do we need to think about?

• So, are you saying…?

• I hear you saying _____. Do I understand you correctly?

• What is your evidence?

• Can you show us where you found that?

• What evidence supports this?

• Is this a credible source for accurate information? How do we know?

• How do we define _________ in this context?

• How does this connect…?

Quick Write: Read through the statements above. Pick a few to look at more closely.

• What do you think is the intention of each?

• How might they help the community stay accountable to accurate knowledge?

As you work to stay accountable to accurate knowledge, add other statements you use to the list.


Task 1: Dissecting an Argument—Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge • What does talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge look and sound

like in action?

Duration Approximately 95 minutes

Why This Task Now? During the pre-work, students engaged in a text that exposed them to talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge. During this task, students will practice using talk moves as they engage with the Radiolab podcast Kill ‘Em All. This podcast will serve as an example of an argument. Using the transcript, students will stay accountable to accurate knowledge as they lay out the multiple perspectives from the podcast using evidence and reasoning.

Materials • Kill ‘Em All podcast by Radiolab5 • Handout: Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge • Handout: Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves • Organizer: Organizing Your Thinking • Kill ‘Em All transcript6 • Chart: Dissecting an Argument: Kill ‘Em All • Chart paper and different color markers

Teaching Approach Setting Up the Task: Whole Group (5 minutes) Purpose: To provide students with clear directions and expectations for Task 1: Dissecting an Argument—Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge. • Provide each student with the handout titled Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable

to Accurate Knowledge (found on page 33). Ask students to individually read the sheet, noting questions as they read.

• Review the sheet with students, giving them an opportunity to ask questions and clarify expectations.

5 Podcast can be downloaded from http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/ 6 Transcript can be found in the SPArk – Skill Practicing Add-On Productive Talk: Building Community, Accurate Knowledge, and Rigorous Thinking Student Reader.


Listening to Learn: Whole Group (25 minutes) Purpose: To listen to the Kill ‘Em All podcast from Radiolab, prior to dissecting the argument. • Provide each student with a copy of the Kill ‘Em All transcript. • Ask students to complete Listening to Learn, Step 1 on the Dissecting an Argument: Staying

Accountable to Accurate Knowledge handout as they listen to the podcast. • Play the Kill ‘Em All podcast to the whole class.

Teacher Note The Kill ‘Em All podcast by Radiolab can be played or downloaded from http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/. Note that the transcript timing varies slightly depending on the opening advertisements.

Monitoring Student Thinking: Pair Work (5 minutes) Purpose: To provide a safe environment for students to share their ideas and to hear the ideas of others. • Ask students to meet in pairs to complete Listening to Learn, Step 2 on the Dissecting an

Argument: Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge handout. • Remind students to refer back to the transcript as they are sharing with their partner, in

order to keep the discussion focused. • Ask students to use the talk moves on the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves

sheet (found on page 35) and to think about the intention and effect of their words as they discuss the podcast.

Monitoring Student Thinking: Pair Work (15 minutes) Purpose: To give students the opportunity to consider the multiple perspectives presented in relation to the podcast. • Provide each student with a copy of the Organizing Your Thinking organizer (found on

page 36). • Ask students to use the transcript to complete the Dissecting the Argument partner work

on the Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge handout. • Circulate around the room as students are working to provide support and assistance. As

you circulate, listen to students’ discussions and observe the questions they ask and information they are recording in their organizers. Identify ideas and questions you want to point out during the whole group discussion.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/kill-em-all/


Teacher Note

Accountable Talk Practices Continue to use your talk moves to encourage student learning as you wander between student groups. Be sure to push for clear evidence and reasoning as they discuss the different perspectives presented in the podcast and fill in the graphic organizer. Encourage students to use their own talk moves and the norms as they communicate their ideas. Additional examples of teacher moves can be found in the Resources section in the back of the SPArk (see page 49).

Teacher Move

Function Example


Ensure that everyone not only heard but also understood what a speaker said.




“Who wants to add on to…?” “What do you notice is missing?”



“Where can we find that…?” “What is your evidence for that conclusion?” “Help us understand the idea you are referring to.”



“How does this connect…?” “How do we define ______ in this context?” “What else comes to mind given our discussion about ____?”


Elicit evidence and establish what contribution a student’s utterance is intended to make within the group’s larger enterprise.

“Why do you think that…?” “What evidence from the text supports your claim?” “How does this idea contrast with _____?”


Guiding Students to Consensus: Whole Group (10 minutes) Purpose: To enable students to reach a common understanding about the perspectives in the Kill ‘Em All podcast. • Bring students together as a whole group. • Ask students to share the evidence and reasoning they recorded. • Remind students to refer to specific places in the podcast to support their responses and to

stay accountable to accurate knowledge. • Record students’ responses on chart paper. Title the chart Dissecting an Argument: Kill ‘Em

All. If helpful, recreate the Organizing Your Thinking organizer (found on page 36).

Important Continue to carefully choose prompts and questions to monitor your voice during the whole group discussion.

Teacher Note Fully plan prior to engaging students in the whole group discussion. What are the goals or the desired outcomes for the discussion? What do you need students to understand now that they will use later?

For example, the purpose of this discussion and task is for students to share their evidence and reasoning around the multiple perspectives heard in the podcast. Students should be sharing evidence they gathered directly from the transcript and how they came to their conclusions with solid reasoning. This is good practice for when students engage with the scientific arguments of others and as they form their own. If students get off track—for example, getting caught up in their own opinions of whether to kill mosquitoes—how will you guide them back to the purpose through questions and prompts? Also consider how you will make sure they are staying accountable to accurate knowledge and referencing evidence found in the transcript as they discuss the multiple perspectives.

