Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching...

6
110 English Journal 104.5 (2015): 110–113 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 student’s 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-English-teacher self: inexperienced, energetic, inept. Despite my best intentions, I was unconsciously incompetent at leading whole-class discussion. Don’t 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 English 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, O’Connor, 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

Transcript of Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching...

Page 1: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

110 English Journal 104.5 (2015): 110–113

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 student’s 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. Don’t 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, O’Connor, 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

selson
Text Box
Copyright © 2015 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
Page 2: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

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

s—pr

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

scus

sion

. •

Supp

orts

and

cha

lleng

es c

laim

s us

ing

mul

tiple

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce.

•U

ses

war

rant

s to

exp

lain

cle

arly

the

co

nnec

tion

betw

een

clai

ms

and

evid

ence

.

•O

ffer

s cl

ear,

rele

vant

cla

ims.

Supp

orts

cla

ims

usin

g m

ultip

le p

iece

s of

evi

denc

e.

•U

ses

war

rant

s to

exp

lain

the

con

nec-

tion

betw

een

clai

ms

and

evid

ence

.

Att

empt

s to

(or

, with

pro

mpt

ing,

can

):

•O

ffer

cla

ims

that

are

cle

ar a

nd

rele

vant

. •

Supp

ort

clai

ms

usin

g ev

iden

ce.

•U

se w

arra

nts

to e

xpla

in t

he c

onne

c-tio

n be

twee

n cl

aim

s an

d ev

iden

ce.

With

pro

mpt

ing,

att

empt

s to

:

•O

ffer

cla

ims,

whi

ch m

ay b

e va

gue,

con

-fu

sing

, or

irrel

evan

t.

•Su

ppor

t cl

aim

s us

ing

evid

ence

. •

Use

war

rant

s to

exp

lain

the

con

nect

ion

betw

een

clai

ms

and

evid

ence

. Ex

plan

atio

n m

ay b

e va

gue,

con

fusi

ng, o

r irr

elev

ant.

Kno

wle

dge:

Use

s di

scip

line-

spec

ific

vo-

cabu

lary

and

syn

tax

and

expl

icit

te

xtua

l ref

eren

ces

so t

hat

othe

rs c

an

unde

rsta

nd a

nd c

riti

que

the

argu

men

ts

unde

r di

scus

sion

.

•U

ses

acad

emic

lang

uage

(di

scip

line-

sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

and

syn

tax)

to

clea

rly c

omm

unic

ate

idea

s. W

hen

nece

ssar

y, d

efine

s ab

stra

ct c

once

pts

(e.g

., lo

ve, j

ustic

e) b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng

clea

r cr

iteria

and

off

erin

g co

ncre

te

(cou

nter

)exa

mpl

es.

•Ex

plic

itly

refe

renc

es r

elev

ant

fact

s,

writ

ten

text

s, o

r ot

her

publ

icly

acc

es-

sibl

e in

form

atio

n. O

rient

s lis

tene

rs t

o th

e lo

catio

n an

d co

ntex

t of

spe

cific

te

xtua

l exc

erpt

s or

fea

ture

s, a

nd

wai

ts f

or li

sten

ers

to fi

nd lo

catio

n.•

Mak

es r

elev

ant,

logi

cal c

onne

ctio

ns

betw

een

text

und

er d

iscu

ssio

n an

d m

ultip

le o

ther

kno

wle

dge

sour

ces

(e.g

., ot

her

text

s, t

he h

isto

rical

con

-te

xt o

f a

text

, per

sona

l exp

erie

nce,

ge

nera

l kno

wle

dge,

a p

revi

ous

clas

s).

•U

ses

acad

emic

lang

uage

(di

scip

line-

sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

and

syn

tax)

to

com

mun

icat

e id

eas.

Whe

n ne

cess

ary,

de

fines

abs

trac

t co

ncep

ts (

e.g.

, lov

e,

just

ice)

by

esta

blis

hing

crit

eria

and

of

ferin

g (c

ount

er)e

xam

ples

.•

Ref

eren

ces

rele

vant

fac

ts, w

ritte

n te

xts,

or

othe

r pu

blic

ly a

cces

sibl

e in

-fo

rmat

ion.

Orie

nts

liste

ners

to

the

loca

tion

and

cont

ext

of s

peci

fic t

ex-

tual

exc

erpt

s or

fea

ture

s.•

Mak

es c

onne

ctio

ns b

etw

een

the

text

un

der

disc

ussi

on a

nd o

ther

kno

wl-

edge

sou

rces

(e.

g., o

ther

tex

ts, t

he

hist

oric

al c

onte

xt o

f a

text

, per

sona

l ex

perie

nce,

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge,

a

prev

ious

cla

ss).

Att

empt

s to

(or

, with

pro

mpt

ing,

can

):

•U

se a

cade

mic

lang

uage

(di

scip

line-

sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

and

syn

tax)

to

com

mun

icat

e id

eas.

Whe

n ne

cess

ary,

de

fine

abst

ract

con

cept

s (e

.g.,

love

, ju

stic

e) b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng c

riter

ia a

nd

offe

ring

(cou

nter

)exa

mpl

es.

