Talking Comprehension

Talking Comprehension

Dr. Frank Serafini

Associate Professor – University of Nevada, Las Vegas

www.frankserafini.com

Myths Concerning Talk

Children Learn Best When They are Quiet

Teachers Have to Ask Questions to Know Who is Comprehending

Consensus is the Goal of Discussion

Students Know How to Discuss Literature

Socialization Through Language

Schools Teach Children…

Ways of Thinking

Ways of Talking

Ways of Acting

Ways of Interacting

What Counts as Knowledge

What Counts as “Cultural Capital”

The Reading Workshop

A Primary Goal of the Reading Workshop is to Change the Way We Think and Talk About Texts (Interpretive Repertoire)

Theorists & Researchers

Mikhail Bakhtin / MAK Halliday / James Britton / Lev Vygotsky / Douglas Barnes / Neil Mercer / Martin Nystrand / Debra Myhill / Robin Alexander / Courtney Cazden / David Westgate / Maureen Hughes / James Dillon / Peter Johnston

Lev Vygotsky

Ideas and Thinking are Not Just Expressed IN Language, They are Constructed THROUGH Language. Language as Psychological Tool

Mikhail Bakhtin

All Utterances are Responses to Previous Utterances and Anticipate Future Utterances. Voices Refract One Another

M.A.K. Halliday

Two Functions of Talk

1. Ideational: Used to explain concepts, share ideas and reflect

2. Interpersonal: Used to create and manage relationships between people and communicate

James T. Dillon – Discussion:

A particular form of group interaction where members join together in addressing a question of common concern, exchanging and examining different views in service of enhancing their knowledge, decisions or actions.

Language:

Unites Cognitive & Social Dimensions

Is Used to Structure Experiences Between Teachers & Novices

Is Used to Regulate the Complexity of Learning Events (Scaffolding)

Creates Opportunities for Sharing Ideas and Interpretations

Allows Sharing of Cognitive Load

Is the Most Transparent Teacher Activity

Bridges Curricular Plans & Learning

Language Of Lessons:

Calling Attention to Cognitive Strategies

Explicitness

Explanatory Talk

Pacing

Objectives

Responses Used to Confirm

Language of Discussions:

Invitations to Think and Participate

Tentative

Exploratory Talk

Wandering

Possibilities

Responses Used to Extend

The Recitation Script (I-R-E)

Traditional Interactions

Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (Mehan, 1979)

Idealized Instructional Script

Default Setting

Residual of Experience - Apprenticeship

Authoritarian Discourse - Control

Transmission of Knowledge

I - R - E

Teachers Take Turns at Will /Teachers Allocate Turns to Others

Teachers Determine Topics / Teachers Control Pace of Discussion

Teachers Interrupt at Will / Teachers Pose Questions at Will

Teachers Endorse Particular Readings / Teachers End Conversational Turns

Why is IRE So Appealing?

Control of Conversation Topics

Pacing of Lesson / Conversation

Assumed to be Effective for Learning

Classroom Management = Good Teaching

History - Years of Watching It

Images of Teachers and Teaching

Cover the Required Curriculum

Interactions

Bakhtin - Dialogic

Mercer - Inter-Thinking

Chambers - Shared Contemplation

Barnes - Exploratory Talk

Nystrand - Scaffolded Talk

Serafini - Co-Elaboration

Monologic vs. Dialogic

Dialogue “Blockers”

Dominating Voices

Passive Participants

Lack of Time

Focus on Debating (Winning)

Seeking Consensus

Defensive Attitudes

Attacking Others

Not Listening

Robin Alexander: 5 Principles of Dialogic Talk

Collective - teachers and children learn and address issues together

Reciprocal - teachers and children listen to each other, share ideas

Supportive - children articulate ideas freely without fear of reprisal

Cumulative - teachers and children build on each other’s ideas

Purposeful - teachers steer talk with educational goals in mind

Debra Myhill

Asking More Open Questions will NOT Change the Quality of Children’s Thinking if They Think There is One Correct Answer (Hidden in the Teacher’s Head)

Initial Thoughts on Questions

Student Responses are Reflective of the Questions Teachers Ask and The Expectations Set for Discussion.

