Written by Larry Czer
Classroom research tells us we (teachers) talk too much. Let that sink in for a moment. Immediately we defend our practice—aren’t we obligated to teach? Aren’t we called to educate the children in our care? Aren’t we trained to share knowledge? While all of these are true, researchers have discovered that we spend way too much time talking on less relevant issues. The word educate comes from the Latin educere, which means “to lead out.” Given that etymology, we should be doing more leading out and less pouring in.
We talk too much. Over 75% of classroom talk is teacher talk. Nystrand (1997), in his study on classroom discourse, said that the vast proportion of teacher questions and responses
- are test questions,
- are designed to get a response,
- do not involve uptake, and
- elicit a report of what is already known.
The theory that we simply pour knowledge in is an antiquated one. Planned opportunities for student interaction help them both grow in skills and comprehend material.
When we talk too much, the students don’t. Educational theory in language arts suggests that children learn and retain information while they are producing language. So writing and speaking are used as learning tools, rather than merely as assessment devices. Glasser (1986) claims that students retain 70% of what they discuss, as opposed to 50% of what they see and hear. When students use language, they are developing critical thinking skills that are necessary in the job market and in a democracy. We know that student language growth occurs with active involvement, student-oriented activities, and responsive environments. We as teachers control all of these.
When students talk, they are generally using higher-level thinking skills, which improve communication skills and increase comprehension. Research suggests that students recall information better and have better comprehension when working in small groups. What astounds me is that discussion enhances comprehension more for average or below-average readers (Murphy et al., 2009).
As classroom directors, we can make it easier to encourage discussions. The first item on our agenda is to create an atmosphere in which discussion can flourish. This means seating arrangements, time allotments, establishing standards, praising students, and most important, making a safe environment for speaking. I believe many students loathe discussion because they fear being wrong, or fear peer retribution later. I also think that students don’t entirely trust their classmates, so I would suggest using some team-building activities as lead-up exercises to small- and large-group discussion. The first time you attempt this might be rough, but take notes and adapt to make it work more efficiently. Note the speaking patterns that need to be addressed. Teaching speaking etiquette might be an excellent precursor to building discussions.
Another way we can encourage discussion is by working up to large-group discussions by using pairs, triads, and quads as lead-up activities. Teach students the conversational moves or sentence stems they need: “I agree/disagree with ____ because of ____.” The teacher should model discussion behaviors in class. You can share model discussions and debates from the Internet. Unfortunately, most of the talk shows they see are merely two or three people shouting over each other or cutting each other off, not letting an opponent complete a point.
We can also improve discussion by asking higher-level-thinking questions. Avoid yes/no, fill-in-the-blank, vague, or loaded questions. Don’t be the Ben Stein teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and answer your own questions without much wait time. Rather, ask questions that require analysis, synthesis, application—even personal opinion. Ask your students to supply evidence. Davis (1997) suggests challenge, relational, diagnostic, action, and cause-and-effect questions. Be comfortable with wait time!
During small group discussions, our job shifts from “fount of all knowledge” to facilitator. Monitor the groups by hovering and moving from group to group. Listen carefully for the direction of the conversation. Get them back on track if need be. My feeling is that it will be more challenging to get them started in a conversation.
Small group activities provide a useful introduction to positive classroom talk. Using techniques such as Say Something (or Say Anything), Tea Party, Gallery Walk, Speed Dating, Think-Pair-Share, Snowball, and Jigsaw build confidence and experience in the student. I use these small-group strategies as large-group discussion starters. These are easy to plan and administer and take up minimal class time. Students will get more adept at the processes and become more efficient with each use.
Once you move toward large-group discussion, your role changes. Once you’ve laid a solid discussion topic out there for your students to ponder, you cease to be the instructor. Your chief role is to orchestrate the discussion. You can paraphrase for clarity, ask follow-up questions, facilitate, probe, ask for evidence, and synthesize. Your main objective is to listen, understand, and steer. You can plan for a variety of large-group discussions by using Socratic Seminars (or Circles), formal debates, and panel presentations. I would suggest trying these only after some initial attempts. These activities require more planning and better training to accomplish, but they are certainly worth the effort.
Here’s the bottom line: Make time and room for classroom discussion to help your students become better critical thinkers and communicators.
Note: I have included a link to a pdf file briefly describing some of these activities. More information can be found online. Strategies
Larry Czer (’79) serves as an English professor at Martin Luther College.
References
Davies, B. (1997). Oral Discourse and Education. New York: Springer.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Perennial Library.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. (pp. 1-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764.
Dr, Czer, Thank you for the stimulating thoughts in this essay. You wrote, “So writing and speaking are used as learning tools, rather than merely as assessment devices.” I’m not sure what the research would say about this extension of the theory above, but I have long wondered if it might be true that students learn more completely when they are given opportunities to teach the same lessons their teacher has taught them to others. In other words, teaching is a high-level form of learning—possibly even the highest form of learning.
Kenn Kremer
It might not be sufficient to draw a pedagogical conclusion from the etymology of the word “education.” The theory that knowledge exists within the student and must be drawn out was popularized by men like Fröbel, Herbart, and especially Pestalozzi in the 19th century. Pestalozzi wrote “all educative instruction must be drawn out of the children themselves, and be born within them.” This theory is largely based on their theological anthropology—”man is of himself good.” Interestingly, these same authors base their methods for doing this educating upon the methods of Nature (science, research).
One could also consider that the word “instruct” comes from the Latin “instruo” meaning to “build into.” Considering that etymology perhaps we should first build into a students a storehouse of sound arguments and knowledge, upon which they can later discuss intelligently.
What do you do with the introverts in your classroom?