Accountable Talk and Reading Comprehension: The Case of Shared Inquiry in the South Bronx.

Accountable Talk and Reading Comprehension:

The Case of Shared Inquiry in the South Bronx

Overview of Session

• The Challenge of Reading Comprehension• Brief overview of Accountable Talk and its link to

reading comprehension• Description of setting

– Community School 134– Shared Inquiry/Junior Great Books Intervention

• Directed Notes: How and why it works and video clip• Shared Inquiry: Video clip and analysis• How talk supports writing and achievement on

standardized tests

The Challenge:

Reading comprehension is critical to school success where the emphasis shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” around fourth grade (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Hirsch, 2003; Snow et al., 1998).

The Challenge:

We view reading comprehension as being able to read critically, weigh evidence, and explicate text-based arguments — all skills that are required in high school and college and in the workplace.

The Challenge:

Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2005) show that many American school children are not learning to read as early or as well as expected – 36% of fourth graders and 27% of eighth graders cannot read at the basic level (virtually unchanged from 2003).

The Challenge:

More troubling, NAEP results reveal a persistent achievement gap in reading between White students and Black and Hispanic students, with White students significantly outperforming their Black and Hispanic counterparts.

The Challenge:

Many elementary students struggle with the basics of literal comprehension; significantly more have difficulty with higher order comprehension skills. Put simply, reading comprehension is a major problem for many American schoolchildren.

How Talk Supports Reading Comprehension

There is an emerging literature on the effectiveness of classroom discussion as a means of improving children’s reading comprehension and evidence-based reasoning.


Research suggests that participation in well-orchestrated book discussions improves text comprehension, helps students read critically and interpretively, prepares students to write about texts, supports vocabulary acquisition, and develops students’ abilities to build text-based arguments and explicate their reasoning.


Well-orchestrated book discussions have a significant, positive impact on students’ reading comprehension; yet, the research also indicates that few teachers are skilled at leading good discussions.


“Accountable Talk,” developed by the Institute for Learning (Michaels et al., 2002), offers a set of tools for helping teachers lead academically productive group discussions. This presentation provides further support for the use of Accountable Talk as a framework for conducting text-based discussions.

What is Accountable Talk?

It is another term for “academically productive talk.”

Accountable Talk: 3 CD ROM set, IFL Michaels, O'Connor, Hall & Resnick (2003)

What is Accountable Talk?It is talk — by both teachers and students — that responds to and further develops what others in the class have said. It puts forth and demands knowledge that is accurate and relevant to the issue under discussion. Accountable Talk uses evidence appropriate to the discipline (e.g., proofs in mathematics, data from investigations in science, textual references in literature) and follows established norms of good reasoning. Accountable Talk sharpens students' thinking by reinforcing their ability to use and create knowledge (Michaels and O’Connor, 2002). (www.instituteforlearning.org)

http://www.instituteforlearning.org/

3 Facets of Accountability:

• Accountable to the Learning Community:• Accountable to Knowledge• Accountable to Rigorous Reasoning

Accountable Talk is talk — by both teachers and students — that is:

Accountability to Community

Some examples:– Student: “I agree with Damien

because…”– Student: “I need some help from Pedro

because I didn’t understand what he was trying to say.”

– Teacher: “Take your time. We’ll wait.” …

Accountability to Knowledge

Some examples: – Student: “Where in the story does it

show you that?”– Student: “I disagree with Damien

because on the first page it says…”– Teacher: “Where in the text do you see

that?”

Accountability to Reasoning

Some examples:– Teacher: “So, by reading that piece of

text, what point are you trying to prove to Damien?”

– Student: “That’s what makes me know that she’s nice in the end. It says it right here.”

Community School 134 (George Bristow School)

• South Bronx, New York• Population of 725 students, 99.8% free lunch

eligible– 44.5% Black– 53.4% Hispanic– 9.2% English language learners– 5.9 % full time Special Ed.

