Discourse

Discourse is another word for discussions. The key differences between discourse patterns of discussion are that in one pattern the teacher is the facilitator and the other the teacher is the moderator . When the teacher is the facilitator, the pattern of student (c) and teacher (t) interaction follows a c-c-c-c-t-c-c-t--c-c-c pattern in which children talk openly, inclusively, and freely without bidding for a turn from the teacher. When the teacher is the moderator, the pattern follows a t-c-t-c-t-c-t-c-t-c-t pattern in which the teacher mediates every turn and children raise their hands to be called on. In this scenario, the teacher controls the conversation which could lead to perceived interpretations of the text and children as passive participants in the discussions.

Discussion Through Inquiry and Thought-Shaping Dialogue

“The use of discussions as a way to promote children’s inquiries in classroom settings” means that the teachers facilitate dialogue so that children can ask questions, listen and consider each other’s views, expand upon their responses, make predictions, and provide reasons and evidence to support their thinking. In short, this type of dialogue “encourages children to work together to analyze, organize, or explain an issue in order to improve understanding (269).”

Thought-shaping dialogue is another way to explain dialogic discourse. This type of discourse requires students to listen to differing perspectives to broaden students’ thinking and understanding. According to research, thought-shaping dialogue provides “affective, social, and cognitive benefits to learning (270).” For example, small group discussions support positive interactions and relationships between diverse learners, create opportunities for literate thinking, and improve reading comprehension, critical thinking, and persuasive writing skills. Because students are further developing their thought processes through exploratory discourse, I agree with these potentials.

Exploratory Talk Criteria

I think these ground rules might help students because they provide students with guidelines in their discussions. Thus, students will understand what is expected of them and how to productively contribute to the conversation. This will help students interact with the subject matter in a way that promotes and supports exploratory talk. Teachers can guide students to acquire these ground rules by having them posted during discussions and referencing them when necessary. Teachers can also review them often to ensure students understand them, and intervene when necessary to keep children engaged according to the ground rules.

Informal Assessment System

The informal assessment system is a great tool that I would use as a checklist to track student participation and understanding of exploratory talk. I would also use these guidelines to facilitate discussions with students, for example probing them to provide details to expand upon their answers. A guiding question I would include: is the student actively listening? This is important to ensure students are engaged in each other’s thought processes and ready to challenge or expand upon their classmates’ ideas.

A Cautionary Conclusion

The main challenge of accountable talk stems from the varying backgrounds of students. Some students will enter the classroom more equipped to partake in accountable talk discussion whereas others will find this practice unfamiliar and in conflict with their social norms. This means that teachers must explicitly establish norms for the discourse practice and provide necessary support so that all students can contribute to the conversation. Still, students who encounter the discourse norms for the first time may have their contributions devalued by an expert in the class. Teachers have the weighted responsibility of determining the best practices to manage this in the classroom so that students are not discouraged from contributing to the conversation.

Though there are challenges to accountable talk, the positives outweigh the negatives. As stated in the abstract, accountable talk has "been shown to result in academic achievements for diverse populations of students." So, even though accountable talk may be challenging, it is important to incorporate it into the classroom so that students can become active members of society by expressing and expanding upon their ideas and considering and challenging the ideas of others.

Interdependence of These Three Dimensions

These three dimensions are interdependent because they occur simultaneously and in support of each other. This is because discussions can encompass multiple functions at once in varying contexts, which is supported by the determination that one cannot examine a transcript and precisely determine which asset it belongs to. Thus, all of these dimensions are intertwined and work hand-in-hand during accountable talk discussions.

Accountability to Knowledge

Talk that is accountable to knowledge is based explicitly on facts, written texts or other publicly accessible information that all individuals can access. Speakers make an effort to get their facts right and make explicit the evidence behind their claims or explanations. They challenge each other when evidence is lacking or unavailable. When the content under discussion involves new or incompletely mastered knowledge, accountable discussion can uncover misunderstandings and misconceptions. A knowledgeable and skilled teacher is required to provide authoritative knowledge when necessary and to guide conversation toward academically correct concepts.

This is a thorough explanation of accountability to knowledge and the behaviors and revelations that occur during this discourse.

In short, when students participate in talk that is accountable to knowledge, students support their ideas with information and facts. Thus, they are utilizing contextual knowledge to support their arguments, expand upon their ideas, and challenge their peers. Teachers need to be mindful that these conversations may reveal student misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Example 1: Students debate on whether the main character of the story is brave or cowardly. Students would use text evidence and logic to support, reason, dispute, and build upon their ideas.

Example 2: Students share their invented strategies for solving an equation in math class. Students share, elaborate, question, and build upon their answers based on the strategies they used to solve the problem.

Accountability to Standards of Reasoning

This is talk that emphasizes logical connections and the drawing of reasonable conclusions. It is talk that involves explanation and self-correction. It often involves searching for premises, rather than simply supporting or attacking conclusions.

Accountability to standards of reasoning requires students to support their ideas with evidence and logical reasoning. Though research suggests people do this naturally, students need scaffolding and guidance to find and contribute to the logical thread in discussions.

Example: Teacher asks: do you think plants can grow under a lightbulb? Student A says no plants can only grow under the sunlight because the sun is stronger than a lightbulb. Student B says yes plants can grow under a lightbulb because like the sun it provides light.

Accountability to the Learning Community

This is talk that attends seriously to and builds on the ideas of others; participants listen carefully to one another, build on each other’s ideas, and ask each other questions aimed at clarifying or expanding a proposition. When talk is accountable to the community, participants listen to others and build their contributions in response to those of others. They make concessions and partial concessions (yes...but...) and provide reasons when they disagree or agree with others. They may extend or elaborate someone else’s argument, or ask someone for elaboration of an expressed idea.

I think this paragraph thoroughly explains accountability to the learning community. As teachers, it is crucial we create an environment where students listen to and expand upon the ideas of their classmates. Thus, this is a collaborative discussion between students and guided by teachers so that a meaningful discussion can be had.

Examples of this could be a teacher asking if anyone else wants to add on to a classmate's response or providing wait time during a discussion.