Next time you are in a meeting, pay attention to the style of speaking and listening. Do people build on each other’s conversations, do they listen attentively and ask probing questions to deepen their understanding of each other’s ideas? Or do only a few speak, is the dialogue disconnected and are the questions procedural and technical? This goes for the classroom too. Do students actively build on each others’ ideas, or are there a few who dominate and the rest are passive?
Identifying the problem is halfway to solving it. Below is a great description of four types of teacher talk in meetings, but I feel this equally applies to classroom conversations.
Getting good “teacher talk” starts with a good plan, preparation, a culture of respect for people’s time and ideas, modeling and training.
4 Types of Teacher Dialog in Professional Learning Contexts
DISCONNECTED TALK:
- Teachers’ comments are disconnected from each other and the group’s collaborative purpose; teachers tell stories and give each other advice.
- Comments are authoritative statements or personal stories.
- Talk about teaching is general and there’s frequent use of labels and generalizations.
- Claims are asserted as fact with only anecdotal evidence.
- Teachers are very sure of what they say.
- When questions are asked, they are technical, procedural, or personal; meanings, assumptions, beliefs, and values are seldom questioned – and when they are, it’s considered rude.
- There are few links to instruction.
- Knowledge and beliefs are fixed.
- Teachers are congenial with each other, but some don’t contribute.
CONNECTED TALK:
- Comments connect to an immediate task but don’t build on other teachers’ ideas.
- Ideas are shared as factual or authoritative.
- The dialogue is descriptive or evaluative with frequent use of labels and generalizations.
- Evidence is used to justify claims, sometimes with artifacts, often with anecdotes.
- Teachers occasionally express uncertainty or curiosity.
- Questions are procedural, technical, or for clarification; meanings, assumptions, beliefs, values are not pursued collectively.
- Links to instruction are seldom explored.
- Knowledge and beliefs are relatively fixed.
- Teachers are more or less congenial, with some members contributing only occasionally.
EXPLORATORY TALK:
- Teachers build on each others’ ideas with some pursuit of common meaning-making, critical comments, and alternatives.
- Teachers tacitly reach out to each other for genuine dialogue.
- The dialogue alternates between description and analysis.
- Evidence is shared, but it may be weak or unclear; questions are raised.
- There’s a noticeable element of wondering and uncertainty.
- Authentic questions emerge; meanings, assumptions, beliefs, values are raised but may not be pursued deeply.
- Some links to instruction are made.
- Knowledge and beliefs are occasionally questioned and reexamined.
- Teachers are congenial, and most contribute in discussions.
INQUIRY-BASED TALK:
- Teachers’ comments build on each other and dialogue spans meetings; teachers critique each other;
- alternatives are posed and examined.
- Teachers’ comments are tentative and invite dialogue.
- Descriptions support analysis.
- Evidence is sought, provided, and critically analyzed by the group, and new questions are raised.
- Teachers hypothesize; group members often use tentative statements like, “I wonder,” “Maybe,” and “Do you think…”
- Authentic questions emerge from artifacts; meanings, assumptions, beliefs, and values are examined.
- Links to instructional practices are critically examined.
- Knowledge and beliefs are regularly questioned and examined.
- Teachers are collegial with each other and, over time, all participants contribute.
From “Two Dimensions of an Inquiry Stance Toward Student-Learning Data” by Tamara Holmlund Nelson, David Slavit, and Angie Deuel in Teachers College Record, August 2012 (Vol. 114, #8, p. 1-42), via Ron Ritchhart, http://www.ronritchhart.com/ronritchhart.com/COT_Resources_files/4%20Types%20of%20Teacher%20Dialog%20in%20Professional%20Learning%20Contexts.pdf Accessed 08/04/18