One useful part of planning is completing the task and developing your own responses prior to facilitating instruction. Based on your experience and knowledge of your students, you can form questions and prompts to guide the discussion towards the learning goals.


Guiding Students to Consensus (15 minutes) Purpose: To enable students to reach a common understanding about talk in order to stay accountable to accurate knowledge. • Post the following questions and ask students to take a few minutes to individually respond to

them: o What were your experiences with purposefully staying accountable to accurate

knowledge? Where did you experience success? Where did you experience struggle? o Why would we work to incorporate and value accurate knowledge? How does it add to

your learning and the learning of others? • Ask students to turn to a partner and quickly share their experiences and responses. • Bring the students back together as a whole group. Ask students to share the moves they

used from the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves sheet and the new moves they added to the list. Ask students to provide specific examples as they share their experiences.

• Record students’ responses on chart paper. Revisit and add to the chart titled Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: What does it look and sound like?

Reflecting on Learning: Individual and Pair Work (10 minutes) Purposes: To give students a moment to reflect on what they learned. To make what students learned visible to themselves and others. • Provide students with the following questions:

o What did you learn from the SPArk? o What are some benefits of what you learned? o What are some limitations to what you learned?

• Ask students to take about 5 minutes to individually answer the questions above. Remind students they can also revisit the reflection questions they answered at the end of the pre-work.

• Ask students to discuss their responses to the questions with a partner. • Encourage students to add to their individual responses as they share their ideas and hear

the ideas of others.

Teacher Note Fully plan prior to engaging students in the whole group discussion. What are the goals or the desired outcomes for the discussion? What do you need students to understand now that they will use later?

For example, the purpose of this discussion is for students to share their experiences with staying accountable to accurate knowledge. Students should be thinking about the value of accurate knowledge and evidence in developing understandings around new ideas and concepts. Some students might be resistant to this idea. How will you use prompts and questions to get students on board, at least enough to see the possible value and agree to try it in the future? It may be helpful to remind students that this type of talk takes practice.


Monitoring Student Thinking: Whole Group Work (10 minutes) Purpose: To provide students an opportunity to share their own thoughts and to hear the thoughts of others. • Bring students together as a whole group. • Ask students to share their thoughts about the reflection questions from above. • Remind students to refer to specific places in the materials to support their responses.

Teacher Note Continue to practice monitoring your contributions as you lead the discussion about talk that stays accountable to accurate knowledge and that deepens our own learning and the learning of others.

Continue to think about the following: • What talk moves will be helpful in guiding the conversation? • What contributions can you make to guide the discussion without dominating the

discussion? • Are you listening to student responses so that you can appropriately respond or

guide the discussion so others can respond?


Dissecting an Argument: Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge

We are often exposed to multiple interpretations of information and data in science. Being able to identify multiple sides to a scientific argument is an important skill both in and out of the science classroom.

Purpose Today you will engage with the Kill ‘Em All podcast from Radiolab. The podcast presents the idea of getting rid of mosquitoes. Our purpose today is to dissect the argument presented in the podcast.

As you listen to the podcast, listen to how the speakers explain and push their own thinking. Challenge yourself to also push your own thinking as you hear different perspectives. Throughout, be sure to stay accountable to accurate knowledge by citing evidence from the podcast. And importantly, remember throughout to ABT (Always Be Thinking).

Staying Accountable to Accurate Knowledge As you dissect the argument presented in the podcast, you will also be asked to work on the talk moves you learned during the pre-work. As you engage with your team, mark the talk moves you use on the Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves sheet. Add any new moves you use to the list.

Listening to Learn Step 1: As a whole group, listen to the Kill ‘Em All podcast. As you listen, do three things:

• Follow along using the provided transcript. • Mark places that you find interesting, confusing, or surprising. • Mark places where you hear different perspectives on getting rid of mosquitoes in order

to revisit later. Don’t try to catch everything. Be sure to mark these places in a different way from how you marked the interesting, confusing, and surprising places so you can easily distinguish between the two later.

Step 2: With a partner, share and discuss the following: • What did you find interesting, confusing, or surprising about the content of the podcast? • What different perspectives did you hear around the idea of killing mosquitoes?


Dissecting the Argument Listening to this podcast allows us to hear the multiple perspectives of the speakers. Complementing the audio with a transcript helps us to look closer at the words of the speakers so we can break down the argument. Argument can mean different things. When we speak about an argument in science, we are referring to a claim that is supported by evidence and reasoning. These terms are defined in the box below.

Arguments in Science Claim: An assertion (statement) based on scientific evidence that answers the original question, prompt, or problem.

Evidence: Data and evidence used to support the claim. Evidence includes facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples.

Reasoning: The justification that links the claim and evidence. Includes appropriate and accurate scientific principles to make clear connections between the claim and evidence. Reasoning explains why the provided evidence supports the claim.

Working with a partner, consider the multiple perspectives presented throughout the podcast. • Revisit the transcript. Identify places where you see examples of the multiple

perspectives. • Record evidence of the multiple perspectives in the Organizing Your Thinking sheet.

Record the gist of the ideas and cite line numbers so you can quickly refer back to the transcript as needed.


Speaking with Accurate Knowledge: Talk Moves Below are some ways to get started with talk and to be accountable to accurate knowledge. This list is not exhaustive. And the talk moves below might not be worded exactly how you might say something. Think about the intentions of the words. What are you trying to achieve with the words? What is the effect of your words? The way we use language is powerful in how we learn. Think about the power of your language.

• Wait, can you say that again? I want to make sure I understand your idea.

• Okay, let’s try to put our ideas together.

