To assess critical listening, we do not recommend using a rubric similar to how oral participation is assessed during critical conversations. As an alternative, we end critical conversations with time for students to write in a journal. We then use both formative assessment of the discussion and students’ journals to assess students’ engagement with critical listening. Additionally, we conference with students individually or in small groups to support their critical listening goals; goals for individual or small-group work include developing questions to bring in differing perspectives or reading to build knowledge that challenges status quo thinking.

novelist Robert Jones Jr. apt: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist” (@SonofBaldwin).

The believing game gives nuance to the idea of multiple perspectives during critical conversations. Rather than listening for holes in an argument or idea and biting our tongues to keep from arguing in reply, the believing game asks us to “try to believe things that we don’t believe—especially things we don’t want to believe” (“The Believing Game” 4). Elbow reiterates that the danger that lies in both games is imbalance: vehemently dismissing every idea beyond what we are ideologically attached to (the doubting game) and accepting whatever seems most evident from those we agree with or those with authority in a culture (the believing game). Rather, careful thinking requires both doubting and believing to see an idea from multiple angles or perspectives. One goal of critical listening is to “dwell-in” (“Bringing the Rhetoric” 395) or believe—even if only for a moment—another person’s perspective or experience. Elbow provides three teaching strategies to encourage the believing game when an outnumbered view surfaces in a discussion: ■  The three-minute or five-minute rule can be invoked for any member of the classroom community who feels they are not being listened to; when the rule is invoked, this person may speak for three or five minutes and no one else is allowed to talk or reply. ■  Allies only— no objections is a rule that permits only those who are able to believe the minority-held viewpoint to participate in the discussion, with no objections allowed. ■  Testimony is a practice where speakers are asked to share their stories or life experiences that informed their viewpoint on an issue and to share their experience with what it is like to live with this view. Other participants in the discussion must not respond or disagree, even after the speaker’s story has ended.

Critical Listening Involves Critical Self-Reflection An additional practice of critical listening is to listen with awareness of how one’s own knowledge and experience influences what, or even how, a viewpoint or a text is heard. We reference Flores and Rosa’s research on raciolinguistics to highlight that our biases influence how we “take in” what we hear depending on the identities of the speaker and how we value or believe that information. We ask students to reflect in writing, or talk in pairs or small groups, about the following questions either before, during, or after a critical conversation to support the practice of continuous critical self-reflection: ■  How does this experience differ from my own? ■  How is the speaker different from or similar to me? How might this influence how I hear this message and what I choose to believe? ■  What can I learn from listening in this moment? ■  What emotions am I experiencing as I listen? ■  How much do I know about this experience? What questions do I need to ask to learn more? Critical listening involves thinking reflectively in the moment about the extent of knowledge one brings to a conversation and how the speaker influences how or what we hear.

One exercise that can draw an explicit link between active listening, social identity, and critical listening is a community-building activity called Tell My Story that Kahdeidra has used in the classroom. To begin, each student takes ten minutes to respond to the following prompt: “How has language shaped who you are? Think about a sound, word, phrase, or text that is meaningful to you. Explain why, using images, notes, or whatever text you choose.” Students then divide into groups of three, with people they do not know well, and take turns responding to the prompt, devoting approximately seven minutes per person. While each person is presenting, the other two group members take notes; they then decide who will present each other’s responses to the whole class and prepare summaries of their peer introductions. In this experience, students listen critically to peer narratives that center how perspectives on language and literacy are enmeshed in their social identities.

Active listening through nonverbal cues might mean “making eye contact with the speaker” or “nodding in agreement from time to time” (18), though the authors rightfully acknowledge that nonverbal cues are culturally specific, especially with regard to expectations for making eye contact, and teachers need to be knowledgeable about these considerations.

Muhammad defines criticality as “the capacity to read, write, and think in the context of understanding power, privilege, and oppression” (12).

In the context of critical conversations about power, privilege, and oppression, participants’ nonverbal cues can be a way of communicating that they are listening and responding in resistance or solidarity, especially when students’ identities and perspectives challenge the status quo and are marginalized.

define critical listening as “careful, critical, and deliberate… . [It] requires us to be attentive to people’s utterances, voices, vulnerabilities, body language, lived conditions, backgrounds, and ways of being in the world” (26).

n addition to the fact that students’ participation patterns are influenced by normative expectations, students whose perspectives are marginalized in a classroom may be purposefully listening, yet silent, because they feel that groups with which they identify are not being spoken about in a humanizing way, or because students may be simply fatigued with the work of interrupting such dialogue.

Several studies of classroom interactions have found that normative gender roles silence girls and women in the classroom (Best).