Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ... Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ... based on the quantity— rather than ... Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking

  • View
    215

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Text of Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ... Discussion: Teaching Speaking and...

  • 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