•R

efer

ence

rel

evan

t fa

cts,

writ

ten

text

s, o

r ot

her

publ

icly

acc

essi

ble

in-

form

atio

n. O

rient

list

ener

s to

the

lo

catio

n an

d co

ntex

t of

spe

cific

tex

-tu

al e

xcer

pts

or f

eatu

res.

Mak

e co

nnec

tions

bet

wee

n th

e te

xt

unde

r di

scus

sion

and

oth

er k

now

l-ed

ge s

ourc

es (

e.g.

, oth

er t

exts

, the

hi

stor

ical

con

text

of

a te

xt, p

erso

nal

expe

rienc

e, g

ener

al k

now

ledg

e, a

pr

evio

us c

lass

).

With

pro

mpt

ing,

att

empt

s to

:

•U

se a

cade

mic

lang

uage

(di

scip

line-

sp

ecifi

c vo

cabu

lary

and

syn

tax)

to

com

mun

icat

e id

eas.

Whe

n ne

cess

ary,

de

fine

abst

ract

con

cept

s (e

.g.,

love

, jus

-tic

e) b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng c

riter

ia a

nd o

ffer

ing

(cou

nter

)exa

mpl

es.

•R

efer

ence

rel

evan

t fa

cts,

writ

ten

text

s,

or o

ther

pub

licly

acc

essi

ble

info

rmat

ion.

O

rient

list

ener

s to

the

loca

tion

and

con-

text

of

spec

ific

text

ual e

xcer

pts

or

feat

ures

; alte

rnat

ivel

y, m

ay p

arap

hras

e te

xt e

xcer

pts

or f

eatu

res

from

mem

ory.

•M

ake

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

the

text

un

der

disc

ussi

on a

nd o

ther

kno

wle

dge

sour

ces

(e.g

., ot

her

text

s, t

he h

isto

rical

co

ntex

t of

a t

ext,

per

sona

l exp

erie

nce,

ge

nera

l kno

wle

dge,

a p

revi

ous

clas

s);

conn

ectio

n m

ay b

e un

clea

r or

irre

leva

nt.

Com

men

ts:

FIG

UR

E 1.

Rub

ric f

or A

sses

sing

Stu

dent

s’ S

peak

ing

and

List

enin

g Sk

ills

durin

g Te

ache

r- Fa

cilit

ated

Who

le- C

lass

Dis

cuss

ion

Page 3: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

112 May 2015

Defining “Participation”: A Rubric for Assessing Discussion Skills

assessor to elaborate on high-lighted descriptors (e.g., provide specific examples of when the student exhibited a particular skill, suggest a strategy for future discussions).

The Design Process

Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Con-nor, and Lauren B. Resnick’s research on Accountable Talk particularly informed the rubric criteria. The authors’ characteriza-tion of discussion as encompassing three interdependent dimensions— “accountability to the learning community,” “accountability to accepted standards of reasoning,” and “accountability to knowl-edge” (283)—inspired me to orga-nize descriptors into the CAKe categories.

The rubric’s design is also informed by my beliefs about both discussion and the components of an effective rubric. I conceptualize whole- class discussion as a teacher- mediated, recurring activity— a yearlong commitment to work-ing toward mastery. The rubric assumes that, along the way, there is active teacher facilitation— the strategic use of “talk moves” to probe student thinking and encourage students to respond directly to one another (Michaels and O’Connor, “Talk” 11). The rubric also assumes student prepa-ration. If students have not read and considered the material at the foundation of the conversation, they are not equipped to partici-pate (How can I build on others’ ideas about a poem I haven’t read?). Teachers play a critical role in scaf-folding this preparation by engag-ing in such activities as setting

expectations, assigning textual annotation tasks, and structuring opportunities for partner or small- group talk.

As I drafted the rubric’s descrip-tors, I aimed to be precise and clear about what listening and speaking look and sound like, thereby avoid-ing the pitfall of assessing students based on the quantity— rather than the quality— of their participa-tion. In general, as I design rubrics, I follow Vicki Spandel’s guide-lines for “good criteria.” I try to draft descriptors that are explicit; exhibit “clear distinctions among performance levels”; “focus on sig-nificant aspects of performance . . . , not on trivia”; are generalizable across discussions; and use positive, student- friendly language so that the rubric is “easy to teach from” (Spandel 18).

Once I had an initial draft of the rubric, I considered the extent to which the descriptors aligned with the Common Core State Standards for Speaking and Lis-tening (CCSS.ELA- LITERACY.SL). Though my review of these standards did not lead to new criteria, I found some of the stan-dards’ wording useful for clarify-ing the language of descriptors (“building on others’ ideas” from SL.1 replaced “using uptake”) and articulating the purpose of the CAKe categories (I borrowed

“respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives” from SL.11- 12.1.D and “to stimulate a thoughtful, well- reasoned exchange of ideas” from SL.11- 12.1.A).

