Quality Talk is an approach to classroom discussion premised on the belief that talk is a tool for thinking and that certain kinds of talk can contribute to high-level comprehension of text. We describe our model in terms of four elements: (1) an ideal instructional frame for discus- sion; (2) discourse tools and signs to promote productive talk about text; (3) conversational moves for teacher modeling and scaffolding;
and (4) a set of pedagogical principles.
ideal instructional Frame
We developed what we call an “ideal” instructional frame for conduct- ing productive discussions from our analysis of the nine discussion approaches. This frame represents a set of conditions that we think are important for promoting quality talk about text; there is room for varia- tion from these conditions, but they reflect what we think is ideal. To develop this frame, we read all available documents and viewed videos describing the approaches and coded them on various parameters of discussion. The parameters related to key decisions that teachers make to define the instructional frame for discussion. We began by describing the approaches in terms of the parameters identified by Chinn, Ander- son, and Waggoner (2001): To what extent does the orientation toward the text correspond to an aesthetic, efferent, and critical–analytic stance?
Who has interpretive authority? Who has control of the topic? Who controls turns for speaking? To these, we added parameters suggested by Hans- sen (1990), as well as others, that we thought captured important varia- tion among the approaches: Who chooses the text? What genre is used?
When does reading occur? Is discussion whole class or a small group? Is the group homogeneous or heterogeneous in ability? Is the group teacher- or peer-led? To what degree is discussion focused on authorial intent? In total, we coded the approaches on 13 parameters.
We found it was relatively easy to code the approaches in terms of stance. We agreed that LCs, GCs, and BC gave prominence to the expressive stance; QtA, ICs, and JGB gave prominence to the efferent stance; and PS, CR, and P4C gave prominence to the critical–analytic
stance. Our understanding of stance was informed by Rosenblatt’s (1978) characterization of the aesthetic and efferent stance. However, we took issue with the term aesthetic as applied to these discussions because, in our judgment, few actually attained a truly aesthetic response (see Soter & Shen, 2005, for a discussion of this issue). Instead, we chose to use the term expressive, after Jakobson (1987), to describe a reader-focused response. In this stance, discussion gives prominence to the reader’s affective response to the text, to the reader’s own sponta- neous, emotive connection to all aspects of the textual experience. We defined an efferent stance as a text-focused response in which discus- sion gives prominence to reading to acquire and retrieve information.
The focus is on “the ideas, information, directions, conclusions to be retained, used, or acted on after the reading event” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p.
27). Drawing on the work of Wade, Thompson, and Watkins (1994), we defined a critical–analytic stance as a more objective, critical response in which discussion gives prominence to interrogating or querying the text in search of the underlying arguments, assumptions, worldviews, or beliefs. This stance engages the reader’s querying mind, prompting him or her to ask questions.
As we coded the approaches on the parameters, we had two major revelations. One revelation was that there seemed to be a rela- tion between the stance realized in the discussions and the control exerted by teachers versus students. Discussions that gave prominence to an expressive stance (LCs, GCs, and BC) were ones in which stu- dents seemed to have the greatest control. By contrast, discussions that gave prominence to an efferent stance (QtA, ICs, and JGB) were ones in which teachers seemed to have the greatest control. And discussions that gave prominence to the critical–analytic stance (PS, CR, and P4C) were ones in which teachers and students seemed to share control. We noted that, in the more critical–analytic approaches, the teacher had considerable control over text and topic, but students had considerable interpretive authority and control over turn taking (i.e., a more open participation structure).
Another revelation was that at least a moderate degree of empha- sis on the efferent and the expressive stances seemed necessary for dis- cussion to foster a high critical–analytic orientation to text. There were not enough degrees of freedom among the nine approaches for us to be sure about this conjecture, but it was, at least, consistent with other the- ory on the role of knowledge and affect in learning. Piaget (1954/1981),
Quality Talk about Literary Text 149 for instance, thought of interest as the “fuel” for constructive activity and argued that both emotional and intellectual engagement were nec- essary for sustained inquiry.