• Anybody notice anything that we are missing?

• I agree (or disagree) with (idea) because…

• Do you agree or disagree with what _______ just said?

• So far, we have discussed the following… What else do we need to think about?

• So, are you saying…?

• I hear you saying _____. Do I understand you correctly?

• What is your evidence?

• Can you show us where you found that?

• What evidence supports this?

• Is this a credible source for accurate information? How do we know?

• How do we define _________ in this context?

• How does this connect…?

• Add the talk moves you come up with to the list.

© 2

017

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

PITT

SBU

RGH

– SP

Ark:

Pro

duct

ive

Talk

: Acc

urat

e Kn

owle

dge

3

6

Org

aniz

ing

Your

Thi

nkin

g U

se th

e gr

aphi

c or

gani

zer b

elow

to re

cord

the

diffe

rent

per

spec

tives

you

obs

erve

dur

ing

the

podc

ast.

The

“cla

ims”

are

giv

en in

the

tabl

e. R

ecor

d th

e ev

iden

ce a

nd re

ason

ing

prov

ided

dur

ing

the

podc

ast t

o su

ppor

t the

mul

tiple

per

spec

tives

. Don

’t w

orry

abo

ut w

hat i

s ev

iden

ce a

nd w

hat i

s rea

soni

ng. F

ocus

inst

ead

on u

nder

stan

ding

the

diffe

rent

per

spec

tives

. Use

the

char

t to

guid

e yo

ur th

inki

ng, b

ut

don’

t let

the

char

t for

ce y

ou in

to a

par

ticul

ar fo

rmat

. It’s

oka

y if

your

thin

king

and

reco

rdin

g ar

e a

bit m

essy

. Fee

l fre

e to

use

dra

win

gs,

diffe

rent

col

ors,

and

add

ition

al p

aper

whe

n he

lpfu

l. Sa

ve ti

me

and

spac

e by

cap

turin

g th

e gi

st o

f wha

t is s

aid

and

citin

g th

e lin

e nu

mbe

r fo

r lat

er re

fere

nce

to th

e tr

ansc

ript.

As y

ou c

aptu

re th

e gi

st, b

e tr

ue to

acc

urat

e kn

owle

dge

and

wor

k to

acc

urat

ely

capt

ure

the

thou

ghts

of t

he sp

eake

rs.

Pers

pect

ive

1 Ki

ll th

e m

osqu

itoes

. Pe

rspe

ctiv

e 2

Don’

t kill

the

mos

quito

es.

Pers

pect

ive

3 O

ther


Resources


An Overview of Accountable Talk Practices An excerpt from IFL’s Accountable Talk® Sourcebook: For Classroom Conversation That Works with updated sections by Sarah Michaels and Mary Catherine O’Connor.

1. Why Talk? How Might Talk Promote Learning?

We have achieved a national consensus regarding the importance of academically productive talk in school. We are told it is important to promote talk in all instructional domains—at all grade levels, across all subject areas. All of the major teacher organizations and all of the recent National Research Council consensus reports highlight and emphasize the need to involve students actively in “communication” about their thinking and investigations, encouraging students to use evidence to support their claims, conjectures, predictions, and explanations (reports from NCTM, NSTA, NRC). Why this emphasis on talk? How might talk promote learning? What kind of talk might promote learning?

ACADEMIC BENEFITS OF TALK

There are many ways in which talk promotes learning in school. Some of the benefits relate directly to learning academic content.

Talk—discussion, theorizing, student presentations, and argument—helps make thinking visible and serves as a window on student understanding and learning. If students talk about the content they’re studying, teachers can see what they don’t understand… and what they do understand. And students, themselves, may realize what they don’t understand and what they do understand. In this way, talk about academic content helps teachers and students “take stock” of where they are and assess ongoing learning, so that instruction can be tailored to build on students’ current understandings and advance their thinking in productive ways.

Talk supports robust learning by boosting memory. Talk is a rich source of information, and plays a part in developing almost every memory we form. By hearing about (and talking about) concepts, procedures, representations, and data, our memories have more to work with than from simply reading textbooks and listening to lectures. Talk provides food for thought. Humans learn by observing, listening, and doing. If students listen to other students talk about reasoning and problem solving, it gives them more to think about. By hearing about how others think, and by listening to what others say, our view of the problem at hand expands. By talking about and hearing others talk about academic content, we begin to see these concepts, procedures, and representations from more angles, and make links to other concepts and meanings we already have. This helps us remember new ideas, terms, or concepts, and develop a richer set of associations with them, so that we can remember and use them in new contexts.

Talk supports language development. When talk is used intensively in classes, students may get a richer sense of what words and phrases mean, and when and how to use them. By using academic terminology, students build


their own ability to remember new “ways with words” and to participate actively and thoughtfully when others use them.

Productive talk helps students to develop their ability to reason well, using evidence. All children come to school as adept language users, able to think abstractly, and argue for what they think is right. But not all children have been exposed to the kind of reasoning and explaining that is valued in school and later in public life. This kind of talk requires that speakers explicate their thinking clearly so that others can hear and understand their ideas and that they use evidence that others have access to in order to support their claims. Engaging in talk in school where students are encouraged to explain their ideas and support their ideas with evidence gives students practice doing this: explicating claims, providing evidence, and linking their claims and evidence so that others can see that their evidence is relevant and credible. With guided practice, students’ logical and evidence-based reasoning improves. This improvement in reasoning with evidence is also reflected in students’ writing and performance on standardized tests.