Next Steps

Spandel argued that good rubrics “[a]reforeverchangingaswerefineour thinking” (18). Over the years, I have shared iterations of the rubric with prospective and prac-ticing teachers, who have helped me see its promise and limitations. A rubric, like any tool— a hammer, an interactive whiteboard— is not inherently obvious or useful. Tools require learning, an understand-ing of the context in and materi-als with which the tool is used, and a transformation of the user (Michaels and O’Connor, “Con-ceptualizing”). In other words, the rubric’s value leans on why and how it is used. If simply distrib-uted to students without explana-tion or instruction, the rubric may become a tool for punishment. If descriptors are introduced gradu-ally and partnered with examples (video clips, transcripts, teacher modeling, sentence frames), the rubric has potential to facilitate learning.

I invite readers to consider why and how they adapt this tool for their own purposes and contexts. How might the rubric be used for self- assessment? What might it look like to use this assess-ment tool as a tool for evaluation (i.e., grading)? In what sequence should teachers introduce these descriptors to students? How might the rubric need to be modi-fied for particular talk formats (partner talk, Socratic seminars),

I aimed to be precise and clear

about what listening and

speaking look and sound like,

thereby avoiding the pitfall of

assessing students based on

the quantity— rather than the

quality— of their participation.

Page 4: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

113English Journal

Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening

Lisa M. Barker, a former high school En glish and drama teacher, is an assistant professor of secondary and middle school edu-cation at Towson University, Maryland. She teaches courses on En glish education and young adult literature, and has been a member of NCTE since 2014. Email: [email protected].

Learning in the En glish Classroom. Ed. Martin Nystrand with Adam Gamo-ran, Robert Kachur, and Catherine Prendergast. New York: Teachers College, 1997. 30– 74. Print.

Nystrand, Martin, Lawrence L. Wu, Adam Gamoran, Susie Zeiser, and Daniel Long. “Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse.” Discourse Processes 35.2 (2003): 135– 96. Print.

Parker, Walter C., and Diana Hess. “Teaching with and for Discussion.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001): 273– 89. Print.

Spandel, Vicki. Creating Writers through 6- Trait Writing: Assessment and Instruction. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn, 2008. Print.

Socializing Intelligence through Aca-demic Talk and Dialogue. Ed. Lauren B. Resnick, Christa S. C. Asterhan, and Sherice N. Clarke. Washington: AERA, in press. Print.

— — — . “Talk Science Primer.” The Inquiry Project: Library of Resources. 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

Michaels, Sarah, Catherine O’Connor, and Lauren B. Resnick. “Delibera-tive Discourse Idealized and Real-ized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 27.4 (2008): 283– 97. Print.

Nystrand, Martin, and Adam Gamoran. “The Big Picture: Language and Learning in Hundreds of En glish Lessons.” Opening Dialogue: Under-standing the Dynamics of Language and

disciplines (history, science), or grade levels? I encourage readers to email me with ideas or submis-sions, and I applaud your com-mitment to teaching with and for discussion.

Works Cited

Cazden, Courtney B. Classroom Dis-course: The Language of Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2001. Print.

Michaels, Sarah, and Catherine O’Connor. “Conceptualizing Talk Moves as Tools: Professional Devel-opment Approaches for Academi-cally Productive Discussion.”

Page 5: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

National Council of Teachers of English— Your Partner in Professional Learning

While many know NCTE as the home of award-winning professional journals, national conferences, and the ReadWriteThink website, you might not know we have also been quietly supporting K–12 schools in building effective professional learning plans. We can: • Design professional learning plans that fit any budget and timeline• Select research-based literacy resources applicable across the disciplines• Identifyopportunitiestoevaluate your professional learning efforts and

build long-term capacity

Why partner with NCTE? For over 100 years, NCTE has been at the forefront of fostering effective literacy practices. As the professional home of the literacy community, NCTE is uniquely qualified to provide professional learning that enhances teaching while raising student achievement.

Are you responsible for planning professional learning experiences to address Common Core implementation challenges?

Get started with a free consultation.Contact the NCTE Professional Learning Division at [email protected], or call 1-800-369-6283.

NATIONAL CENTER FORLITERACY EDUCATION

In schools everywhere, educators are getting together to remodel literacy learning.

Share Your Story of Remodeling Literacy Learning! www.literacyinlearning.org/map

Sign your team up for free on the Literacy in Learning Exchange and join the movement of educators who are making change happen in their schools.

22

Remodeling Literacy

Learning Together Paths to Standards

Implementation

NATIONAL CENTER FORLITERACY EDUCATION

http://bit.ly/remodeling-togetherhttp://bit.ly/remodeling-lit-learning

EJ_May_2015_C.indd 115 4/30/15 5:50 PM

Page 6: Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ...imobergseed490l.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/defining... · Under Discussion: Teaching Speaking and Listening ...

Save the date!Save the date!Save the date!

Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of LanguageNovember 19–22

Minneapolis, MNWorkshops: November 19, 22–24

For more information,visit www.ncte.org/annual

20152015 NNCCTTE E Annual ConventionAnnual Convention2015 NCTE Annual Convention

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 2015

Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of Language Responsibility, Creativity, and the Arts of Language

EJ_May_2015_C.indd 116 4/30/15 5:51 PM