Questions can be Confrontational, Rather Than Invitational.

Too often Questions are Used to Control Rather than Inquire (Who’s Paying Attention?)

Who Gets to ask Questions is Reflective of the Power Relations in the Classroom.

Types of Questions

Display / Rote

Process / Reasoning

Procedural / Expectations

Inquiry / Exploratory

Display (Pseudo) Questions

Serve as cues to narrow down student guesses to align to what is in the teacher’s head or is predetermined as correct

Are Inauthentic - Do Not Regularly Occur Outside of School

Privilege Knowledge of Teacher / Text

“Oral Fill in the Blanks”

Develops Passive Students

Limits the Range of Acceptable Answers

Are Accompanied by Choral Responses

Strive for Consensus, Agreement, Correctness

When Display Questions Are Appropriate

Calling Attention to Particular Ideas or Textual / Visual Components

Endorses What is Significant

Establish Common Understandings or Consensus

“Platforming” - Foundation for Inquiry

Consolidate Information

Review - Recap - Summarize

Comprehension of Literal Details

Privilege Text Over Readers

Process Questions

Trying to understand students’ contemplation or thought processes

Concerned with Cognitive Processes

Thinking “Audit Trail”

What connections, insights, comparisons did you make as you were reading the text?

How did you generate your ideas?

What ideas, comments, evidence from the text influenced your thinking?

Procedural Questions

Reminds students of established procedures and expectations.

Invites students to share experiences and ideas.

Helps facilitate the discussion

When we are discussing a text, what helps us listen to each other better?

When the teacher is reading a book aloud, what do we do with our post-its on our clipboards, and how do we share ideas?

How do we gain access to the discussion?

Inquiry Questions

Range of Acceptable Answers

Centripetal Forces

Concerned with Possibilities, not Correctness

Text as Point of Departure, Not End

Interested in Multiple Perspectives

“Higher Order” Questions

Beyond Literal Recall and Summary

Inquiry Question Examples:

Noticings:

What are your initial impressions?

What caught your attention?

What seemed unique, peculiar?

Generate Meaning:

What might these noticings mean?

How does this connect with what you know?

What other meanings are possible?

Co-Elaboration:

Have you considered other’s ideas?

How do alternative interpretations affect your ideas?

What do these ideas mean for your future reading?

Using Questions More Effectively

Teachers should stop asking questions they know the answers to all the time (Integrity).

Teachers Should ask More Questions in Response to Students’ Ideas Than In Front of Them.

Questions should allow for an acceptable range of answers, possibilities or interpretations

Questions should provide opportunities for students to Confirm or Deny, Clarify & Extend.

Questions MUST go beyond literal recall and Request Evidence of Interpretive Processes & Interpretations.

Students should begin asking more questions.

“Tell Me More” is Better Than“Why?”

Developing Students’ Interpretive Repertoires

Nystrand’s Principles

Ethos of Involvement - Community

Ability to Listen, Really Listen

Acknowledge Interpersonal Relationships and Interactions

Contingency - Take Students Seriously

Uptake - Take Up from What Has Been Offered

Ask Better Questions

Critical Junctures

“Critical Juncture” indicates more than one possible way to proceed

Recognizing possibilities in Discussions

Teachable / Discussable Moment

Exploiting an Opportunity for Learning

Teacher responses influence subsequent discussions, topics, responses

Making Instructional Decisions “In the Foam”

Based on Objectives, Purposes for the Lesson or Discussion - Interpretive Merit

Pacing Vs. Wandering

Attentive , Sensitive Listening

Extensive Knowledge of Literature, Literary Theories and Text Under Consideration

Shifting Purpose for Discussion from Recitation to Dialogue

Willing to Relinquish Intellectual Control

“Interactionality” is the focus

Techniques for Improving Classroom Discussions

Setting Expectations for Discussions

Full Disclosure Teaching

Discussions are In Service of Meaning

Become Aware of Dialogue Blockers

Respectful Listening and Response

Challenge without Attack

Physical Arrangements for Listening

Setting the Stage for Thinking

The Goal is I-R-R-R-R-R

Discussion Techniques

Raising Hands No Longer Necessary to Enter Discussion - “Getting the Floor”