Productive talk apprentices students to practice in the disciplines. Different disciplines have their own norms and valued forms of talk, presentation, and writing. The disciplines differ with respect to what counts as evidence and how to organize an argument or procedure so that others in the discipline recognize it as cogent and credible. Norms for evidence in history—for example, the importance of sourcing and corroboration in evaluating primary source documents—differ from norms of evidence and standards of reasoning in a language arts discussion about an interpretation in a short story. Similarly, different kinds of evidence are required and valued in explaining a conjecture or generating a proof in mathematics as opposed to explaining a phenomenon in science. Even though both mathematics and science require evidence and logical reasoning, it is sometimes said that mathematics is about managing certainty while science is about managing uncertainty! The point here is that all academic domains require argument with warranted evidence, but the nature of the evidence and goals of reasoning and forms of persuasion differ.

SOCIAL BENEFITS OF ACADEMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TALK

In addition to these academic or content-related learning benefits, talk is also important in helping students develop socially, becoming productive and collaborative members of a group.

Students learn to listen carefully to their peers, take their ideas seriously, and challenge ideas respectfully and constructively. As students participating in discussions are guided to listen attentively (indeed, listen hard enough so that they could repeat what another classmate has just said), they learn the practices and habits of mind of good “colleagues” and collaborators. They take one another seriously as thinkers, and evaluate the content of others’ contributions, challenging ideas not people. Students learn to take their turns, to wait patiently while others work to explicate their ideas, and they learn to work hard at explaining their thinking so that others can hear and understand what they’re saying. This takes time, practice, and effort, but students become skilled at presenting complex ideas so that others can build on them and improve them. These social skills are, of course, also intricately related to learning. A group of skillful, engaged, and


respectful communicators become better learners over time. It takes time to induct students into this kind of “talk culture,” but once developed, the entire group learns more effectively and efficiently.

Students learn that thinking and talking about complex ideas takes time and effort, but that they can do it. Over time, this builds confidence in one’s ability to explain one’s ideas, to figure things out with others, and a willingness to persist in the face of intellectual challenges. Students learn that it pays to put in effort, to ask questions when something is unclear, and that everyone can get smarter with effort and practice. These ideas about effort help them become better learners over time.

Students learn to take risks and are motivated to go public with their ideas, even if they are not sure that they are correct. When students believe that others are interested in their ideas, and believe that reasoning with evidence is more important than simply having the correct answer, they become motivated to engage in exploratory reasoning talk. They are willing to try out ideas before they are fully formed, so that others can hear them and think with them. They become motivated to hear others’ views so that they can, in turn, think with them. This promotes a classroom culture that values effort (over ability), and students come to feel as if they have a stake in the conversation, and are legitimate contributors and “players” in the game. Students begin to realize that everyone (they as well as their peers) can get smarter with effort, and students begin to speak up when they don’t understand something. This, in turn, motivates others to explain their thinking more clearly, so there is a spiraling effect in which additional effort increases everyone’s motivation to participate, think hard, and take risks. The group effect makes for productive learning and benefits individuals.

2. What Talk Is Not Academically Productive?

All of the previous material on how talk supports learning assumes that the talk is what we call “academically productive” talk or Accountable Talk practices. But what does that mean? What are the characteristics of talk that promotes learning? Isn’t all talk academically productive? Unfortunately, there is a great deal of research on classroom talk that robustly and reliably demonstrates that the answer to this question is no! Not all talk is academically productive.

There is an extensive research base on classroom discourse which examines the nature of classroom talk and the relationship between talk and learning in school. Researchers and experienced classroom teachers alike know that simply getting students to talk out loud or talk to one another does not necessarily lead to learning. What matters is what students are talking about and how they talk. When students are merely chatting about social events and personal matters—or if they are simply going through the motions of discussion without really working on a learning problem—the talk distracts from their learning rather than advancing it.

Teachers in the United States, at all grade levels (Pre-K through university) have a hard time leading productive discussions in which students explicate their positions with evidence, and other students build on or critique these ideas, and the group, together, develops complex conceptual understanding, interpretations or explanations, bolstered with evidence. Teachers


tend, instead, to do something we might call “group recitation.” Extensive research shows that this is the most common (default) pattern of talk in classrooms throughout the country, and it’s a very familiar scene: The teacher asks a question, (typically a question the teacher knows the answer to), a student replies (usually a short reply) and the teacher evaluates, (saying, “Right,” or “not quite,” or “who else has an idea?”). Some people have talked about this as a teacher lecture elicited out of the mouths of the students.

This is often called the IRE pattern: I – Initiation R – Response E – Evaluation

(Chances are great that this is the kind of classroom talk most teachers experienced when they were students.) Many have noted that the recitation, or the IRE, can be very helpful for reviewing material, or checking to see what the students recall, and it does give the teacher a great deal of control over the topic and who speaks.

However, the IRE pattern does not support complex reasoning, or the building and weighing of arguments. It emphasizes correctness over reasoning, and once the correct answer is offered, the conversation is closed down, rather than opened up. The teacher then moves on to a different question and a different student. The conversation proceeds with the teacher holding a series of exchanges with individual students—Teacher-Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher-Student—without cross-talk among the students in which they consider others’ ideas, agree or disagree, and explain their own reasoning. Indeed, in recitation, there is rarely any overt linkage between the ideas or answers of different students. Moreover, within each IRE segment, the teacher is always positioned as the final authority, the one who HAS the answer. The student is positioned as the “getter” of the answer in the teacher’s head. Students are either correct or incorrect and thus publicly shown to be either right or wrong (which often is interpreted as either smart or not smart). Typically only a few students (and usually the same few) students volunteer to take a turn. Because of the emphasis on correctness over reasoning, the IRE pattern has been linked in research on student motivation to “performance goals” (whereby students act in such a way as to look smart) rather than to “learning goals” (whereby students participate so as to really understand and learn).