We speculated that the shared control between teacher and stu- dents in the more critical–analytic approaches helped foster the knowl- edge-driven and affective engagement. Indeed, we thought of the shared control as the “group-level substrate” that helped give rise to the efferent and expressive responses that, in turn, fueled the critical–
analytic stance.
Thus our ideal instructional frame for conducting productive discussions includes shared control between teacher and students, in which the teacher has control over choice of text and topic but stu- dents have interpretive authority and control of turns (i.e., there is an open participation structure). Another important feature is a moder- ate to high degree of emphasis on the expressive and efferent stances toward the text. As indicated, we believe at least a moderate degree of knowledge-driven and affective engagement is necessary (though not sufficient) for students to interrogate or query text in search of its underlying arguments, assumptions, worldviews, or beliefs. Students need to be encouraged to make spontaneous, emotive connections to the textual experience (i.e., a personal, expressive response) while read- ing to acquire and retrieve information (i.e., an efferent stance). Having connected with the text and gained a general understanding, students are well positioned to adopt a critical–analytic stance. These features and other parameter values of our ideal frame for conducting discus- sions about text are shown in Table 8.1.
Discourse tools and signs
Our understanding of the discourse tools and signs for productive talk about text came from our analysis of the discourse of the nine discus- sion approaches. We sought to analyze transcripts of the discussions in terms of discourse features that might serve as proximal indicators of high-level comprehension. First, we scoured the research literature on classroom discourse and student learning to identify features of dis- course that were linked to high-level comprehension. We looked for features for which there was good theoretical warrant for believing that they were linked to high-level thinking and comprehension and good empirical research demonstrating that connection.
After several months of searching the literature and testing can- didate discourse features on samples of transcripts, we arrived at a set of features that we thought might serve as proximal indicators of stu- dents’ high-level comprehension. These were: teachers’ and students’
use of authentic questions, uptake, and questions that elicit high-level thinking (i.e., generalization, analysis, speculation) (Nystrand et al., 1997; Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003); teacher and stu- dents’ use of questions that elicit extratextual connections (i.e., affec- tive, intertextual, and shared knowledge connections) (Allington &
Johnston, 2002; Applebee et al., 2003; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993;
Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Shuart-Faris & Bloome, 2004; Taylor, Pear- son, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003); students’ elaborated explanations (Chinn, O’Donnell, & Jinks, 2000; Webb, 1989); and students’ explor- atory talk (Mercer, 1995, 2000). We also identified a number of “reason- ing words,” words that, when used in appropriate contexts, signal rea- soning (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Wegerif, Mercer & Dawes, 1999). Table 8.2 provides definitions and examples of these features.
Next, we analyzed full transcripts of discussions from the nine approaches for these features. Following Nystrand and colleagues (1997), taBle 8.1. Parameter values of an ideal instructional Frame
for Productive Discussion about text
Parameter Ideal value
Prediscussion activity Yes, to promote individual response
Choice of text Teacher
Control of topic Teacher
Interpretive authority Students
Control of turns Students
Whole class/small group Small group
Teacher-/peer-led Either, but begin with teacher-led Grouping by ability Heterogeneous
Reading before/during Before
Genre Narrative fiction
Expressive stance Medium to high
Efferent stance Medium to high
Critical–analytic stance High
Postdiscussion activity Yes; sometimes content, sometimes process
Quality Talk about Literary Text 151
taBle 8.2. Discourse tools and signs for Productive Classroom Discussion about text
Discourse
feature Teacher (T)
Student (S) Definition Examples
Authentic
question T&S Answer is not
prespecified; speaker is genuinely interested in knowing how others will respond.
“How do you think annoying them would do that?”
Uptake T&S A speaker asks a question about something that another speaker has uttered previously.
Often marked by use of pronouns.
“How did it work?”
“What causes this?”
High-level thinking question
T&S Marked by analysis, generalization, speculation: “How?”
“Why?” “What if?”
“So how did Fulton’s success affect river travel?”
Affective response question
T&S Makes connections between text and student's own feelings or life experiences.
“What did you feel?”
Intertextual response question
T&S Makes connection between text and another text, or other works of art, media, TV, newspapers, etc.