Student Regulation of Turns

1st Person Plural - Reciprocal Objectives

Notetaking - Post-Its - Coding

Teacher Gaze - Handing Off

Exploratory Pausing (Wait Time)

Call and Response - Hallelujah

First we Thought, Now we Think - Insight

Platforming

Connect new information to foundation

Sets stage for further discussion

Brief review of previous experiences

Putting things in context

Recapping ideas in new language

Summarizing with the goal of moving forward, not backwards

Organize new information - Building Metaphors

Three Part List

Three (3) related points in a row

Builds tension for third point

Makes speech more cohesive

Verbal outlining

Third point is most important

Uptake

Begins with Attentive Listening

Calling Attention to what has been offered

Extending - Clarifying

Taking up from where students’ response leave off

Naming Specific Contributions

Generalizing Across Contexts / Texts

Can be challenging to some students

Teacher Knowledge is KEY

Re-Voicing

Paraphrase “Plus”

Reformulating Students’ Responses

Re-Considering What has been Offered

Validates / Endorses Student Input

Equalizes Participation - Empowering

Use of Laminator verbs (so are you saying?, feeling?, thinking?, questioning?)

Link Participants to Propositions

Some Considerations

Students make More Interpretive Moves When Teachers Do Them in Advance.

Moving FROM Recall and Noticing TO Interpretation and Critique through Talk is Key.

Students rely on teacher statements and questions for interpretive strategies, theoretical perspectives, and how to talk about texts.

Teacher talk signals emphasis, calls attention to significant ideas, and signals who is comprehending.

Relevancy is Determined by Alignment to Lesson and Learning Objectives (Interpretive Merit).

James Britton

“Talk is the Ocean on which all Learning Floats”

Literacy Website: www.frankserafini.com

E-Mail: frank@frankserafini.com

Talk and Classroom Discourse References

Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.

Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(2), 141-169.

Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. London: Alen Lane, Penguin Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chambers, A. (1996). Tell me: Children, reading, and talk. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Dentith, S. (1995). Bakhtinian thought: An introductory reader. London: Routledge.

Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eeds, M., & Peterson, R. (1991). Teacher as curator: Learning to talk about literature. The Reading Teacher, 45(2), 118-126.

Eeds, M., & Peterson, R. (1997). Literature studies revisited: Some thoughts on talking with children about books. The New Advocate, 10(1), 49-59.

Foreman-Peck, L. (1985). Evaluating children's talk about literature: A theoretical perspective. Children's Literature in Education, 16(4), 203-218.

Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182-192.

Greenleaf, C., & Freedman, S. W. (1993). Linking classroom discourse and classroom content: Following the trail of intellectual work in a writing lesson. Discourse Processes, 16, 465-505.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Elsevier.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(3), 245-279.

Heyman, R. D. (1983). Clarifying meaning through classroom talk. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 23-42.

Hughes, M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Possible enabling strategies in teacher-led talk with young pupils. Language and Education, 12(3), 174-191.

Jewell, T. A., & Pratt, D. (1999). Literature discussions in the primary grades: Children's thoughtful discourse about books and what teachers can do to make it happen. The Reading Teacher, 52(8), 842-850.

Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children's learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Lehman, B. A., & Scharer, P. L. (1996). Reading alone, talking together: The role of discussion in developing literary awareness. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 26-35.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher's role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mroz, M., Smith, F., & Hardman, F. (2000). The discourse of the literacy hour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(3), 379-390.

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R. (2006). Talking, listening, learning: Effective talk in the primary classroom. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straightjackets?: Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57(1), 55-69.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Heck, M. J. (1993). Using small groups for response to and thinking about literature. English Journal, 82(1), 14-22.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198.

O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318-335.

Rowe, D. (1998). Examining teacher talk: Revealing hidden boundaries for curricular change. Language Arts, 75(2), 103-107.

Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50(1), 16-24.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962/1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Westgate, D., & Hughes, M. (1997). Identifying 'quality' in classroom talk: An

enduring research task. Language and Education, 11(2), 125-139.