In short, the IRE format doesn’t create a classroom culture that promotes risk-taking or effort, where students work hard at explicating their ideas, at requesting clarification of others, responding to or building upon the ideas of others, or building and weighing complex arguments with evidence.

While the IRE is often used in reviewing material (such as what was done the day before) or checking to see what students recall about a topic or remind them what they have already learned it, is not the most effective way to do this. Students who do not feel confident do not participate, so their understanding is not assessed. Students who give correct answers might have serious misconceptions that are never voiced because their responses are not probed more deeply. Students, especially older students, who are independent-minded and self-respecting, often withdraw from talk in which they feel they are being “used” to make a


teacher’s point, or appear as “model students” in the eyes of the rest of the class. Finally, IRE talk reveals answers, but it does not reveal and recall students’ knowledge nearly as well as more open-ended talk in which students draw upon their prior knowledge to offer predictions or conclusions about a new problem. As Bloom notes in his Taxonomy, lower-level factual knowledge is involved in, and therefore revealed in, higher-level thinking activities.

Another common form of talk is “sharing” or collecting students’ evaluative opinions or personal reminiscences related to a topic. Often the goal is the worthwhile one of helping students connect with prior knowledge or promoting students’ understanding of each other’s background and perspectives. While this kind of talk can be useful, it is not as academically productive as the kinds of discussions featuring Accountable Talk practices that we will focus on here. This kind of talk typically begins with teachers asking students what experience they have had with a topic in general. As students respond, the teacher simply encourages more responses, since there is no logical reason to ask students to clarify or support their accounts of their own opinions or experiences. Sharing is not really discussion, because there is no reasonable way students can challenge, support, or build on each other’s opinions; each opinion is equally valid as an expression of the individual’s perspective. Even when students go off topic, the teacher can hardly focus the talk without contravening the basic premise, that whatever students say is of value. The sharing session is used by many teachers to “get students talking,” but while younger students often participate enthusiastically, older students may feel wary or dismissive of this kind of talk.

As alternatives to whole group recitation or “sharing” of ideas, teachers rely heavily on group work. In unsupervised groups, students are often off task, unproductive, or not nice to one another. Many group tasks are not ideal for groups. The high status students often dominate.

3. What Are Accountable Talk Practices? What Do They Look And Sound Like?

In contrast to the IRE recitation format, anything-goes “sharing ideas” talk, or unsupervised (and often dysfunctional) group work, academically productive talk looks quite different. Academically productive talk—or Accountable Talk practices—is talk in which students exert effort to explain their thinking with evidence and to listen and respond constructively to others’ ideas, in order to make progress in solving a challenging problem, interpreting a text, or conducting an investigation. It is talk that promotes learning.

For classroom talk to promote learning it must be accountable: to the learning community, to accurate and appropriate knowledge, and to rigorous thinking. Accountable Talk practices involves talk that seriously responds to and further develops what others in the group have said. It puts forth and demands knowledge that is accurate and relevant to the issue under discussion. This kind of academically productive talk uses evidence appropriate to the discipline (e.g., proofs in mathematics, data from investigations in science, textual references in literature, documentary sources in history) and follows established norms of good reasoning. It sharpens students’ thinking by reinforcing their ability to use and create knowledge.

Accountable Talk conversations do not spring spontaneously from students’ mouths. It takes time and effort to create a classroom environment in which this kind of talk is a valued norm. It requires teachers to guide and scaffold student participation. Teachers create the norms and


skills of academically productive talk in their classrooms by modeling appropriate forms of discussion and by questioning, probing, and leading conversations. For example, teachers may press for clarification and explanation, require justifications of proposals and challenges, recognize and challenge misconceptions, demand evidence for claims and arguments, or interpret and “revoice” students’ statements. Over time, students are expected to carry out each of these conversational “moves” themselves in peer discussions. Once the norms for conversation within the classroom have been established, Accountable Talk practices are jointly constructed by teachers and students, working together towards rigorous academic purposes in a thinking curriculum.

Conversations in the classroom can take a wide variety of forms: whole class discussion, small group work, partner talk, or peer or teacher conferences. But regardless of which form is used, talk should be accountable to the learning community, to knowledge and the standards of evidence that are appropriate for the subject, and to generally accepted standards of reasoning. These forms of accountability can be seen in what the students say and in what the teacher says. They are supported by classroom norms and recurring activities as well as by carefully designed tasks.

All students have a right to engage in Accountable Talk practices, not just the “best and brightest,” nor only those who are struggling in school. It is not something that should be limited to special times of the day, or to special groups of students. And we should expect to find Accountable Talk practices across all grade levels and in all subject areas.

The process of Socializing Intelligence (one of the Institute for Learning’s nine Principles of Learning) takes place in and through talk. Intelligence is much more than an innate ability to think quickly and stockpile bits of information. Intelligence is a set of problem-solving and reasoning capabilities along with the habits of mind that lead one to use those capabilities regularly. It is also a set of beliefs about one’s right and obligation to understand and make sense of the world and one’s capacity to figure things out over time. Intelligent habits of mind are learned through daily expectations placed on the learner. By calling on students to use the skills of intelligent thinking—and by holding them responsible for doing so—educators can teach intelligence.

Accountability to the Learning Community When classroom talk is accountable to the learning community, students listen to one another, not just obediently keeping quiet until it is their turn to take the floor, but attending carefully so that they can use and build on one another’s ideas. Students and teachers paraphrase and expand upon one another's contributions. If speakers aren’t sure they understood what someone else said, they make an effort to clarify. They disagree respectfully, challenging a claim, not the person who made it. Students move the argument forward, sometimes with the teacher’s help, sometimes on their own.