“How is that like another book we read?”
Shared knowledge response question
T&S Makes connection between current discussion and previous discussions or knowledge that has been shared.
“What did we talk about last week that relates to this?”
Elaborated
explanation S Thinking is explained in some detail through extension, building on an idea step by step, giving reasons for a statement, expanding on a statement.
“I agree with Joseph, because he keeps annoying them by saying ‘shut up,’
and I think he is trying to just get them to let him play because they wouldn’t let him play because he didn’t have his glove.”
(continued)
we coded questions based on what they elicited from students rather than based on their form; in other words, we coded “question events.”
In Nystrand and colleagues’ view, questions are “sites of interaction” (p.
144) at which students’ responses to questions reflect their understand- ings of the interactions as manifest in their discourse moves.
One insight we gained from this analysis was that the more critical–
analytic and more expressive approaches seemed to offer the greatest opportunities for students to engage in high-level thinking and rea- soning. These approaches showed high incidences of authentic ques- tions and uptake—discourse moves that Nystrand and colleagues (1997) viewed as providing epistemological space in which students can construct knowledge. Commensurate with this pattern of findings, these approaches also showed high incidences of questions that elic- ited high-level thinking (analysis, generalization, speculation) and high incidences of elaborated explanations and/or exploratory talk.
However, what distinguished the more critical–analytic approaches from the more expressive approaches were differences in the opportu- nities for individual and collective reasoning. The more critical–analytic approaches, especially CR and P4C, showed high incidences of both elaborated explanations and exploratory talk (JGB also fared quite well taBle 8.2. (continued)
Discourse
feature Teacher (T)
Student (S) Definition Examples
Exploratory
talk S Coreasoning in which
students build and share knowledge over several turns, evaluate evidence, consider options. Use language to “chew”
on ideas, to think collectively. Typically contains clusters of reasoning words.
S1: “But why do you think she wants to be a kid?”
S2: “Because she likes to swim and be around lots of kids.”
S3: “And she likes playing a lot, with kids and stuff.”
S1: “Yes.”
S4: “And I agree, because if she wasn’t swimming, she’d probably be sitting back in a rocking chair.
She’s having a lot of fun, just like the children.”
Reasoning
words S Conjunctions and phrases that indicate a reasoning process is at work (e.g., adverbial conjunctions).
Because, if, so, I think, agree, disagree, would, could, maybe, might, how, why
Quality Talk about Literary Text 153 in this regard). By contrast, the more expressive approaches showed high incidences of exploratory talk but somewhat lower incidences of elaborated explanations. We think the shared control between teachers and students in the more critical–analytic discussions is responsible for the richer reasoning. The shared control provides space for students to engage in extended episodes of collective reasoning, but it still affords teachers opportunities to model, scaffold, and prompt students’ indi- vidual reasoning.
This explanation is supported by the pattern of findings within the expressive approaches. In BC, in which the teacher is absent in the small-group discussions, we found that there were more opportuni- ties for exploratory talk than in LC and GC. Conversely, in LC and GC, where the teacher is usually present, we found that there were more elab- orated explanations (though still not as much as in the critical–analytic approaches).
Taken together, our findings support the view that productive dis- cussions are structured and focused yet not dominated by the teacher.
They suggest that productive discussions occur where students hold the floor for extended periods of time, where students are prompted to discuss texts through open-ended or authentic questions, and where discussion incorporates a high degree of uptake. Our findings also sug- gest that a certain amount of modeling and scaffolding on the part of the teacher is necessary to prompt elaborated forms of individual rea- soning from students.
