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

download Lisa M. Barker, Column Editor Under Discussion: Teaching ... Teaching Speaking and Listening Lisa M.

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    03-Jul-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

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

  • 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.

  • C R

    IT E

    R IA

    (4 )

    E X

    E M

    P L

    A R

    Y

    (3 )

    A C

    C O

    M P

    L IS

    H E

    D (2

    ) D

    E V

    E L

    O P

    IN G

    (1 )

    E M

    E R

    G IN

    G (0

    ) =

    n ot

    a tt

    em pt

    ed w

    it h

    pr om

    pt in

    g

    C om

    m un

    it y:

    L is

    te ns

    a ct

    iv el

    y an

    d sp

    ea ks

    c le

    ar ly

    , r es

    po nd

    in g

    th ou

    gh tf

    ul ly

    to

    d iv

    er se

    p er

    sp ec

    ti ve

    s in

    w ay

    s th

    at

    su pp

    or t

    lis te

    ne rs

    in f

    ol lo

    w in

    g th

    e th

    re ad

    o f

    th e

    co nv

    er sa

    ti on

    .

    • Li

    st en

    s ca

    re fu

    lly w

    ith a

    le rt

    p os

    tu re

    , tr

    ac ki

    ng e

    ac h

    sp ea

    ke r.

    M on

    ito rs

    p ar

    - tic

    ip at

    io n

    so t

    ha t

    he o

    r sh

    e lis

    te ns

    m

    or e

    th an

    s pe

    ak s.

    • Sp

    ea ks

    lo ud

    ly a

    nd s

    lo w

    ly e

    no ug

    h fo

    r al

    l p ar

    tic ip

    an ts

    t o

    un de

    rs ta

    nd . M

    ak es

    ef

    fe ct

    iv e

    us e

    of e

    ye c

    on ta

    ct w

    ith p

    ar -

    tic ip

    an ts

    w hi

    le s

    pe ak

    in g.

    • R

    es po

    nd s

    to s

    pe ci

    fic c

    on tr

    ib ut

    io ns

    b y

    re st

    at in

    g an

    d bu

    ild in

    g on

    o th

    er s’

    id

    ea s-

    pr ov

    id in

    g re

    as on

    s fo

    r (d

    is )

    ag re

    ei ng

    w ith

    a n

    id ea

    , a sk

    in g

    fo llo

    w -

    up q

    ue st

    io ns

    , s yn

    th es

    iz in

    g sp

    ea ke

    rs ’

    co m

    m en

    ts .

    • Li

    st en

    s w

    ith a

    le rt

    p os

    tu re

    a nd

    t ra

    ck s

    sp ea

    ke rs

    . L is

    te ns

    m or

    e th

    an s

    pe ak

    s. •

    Sp ea

    ks lo

    ud ly

    e no

    ug h

    fo r

    al l p

    ar tic

    i- pa

    nt s

    to h

    ea r.

    M ak

    es e

    ye c

    on ta

    ct

    w ith

    p ar

    tic ip

    an ts

    . •

    R es

    po nd

    s to

    c on

    tr ib

    ut io

    ns b

    y bu

    ild -

    in g

    on o

    th er

    s’ id

    ea s—

    pr ov

    id in

    g re

    as on

    s fo

    r (d

    is )a

    gr ee

    in g

    w ith

    a n

    id ea

    , a sk

    in g

    fo llo

    w - u

    p qu

    es tio

    ns ,

    sy nt

    he si

    zi ng

    s pe

    ak er

    s’ c

    om m

    en ts

    .

    • A

    tt em

    pt s

    to (

    or , w

    ith p

    ro m

    pt in

    g, c

    an )

    lis te

    n w

    ith f

    oc us

    ed p

    os tu

    re a

    nd t

    ra ck

    sp

    ea ke

    rs . S

    om et

    im es

    n ee

    ds p

    ro m

    pt -

    in g

    to s

    pe ak

    , o r

    of te

    n sp

    ea ks

    a

    di sp

    ro po

    rt io

    na te

    n um

    be r

    of t

    ur ns

    . •

    Sp ea

    ks lo

    ud ly

    e no

    ug h

    fo r

    m os

    t pa

    r- tic

    ip an

    ts t

    o he

    ar . L

    oo ks

    in t

    he g

    en er

    al

    di re

    ct io

    n of

    o th

    er s

    w hi

    le s

    pe ak

    in g.

    • A

    tt em

    pt s

    to (

    or , w

    ith p

    ro m

    pt in

    g, c

    an )

    re sp

    on d

    to c

    on tr

    ib ut

    io ns

    b y

    re st

    at in

    g an

    d bu

    ild in

    g on

    o th

    er s’

    id ea

    s— pr

    o- vi

    di ng

    r ea

    so ns

    f or

    ( di

    s) ag

    re ei

    ng w

    ith

    an id

    ea , a

    sk in

    g fo

    llo w

    - u p

    qu es

    tio ns

    , sy

    nt he

    si zi

    ng s

    pe ak

    er s’

    c om

    m en

    ts .

    • W

    ith p

    ro m

    pt in

    g, a

    tt em

    pt s

    to li

    st en

    w ith

    fo

    cu se

    d po

    st ur

    e an

    d tr

    ac k

    sp ea

    ke rs

    . Sp

    ea ks

    o nl

    y w

    he n

    pr om