Obviously, this kind of talk calls for a certain amount of patience, restraint, and focused effort on the part of students and teachers alike. A youngster who experiences a blinding insight in the middle of a discussion may need to be reminded not to trample all over her classmates’ talk in her eagerness to express her thoughts. An adolescent trying out a new idea in front of his peers may need encouragement to articulate his position. And educators, with limited time to


help their students reach the standards, must skillfully balance unwavering attention to their learning goals with moments where a discussion “takes a detour.” There are times when something unplanned but significant happens: an unusual comment by a student, evidence of divergent understandings of a particular term, an unexpected outcome of an experiment. Teachers must make on-the-spot judgments about whether to maintain the focus and coherence of the lesson as planned, or to take advantage of a “teachable moment.” They must weigh the costs and benefits of shifting course in mid-stream. They must find ways to balance the challenge of keeping the talk focused and academically rigorous with the challenge of including all members of the classroom community as valued, engaged participants, attending to differences in students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds, previous academic preparation, and interests. Often, those who do not teach fail to realize the complexity of what goes on in the classroom, and thus underestimate the accomplishments of teachers who skillfully use academically productive talk in their classrooms.

How can we tell whether the talk in a classroom is accountable to the community? There are consistent signs in such classrooms that one can easily spot. Over the course of a few classes, we would see students actively participating in talk together. We would probably notice that each student is able to participate in several different kinds of talk activities using appropriate tone and content. We would notice students listening attentively to one another, with a minimum of interruptions. While students would consistently pay attention to other students’ contributions, there would be a climate of respect, trust, and risk-taking, with challenges, criticism, or disagreements directed at ideas, not at individuals. We would see students making sure that they understand the previous contributions, asking for clarification where necessary, and willingly clarifying their own contributions for others, building up an argument or complex idea together.

In classrooms where students engage in this kind of talk, we can be sure that we will find a teacher who has carefully laid the groundwork for classroom norms that support it. We are likely to observe a wide array of teacher moves that support accountability to the community, moves that help students and teachers jointly create talk that is responsive to the community.

Accountability to Accurate Knowledge Accountability to accurate knowledge means that when speakers make an observation or claim, they try to be as specific and accurate as possible, not just saying anything that comes to mind. Speakers should be concerned that what they are saying is true or supportable—that is, that they have their facts straight. If they make a statement or claim based on a text they have read, their reference to the text must be accurate and appropriate. In classrooms where accountability to accurate knowledge is the norm, students expect to ask and answer challenging questions, to work hard at “getting it right”: Are those statistics accurate? Where did they come from? What is your basis for that conclusion? Who said that? When did that event take place? Their responses to such questions may cite a specific passage from a text that they are working with or refer to knowledge built in the course of discussion. Or they might offer an explanation or example grounded in knowledge from outside the classroom. But even this outside knowledge will be accurate, relevant, and accessible to the whole group—that is, something that they can refer to together. Students do not shut down discussion with emotive statements of personal preference or opinion that defy challenge.


How can we tell whether the talk in a classroom is accountable to accurate knowledge? There are consistent signs in such classrooms that both students and teacher consider themselves responsible for the accuracy and truth of their claims. We would see many instances in which students make specific reference to their classroom community’s previous “findings” to support their arguments and assertions. Topics they have studied together in the past are referred to in later discussions, where relevant. The learning community builds on the knowledge it has collectively acquired.

Whether in English language arts, mathematics, science or social studies, we will see students make reference to specific information: the source might be textbooks, books they have read inside or outside of class, or other sources including films, television and personal experience. The information—used to support claims and to bolster argument—will be specific and open for verification by others. In classrooms that are accountable to knowledge, we see teachers and students questioning unsupported claims and asking for information, facts, or knowledge that could be used to strengthen those claims. Students and teachers ask others to define terms. Finally, students and teachers will be on the lookout for points where additional knowledge is necessary. They will seek to identify factual evidence that is needed to address an issue. And they will frequently discuss how one might find the knowledge needed to make progress in a particular enterprise or problem.

Once again, in classrooms where students engage in this kind of talk, we can be sure that we will find a teacher who has invested time and effort in making sure that students develop and sustain the relevant values and habits. We are likely to observe a wide array of teacher moves that support accountability to accurate knowledge, moves that will ensure that every discussion and instructional conversation foregrounds accurate and relevant knowledge.

Accountability to Rigorous Thinking If accountability to accurate knowledge can be thought of as getting the facts straight, accountability to rigorous thinking has to do with building a line of argument. Making cogent and compelling arguments requires linking together claims and evidence (facts) in a logical, coherent, and rigorous manner. When classroom talk is held to rigorous thinking standards, students and teachers consistently push for clear statements of claims (positions, explanations, or predictions) and sound reasoning in backing up those claims with evidence.

Teachers and students examine evidence critically, knowing that just having accurate facts is not, in and of itself, enough. The evidence presented has to be “good” or what is often called “warranted” evidence. Beyond merely being accurate, the evidence has to be sufficient (e.g., a claim about people in North America vs. people in Europe needs to be based on more than an informal survey of a few people from Chicago and an exchange student from Paris). The facts must be credible (information quoted from The Washington Post is more authoritative than information quoted from an unnamed source in the National Enquirer or downloaded from an unrefereed bulletin board on the Web). The facts must be relevant to the claim being made (information about Japan, however accurate and authoritative, will probably not be germane to an argument about North Americans vs. Europeans). And the claim must be appropriately qualified (if all the evidence for a particular claim comes from interviewing people from New York City, it might not be fair to generalize to the entire population of North America).