In our Quality Talk model, we call the discourse features “tools and signs” to help teachers promote productive discussion and under- stand when it might be occurring. Following Vygotsky (1978), we refer to them as tools and signs to emphasize that some act as external agents to promote productive talk among students and some serve as inter- nal signs of students’ high-level thinking and comprehension. Some of them are epistemological tools teachers can use to give students greater control over the flow of information: asking authentic questions that invite a range of responses from students; employing uptake to build on students’ contributions; and asking questions that elicit students’ high- level thinking (i.e., generalization, analysis, and speculation). Some are signs of individual and collective reasoning that teachers can look for and encourage, such as students giving elaborated explanations and engaging in exploratory talk. Reasoning words provide another index of elaborated explanations and exploratory talk. Over time, the distinc-
tion between tools and signs becomes blurred as students internalize certain discourse tools and use them to support and foster not only their own thinking but also that of their peers.
teacher modeling and scaffolding
Conversational moves for teacher modeling and scaffolding productive talk about text, the third element of our model, grew out of our profes- sional development work with teachers. We were at first reluctant to prescribe specific techniques for use by teachers because of our desire to make the model applicable in a wide range of contexts. However, it soon became apparent that some teachers could benefit from having a repertoire of conversational moves to initiate students into the kinds of talk that promote critical–reflective thinking about text. Teacher moves are key features of QtA, CR, and PS. They appear to provide a useful, temporary aid for teachers in the early stages of conducting discussions (P. D. Pearson, personal communication, April 30, 2005), and research suggests that such prompts help mediate student learning and prob- lem solving (King, 1999; Wegerif, 2006). Table 8.3 provides examples of teacher moves that model and scaffold productive talk about text.
Pedagogical Principles
The pedagogical principles, the fourth element of our model, comprise understandings about language and pedagogy that we think are essen- tial to fostering a culture of dialogic inquiry in the classroom. These were developed from our review of the research literature on discus- sions and from our experience working with teachers who were learn- ing to implement Quality Talk discussions. As we sifted through the literature on extant discussion approaches, we noticed some common- alities in pedagogy that were not reflected in the other elements of our model. Our experience working with teachers confirmed that the prin- ciples were indeed important for conducting productive discussions.
The first set of principles comprises basic notions about conduct- ing discussions about text:
Use rich, interesting texts that permit a variety of interpretations, opin-
•
ions, or positions on the part of students on a topic with which students have some familiarity (i.e., background knowledge). Texts suited to discussion have a dialogic quality that affords students opportunities to engage
Quality Talk about Literary Text 155
with them from expressive, efferent, and critical–analytic stances. Our experience suggests that discussions are facilitated by texts that are somewhat challenging for students yet that cover topics with which they have some familiarity.
Establish collaboratively with students norms or “ground rules” for
•
discussion. Ground rules for discussion are a feature of CR and, to some extent, BC and LCs. They help promote a more open participation structure by giving students more control over turn taking. They are also important in helping foster exploratory talk (Mercer, 1995).
Initiate discussion by asking a “big question.”
• A big question is a
question of central importance to understanding the story, and it is an authentic question in that there is no one right answer. Big questions, sometimes called interpretive questions, are a feature of CR, P4C, GCs, and JGB. A good big question establishes the overall goal for the discus- sion and helps motivate the expressive, efferent, and critical–analytic stances toward text. It elicits differences of opinion about the text and encourages students to offer well-founded, reasoned responses—and it is these differences of opinion and reasoned responses that pull stu- taBle 8.3. examples of teacher moves that model and scaffold Productive talk about text
Summarizing.
• Teacher slows group down and summarizes what has been dis- cussed. Builds coherence.
Example: “Let’s just pause here and summarize what we’ve all said.”
Modeling.
• Teacher models a move she or he would like students to make.
Example: “I’m a little confused as to how that fits in with your argument. Can you say that more clearly?” “Brian, do you have something to add to that?”
Prompting.
• Teacher helps student construct a longer response or a response that includes evidence from the text, thereby supporting more sophisticated talk.
Example: “Why do you think that?” “So why does that mean Victor was an angel?”
Marking.
• Teacher makes explicit or reinforces a good move a student made.
Example: “Did you notice what Mary did? She went back to the text to find evidence for her point of view. I really like the way Mary did that.”
Challenging.
• Teacher challenges students to consider an alternative point of view.
Example: “Some people might say . . . ” “Does what you’re talking about happen for everyone?” “Do you think that makes sense?”
Participating.
• Teacher participates as a group member to share his or her own ideas about the text; she or he displays a willingness to think and talk with the students.