Fundamentals of 'Talking the Talk'

By Doug Buehl,
Madison East High School teacher
Member, Wisconsin State Reading Association

March 2004

Have you indulged in any good talk lately? One of the delicious pleasures of our interactions with others is good talk. Talk around the dinner table with family; talk spliced into our teaching day with colleagues; talk with a close friend over coffee. Good talk helps us understand ourselves and others; it allows us to “go public” with some of our most important thoughts; it builds bridges and relationships. Human beings, it seems, are primed for talk.

Certainly our students arrive at school each day buzzing with talk. The hallways hum with camaraderie, gossip, banter, intrigue, storytelling, and yes, sometimes discord. We know our students relish their opportunities to talk.

Yet it is not easy to create classrooms that are hubs of good talk: talk that deepens understanding of the curriculum, sharpens student thinking, and sparks the exploration of new ideas. Teachers frequently find it a challenge to channel that natural convivial social talk of their students into the focused academic discourse that ignites learning.

The strategy
The University of Pittsburgh’s Institute For Learning has extensively investigated strategies for embedding academic rigor into the curriculum. Lauren Resnick and her colleagues have been particularly interested in the central role of classroom talk as students collaborate in their learning.

Resnick and her colleagues argue that classroom talk that truly engages learning is accountable on three levels. First, everyone accepts certain norms and practices that recognize and honor each other’s legitimate participation in the talk of the classroom. Second, students connect classroom talk to the curriculum and realize their responsibilities to accurate and defensible information. Third, students employ principles of higher-level thinking as they use evidence to formulate their arguments and clarify their ideas.

Classroom talk can appear in a variety of guises: teacher-led whole class discussions, cooperative group dialogues, partner shares, student presentations, peer conferences, literature circles, and so forth. But while the room may be brimming with talk, the classroom discourse may not be sensitive to and inclusive of all learners; it may stray from the content being considered; and it may be superficial, not achieving a deep and thoughtful processing of a topic.

Step 1: Creating a learning environment that establishes the expectations for productive classroom talk is a necessary first step. Any efforts that build community in a classroom, of course, contribute to the trust and acceptance that underlie encouraging and valuing the participation of all class members in the daily discourse fundamental to learning.

In particular, however, students need guidance in the behaviors associated with good talk. Good talk has a “give and take” quality to it; participants expect to take turns; there is a tacit understanding that any one individual does not dominate the floor for an extended period; and it is a common norm that one listens intently when others talk. And in a variety of ways, participants communicate that they care about what others say – they display nonverbal responses that reinforce that they are attending to the talk of others; they occasionally restate other’s points and ask for clarification and elaboration; they demonstrate serious consideration of other’s arguments by sometimes respectfully challenging them or disagreeing with them.

Resnick and her colleagues emphasize the social basis of learning, which is dependent on a classroom environment that underscores the need for learners to rely upon each other to hone their understandings. Such an environment is unlikely to develop without conscious modeling and feedback from the teacher. Students excited with the talk of a particular activity may have difficulty managing and balancing their enthusiasm; they may be impetuous in their responses; and they may overshadow or overwhelm others. In contrast, disengaged students or individuals who lack confidence may need frequent invitations and a variety of structures that integrate them into the talk as full participants.

Step 2: For classroom talk to be truly worthwhile, however, it must also acknowledge “how we know what we say.” Student statements need to directly connect to the material being studied. In other words, productive classroom talk needs to be purposefully intertwined into the curriculum.

This second level – accountability to knowledge – stresses classroom talk that strives to accurately represent information and ideas. Students may be asked to refer back to a passage, for example, to ensure that what they are saying is consistent with what “expert authorities” or the author would maintain.

While part of this dynamic reinforces learning through the checking and rechecking of “the facts,” students also bring in knowledge that cannot be affirmed by classroom materials. Students will share information they believe is relevant from a wide variety of sources and personal experiences. Although such references are an essential component of good talk, they can also be problematic, especially if students are unclear as to their sources, if the information is second-hand or misinterpreted, or if the statements are more opinion than fact.

As a result, classroom talk cannot have an “anything goes” ethos. While students are expected to base their responses on good information and are encouraged to offer additional insights, they need constantly to be aware of whether acceptable support is available to back up their assertions.

Step 3: Finally, at a third level, classroom talk develops learners who are incisive and critical thinkers. As students begin to inventory what they know, they are poised to make generalizations, draw conclusions, and search for implications. When students construct arguable observations about the material, they must be prompted to adhere to acceptable lines of reasoning to support their thinking. They may need to further refine their ideas as they respond to questioning, and they make find it necessary to qualify their position when challenged.

Posted February 27, 2004