Distinguishing sharply between accountability to knowledge and accountability to rigorous thinking is not easy because they so often go hand in hand. It is possible, of course, to have rigorous and cogent reasoning, but with a factually false premise. It is possible to have inadequate or incorrect evidence for ones claims. Similarly, it is possible to have well- researched, factually accurate evidence that is not directly relevant to the claim one is making. The evidence, while counting as accurate knowledge, simply does not warrant the conclusion drawn. Thus it is possible to distinguish between factual knowledge and standards of reasoning, but in practice, they are intertwined and both necessary.

Disciplines vary in the types of evidence they value. When students are digging into a good poem or story, for instance, they might be trying to sense how the words and rhythms create tension or convey emotions. No one expects a student to provide a “proof” for her claim that a verse evoked a particular emotional response. Within a social studies lesson, students may marshal historical facts to support a position that begins as an “opinion.” But if a student explaining his thinking about a fractions problem were to say, “I think the 4 stays the same because it just feels right that way,” he is not being accountable to the standards of evidence that apply in the discipline of mathematics. That it “feels right” might be recognized as an intuition and valued as such as a starting point. But it would be appropriate to ask the student to examine this intuition and push for a more mathematically relevant basis for it. There are thus different standards of evidence in different fields, and students need to be inducted into those different kinds of academic communities. As early as first grade, we can begin to socialize students into those different worlds.

It takes effort and time to teach students to adhere to rigorous thinking standards. In a classroom that is accountable to rigorous thinking, we may not always see perfectly structured arguments and reasoning. What we will see, however, is consistent attention to the quality of claims and arguments: How well supported is a claim? Is the evidence good? Sufficient? Authoritative? Relevant? Unbiased? In seeking to build sound and rigorous arguments, students and teachers ask questions that test their own understanding of concepts, redefine or change explanations as needed, and identify their own biases. They draw comparisons and contrasts among the ideas presented as evidence and indicate to what degree they accept the evidence and claims.

In classroom talk that is accountable to generally accepted standards of reasoning, students use data, examples, analogies, and hypothetical “what-if” scenarios to make arguments and support claims. Students are encouraged to seek out different kinds of supporting evidence, strengthening an argument by using a variety of sources to support it. Students and teachers assess and challenge the soundness of each other’s evidence and quality of reasoning, often posing counter-examples and extreme case comparisons to illustrate a point. Hidden assumptions are uncovered and examined. Students and teachers consistently ask one another to show why the evidence used to support a claim is accountable to rigorous thinking.

In emphasizing accountability to rigorous thinking in classrooms, regardless of content area, one central purpose is to create a public arena where arguments can be explicated more fully and made public, looked at by others, interrogated, and developed further. We want students to learn ways to expand and improve their reasoning, making their ideas clear and compelling


to others, in part by making their contributions elaborated and explicit. We want students to dig deep, to question their underlying assumptions, to evaluate the adequacy of their evidence, and to see things from a variety of perspectives. Explicating one’s reasoning in words or in writing makes it public and available for others (or oneself) to assess, critique, question, or challenge.

4. How Does an Understanding of Accountability to the Learning Community, Accurate Knowledge, and Rigorous Thinking Help Practitioners Institute or Improve Accountable Talk Practices?

Think of the accountabilities to the learning community, to accurate knowledge, and to rigorous thinking as the conceptual underpinning or framework for what Accountable Talk practices look like in the classroom. Determining the extent to which each of these are visible in any classroom will help a practitioner take the “talk temperature” of a classroom. But these different kinds of accountability are not the most useful tools for changing practice. It is often difficult to distinguish between talk that is accountable to knowledge and talk that is accountable to rigorous reasoning, because they are so often intertwined. And some talk moves can support accountability to community, knowledge, and reasoning all at the same time. Thus the accountabilities are often hard to keep separate in one’s mind in the fast pace of classroom talk, and are not the best level to concentrate on in action.


Accountable Talk Moves and Functions in Science

Talk Move Function Example

To ensure purposeful, coherent, and productive group discussion

Marking Direct attention to the value and importance of a student’s contribution.

“I hear you saying _____. Let’s keep this idea in mind.” “Here’s one way scientific knowledge develops…” “Let’s mark this. This is important to understand…”

Challenging Redirect a question back to the students or use student’s contributions as a source for a further challenge or inquiry.

“What do you mean by this?” “What evidence supports this?”

Modeling Make one’s thinking public and demonstrate a total performance in order to help learners understand the essence of the activity and to develop a mental picture of what the real thing looks like.

“Here’s an example of a way to tackle this problem…” “Here’s a way to approach this text…”

Recapping

Make public in a concise, coherent way, the group’s developed, shared understanding of the content or text under discussion.

“Let’s put these ideas together. What have we discovered?” “So far, we have discussed the following… What else do we need to address?”

Revoicing Align a student’s less explicit explanation with content, or connect two or more ideas (science content or practices) with the goal of advancing the discussion of the content.

“You are saying the male parent is capital D, capital D. Another way of describing his genotype is homozygous dominant.”

To support accountability to the learning community

Keeping the channels open

Ensure that students can hear each other, and remind them that they must hear what others have said.

“Did everyone just hear that?” “Please say back what _____ just said.”


Ensure that everyone not only heard, but also understood what a speaker said.




“Who wants to add on to …?” “What do you notice is missing?”

Verifying and clarifying

Revoice a student’s contribution, thereby helping both speakers and listeners to engage more profitably in the conversation.

“So, are you saying…?” “Who understood what was just said? Can you repeat it in your own words?” OR “Can you say more and help us understand?”


