View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
110 English Journal 104.5 (2015): 110113
Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening
Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor
I developed to support this work is an analytic rubric for assessing students speaking and listening skills during teacher- facilitated whole- class discussion. In this piece, I share the current draft of this rubric (see Figure 1), reflect on the theories that informed its design, and invite readers to adapt this tool for their own purposes and contexts.
The Rubric
The first column of the rubric dis-plays the criteria categories: Com-munity, to listen actively, speak clearly, and respond thought-fully; Argumentation, to support claims with warranted evidence; and Knowledge, to use discipline-specific vocabulary and syntax and explicit textual references (CAKe). Each row aims to demys-tify these criteria by arraying bul-leted descriptors across four levels of competency: (4) Exemplary, (3) Accomplished, (2) Develop-ing, and (1) Emerging. An asses-sor highlights the descriptors that most closely capture the quality of a students contributions over multiple observations, since it is rarely possible for all students in a single discussion to have ample opportunities to exhibit the full range of CAKe skills. The Com-ments box provides space for the
Defining Participation: A Rubric for Assessing Discussion Skills
I frequently reflect on my beginning- En glish- teacher self: inexperienced, energetic, inept. Despite my best intentions, I was unconsciously incompetent at leading whole- class discussion. Dont get me wrong we had dis-cussions, and sometimes they even felt productive. I used discus-sion to informally assess students understanding of content (How are they making sense of this piece of literature?), but I did not teach and assess speaking and listening skills themselves (To what extent are students building on previous speakers ideas?). Walter C. Parker and Diana Hess termed these two pedagogical purposes teaching with discussion, or using dis-cussion as a forum for learning important content, and teaching for discussion, where the subject matter is discussion itself its worth, purposes, types, and proce-dures (273). As a novice educator, I taught with, but not for, discus-sion; I did not provide explicit instruction on discussion skills, nor did I even see this omission.
I taught and assessed the other domains of En glish language
arts reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary so why did it not strike me to approach speaking and listening with the same inten-tionality? Perhaps it did not occur to me that discussion skills need to be taught. I was never explic-itly taught how to participate during whole- class discussion, and remember few opportunities to engage in text- based discussion as a student omissions consis-tent with the lack of discussion in American high school classrooms (Cazden; Nystrand and Gamoran; Nystrand et al.). Excuses aside, my oversight was a disservice to my students. To hold discus-sions in a linguistically heteroge-neous classroom without explicit instruction on the rules of the game was to keep hidden from students the forms and norms of discourse that support and pro-mote equity and access to rigor-ous academic learning (Michaels, OConnor, and Resnick 285). In not demystifying the moves that make for effective discussion, I shortchanged my students, espe-cially those whose home language varieties did not neatly map onto the codes of academic discourse.
Now that I teach prospec-tive and practicing teachers, I explicitly teach and assess their skills as both participants in and facilitators of discussion. A tool
selsonText BoxCopyright 2015 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
CR
ITE
RIA
(4)
EX
EM
PL
AR
Y
(3)
AC
CO
MP
LIS
HE
D(2
) D
EV
EL
OP
ING
(1)
EM
ER
GIN
G(0
) =
not
att
empt
ed w
ith
prom
ptin
g
Com
mun
ity:
Lis
tens
act
ivel
y an
d sp
eaks
cle
arly
, res
pond
ing
thou
ghtf
ully
to
div
erse
per
spec
tive
s in
way
s th
at
supp
ort
liste
ners
in f
ollo
win
g th
e th
read
of
the
conv
ersa
tion
.
Li
sten
s ca
refu
lly w
ith a
lert
pos
ture
, tr
acki
ng e
ach
spea
ker.
Mon
itors
par
-tic
ipat
ion
so t
hat
he o
r sh
e lis
tens
m
ore
than
spe
aks.
Sp
eaks
loud
ly a
nd s
low
ly e
noug
h fo
r al
l par
ticip
ants
to
unde
rsta
nd. M
akes
ef
fect
ive
use
of e
ye c
onta
ct w
ith p
ar-
ticip
ants
whi
le s
peak
ing.
R
espo
nds
to s
peci
fic c
ontr
ibut
ions
by
rest
atin
g an
d bu
ildin
g on
oth
ers
id
eas-
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)
agre
eing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
follo
w-
up q
uest
ions
, syn
thes
izin
g sp
eake
rs
com
men
ts.
Li
sten
s w
ith a
lert
pos
ture
and
tra
cks
spea
kers
. Lis
tens
mor
e th
an s
peak
s.
Spea
ks lo
udly
eno
ugh
for
all p
artic
i-pa
nts
to h
ear.
Mak
es e
ye c
onta
ct
with
par
ticip
ants
.
Res
pond
s to
con
trib
utio
ns b
y bu
ild-
ing
on o
ther
s id
eas
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)a
gree
ing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
follo
w- u
p qu
estio
ns,
synt
hesi
zing
spe
aker
s c
omm
ents
.
A
ttem
pts
to (
or, w
ith p
rom
ptin
g, c
an)
liste
n w
ith f
ocus
ed p
ostu
re a
nd t
rack
sp
eake
rs. S
omet
imes
nee
ds p
rom
pt-
ing
to s
peak
, or
ofte
n sp
eaks
a
disp
ropo
rtio
nate
num
ber
of t
urns
.
Spea
ks lo
udly
eno
ugh
for
mos
t pa
r-tic
ipan
ts t
o he
ar. L
ooks
in t
he g
ener
al
dire
ctio
n of
oth
ers
whi
le s
peak
ing.
A
ttem
pts
to (
or, w
ith p
rom
ptin
g, c
an)
resp
ond
to c
ontr
ibut
ions
by
rest
atin
g an
d bu
ildin
g on
oth
ers
idea
spr
o-vi
ding
rea
sons
for
(di
s)ag
reei
ng w
ith
an id
ea, a
skin
g fo
llow
- up
ques
tions
, sy
nthe
sizi
ng s
peak
ers
com
men
ts.
W
ith p
rom
ptin
g, a
ttem
pts
to li
sten
with
fo
cuse
d po
stur
e an
d tr
ack
spea
kers
. Sp
eaks
onl
y w
hen
prom
pted
, or
dom
i-na
tes
by s
peak
ing
mor
e of
ten
than
lis
teni
ng.
Sp
eaks
loud
ly e
noug
h fo
r pe
ers
near
by
to h
ear.
Spea
ks in
the
dire
ctio
n of
the
di
scus
sion
lead
er o
r do
wn
at d
esk.
W
ith p
rom
ptin
g, a
ttem
pts
to r
espo
nd t
o co
ntrib
utio
ns b
y re
stat
ing
and
build
ing
on o
ther
s id
eas
prov
idin
g re
ason
s fo
r (d
is)a
gree
ing
with
an
idea
, ask
ing
fol-
low
- up
ques
tions
, syn
thes
izin
g sp
eake
rs
com
men
ts.
Arg
umen
tati
on: S
uppo
rts
clai
ms
wit
h w
arra
nted
evi
denc
e fr
om m
ulti
ple
sour
ces
to s
tim
ulat
e a
thou
ghtf
ul, w
ell-
reas
oned
exc
hang
e of
idea
s.
O
ffer
s cl
ear,
rele
vant
cla
ims
that
fue
l th
e di