Talk Move Function Example

To support accountability to accurate knowledge



“Where can we find that…?” “What’s your evidence for that conclusion?” “What evidence supports this?” “Help us understand the science language (or idea) you are referring.”



“How does this connect…?” “How do we define ______ in this context?” “What else comes to mind given our discussion about ____________?”

To support accountability to rigorous thinking


Elicit evidence and establish how a student’s contribution adds to the group’s understanding.

“Explain why you think that…” “What evidence supports your thinking?” “How does this idea connect to _____?”

Expanding reasoning

Open up extra time and space in the conversation for student reasoning.

“Take your time… say more.” “Given what we just read (or observed) and discussed, what would you now say about ______?”


Standards Addressed in the SPArk

The SPArk exposes students to science content; however, its primary purpose is to acquaint students with new skills. During the three days of instruction, students are exposed to standards and practices found in the Next Generation Science Standards and science literacy standards found in the Common Core State Standards. The standards and practices students are exposed to during the SPArk should continue to be utilized during future instruction to support the learning of and to deepen the understanding of the science content and practices, and developing science literacy.

Next Generation Science Standards7

Science and Engineering Practices The SPArk exposes students to Practices 7 and 8 in the Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. In Task 1, students are asked to consider and decipher multiple perspectives presented in a scientific argument. Students should continually be asked to engage with and use the practices throughout everyday science instruction.

Practice 7: Engaging in Argument from Evidence The study of science and engineering should produce a sense of the process of argument necessary for advancing and defending a new idea or an explanation of a phenomenon and the norms for conducting such arguments. In that spirit, students should argue for the explanations they construct, defend their interpretations of the associated data, and advocate for the designs they propose. —Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS, p. 62

Practice 8: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information Being able to read, interpret, and produce scientific and technical text is a fundamental practice of science and engineering, as is the ability to communicate clearly and persuasively. Being a critical consumer of information about science and engineering requires the ability to read or view reports of scientific or technological advances or applications (whether found in the press, the Internet, or in a town meeting) and to recognize the salient ideas, identify sources of error and methodological flaws, distinguish observations from inferences, arguments from explanations, and claims from evidence. Scientists and engineers employ multiple sources to obtain information used to evaluate the merit and validity of claims, methods, and designs. Communicating information, evidence, and ideas can be done in multiple ways: using tables, diagrams, graphs, models, interactive displays, and equations as well as orally, in writing, and through extended discussions. —Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS, p. 64

7 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/NGSS%20Combined%20Topics%2011.8.13.pdf


In Task 1, students engage with a podcast that explores different perspectives around the idea of getting rid of mosquitoes. This idea touches upon multiple standards; however, additional instruction is needed to fully engage students in the full intent of the next generation science standards—disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting standards and science and engineering practices—to prepare students for the performance expectations.

HS-LS2. Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics

Performance Expectations Students who demonstrate understanding can: HS-LS2-6. Evaluate the claims, evidence, and reasoning that the complex interactions in ecosystems maintain relatively consistent numbers and types of organisms in stable conditions, but changing conditions may result in a new ecosystem. [Clarification Statement: Examples of changes in ecosystem conditions could include modest biological or physical changes, such as moderate hunting or a seasonal flood; and, extreme changes, such as volcanic eruption or sea level rise.]

Disciplinary Core Ideas Crosscutting Concepts

LS2.C: Ecosystem Dynamics, Functioning, and Resilience • A complex set of interactions within an

ecosystem can keep its numbers and types of organisms relatively constant over long periods of time under stable conditions. If a modest biological or physical disturbance to an ecosystem occurs, it may return to its more or less original status (i.e., the ecosystem is resilient), as opposed to becoming a very different ecosystem. Extreme fluctuations in conditions or the size of any population, however, can challenge the functioning of ecosystems in terms of resources and habitat availability. (HS-LS2-6)

Stability and Change • Much of science deals with the

constructing of explanations of how things change and how they remain stable. (HS-LS2-6)


HS-LS2. Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics

Performance Expectations Students who demonstrate understanding can: HS-LS2-7. Design, evaluate, and refine a solution for reducing the impacts of human activities on the environment and biodiversity. [Clarification Statement: Examples of human activities can include urbanization, building dams, and dissemination of invasive species.]

Disciplinary Core Ideas Crosscutting Concepts

LS4.D: Biodiversity and Humans • Biodiversity is increased by the formation of

new species (speciation) and decreased by the loss of species (extinction). (secondary to HS-LS2-7)

• Humans depend on the living world for the resources and other benefits provided by biodiversity. But human activity is also having adverse impacts on biodiversity through overpopulation, overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, and climate change. Thus sustaining biodiversity so that ecosystem functioning and productivity are maintained is essential to supporting and enhancing life on Earth. Sustaining biodiversity also aids humanity by preserving landscapes of recreational or inspirational value. (secondary to HS-LS2-7)

ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions • When evaluating solutions it is important to

take into account a range of constraints including cost, safety, reliability and aesthetics and to consider social, cultural and environmental impacts. (secondary to HS-LS2-7)

Stability and Change • Much of science deals with the

constructing of explanations of how things change and how they remain stable.


Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects8

Engaging with a complex text and forming questions works to expose students to the following science literacy standards. Additional instruction is needed to fully engage students in the literacy standards. Students should continually be provided opportunities to engage with a variety of sources of evidence, including complex texts, and be asked to articulate understandings verbally and in writing.

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading

Key Ideas and Details 1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences

from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize key supporting details and ideas.

Craft and Structure 4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical,

connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas 7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including

visually and quantitatively, as well as in words. 8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity

of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity 10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and

proficiently.

8 The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf

productive talk: accurate knowledge · to science content, its primary purpose is to acquaint...

Documents