• Introduction of Shared Inquiry/Junior Great Books• Dramatic rise in test scores

Standardized Test Scores in Reading

Pre- and Post-Intervention Scores on State ELA Tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Level 1-Far BelowStandards

Level 2 - Below Standards Level 3 - Meets Standards Level 4 - Exceeds Standards

Pre

Post

Standardized Test Scores in Reading

Combining Levels 1 & 2 and Levels 3 & 4 Pre- and Post-Intervention

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Levels 1 & 2 - Below Standards Levels 3 & 4 - Meet or Exceed Standards

Pre-Intervention

Post-Intervention

Junior Great Books Discussionswith

4th graders at Community School 134in the South Bronx

Junior Great Books/Shared Inquiry Discussion Practice

• Monday — Text Opener, Read aloud, Sharing Questions

• Tuesday — Directed Notes

• Wednesday — Interpreting Words

• Thursday — Shared Inquiry Discussion

• Friday — Writing

Junior Great Books/Shared Inquiry Discussion Practice











Design of JGB Tasks

• 1) Access to the text and to the conversation.

• 2) There is a gradual transfer of expertise from teacher to students, with a low entry threshold for participating.

Access to the text and conversation

The text is read twice (typically out-loud by the teacher), and the kids follow along in their books. You don't have to be a good "reader" to participate fully in the discussions, but participating motivates you to do more reading, scouring the text for evidence, reading and re-reading, and even struggling readers read extended passages to the class to bolster their arguments with evidence. In doing “Directed Notes,” students get practice identifying key bits of evidence, citing the text, and reading passages out loud themselves before the SI discussion.

Gradual Transfer of Expertise from Teacher to Students

The skills students practice earlier in the week, with a lot of support, are then used in later activities (the SI discussion and writing). During “directed notes” students get practice in identifying "evidence," and explicating a link between evidence and an interpretive claim. The SI inquiry discussion recruits these skills as students bolster their positions with evidence from the text and challenge elements of other’s arguments. These moves are then recruited into their writing which they do independently.

Gradual Transfer of Expertise from Teacher to Students

There is thus a gradual shift in responsibility from teacher to student and a lessoning of social support as the week progresses, from practicing moves with a lot of teacher and task support, to using the moves in the service of an interpretive discussion, to using the moves in writing.

Directed Notes

“Cedric” by Tove Jansson

Sniff has a stuffed animal dog named Cedric. Cedric has topaz eyes and a moonstone on his collar. Sniff gives Cedric away and immediately regrets it to desperation.

Story within a story:Woman collects beautiful things. No time for friends. Gets bone stuck in stomach. Decides to give all her stuff away (because she’s suffocating). She finds friends. She laughs and the bone comes out.

Sniff finds Cedric left out in the rain, wet and dirty, without topazes or moonstone. Now Sniff loves Cedric “only for love’s sake.”

Video of Directed Notes

Shared Inquiry Discussion

Some fast facts about this discussion:

• Discussion lasted 54 minutes.

• 20 students participated

• 15 participated actively (taking from 3 to 45 turns)

Turns at Talk by Students

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

AlexisAlieenaAndrewCorey Cruz

D’andreDerrickDiara Emily

EricJason Jazmin

LelaMeganNataraNicholasQualima

StephanieTatyana

TyrellStudentStudents

# of turns

Total Number of Words (7,664)

2736

4928

0500

100015002000

2500300035004000

45005000

Teacher Students

Total Number of Turns: 450

182

268

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Teacher turns Student Turns

Average # of Words Per Turn

15

18

13

14

15

16

17

18

Teacher words/turn Students words/turn

Number of Turns in which Students Refer to or Quote Text

64

23

268

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Referring to Text Quoting Text Total Student Turns24% of turns 36% of references

to text are quotes

• interpretive claim

• locating text

• quoting or paraphrasing text

• warrant (linking claim and evidence)

• logical argument, mentioning evidence, or weighing competing evidence or claims

Examining Academic Moves in Discussion

The Transcriptinterpretive claimlocating textquoting or paraphrasing textwarrant (linking claim and evidence)logical argument, mentioning evidence, or weighing competing evidence or claims

Turn#

Transcript AccountableTalk Move

Function Argument Structure

1 Teacher: OK let’s begin. … Why atthe end of the story does Sniff loveCedric only for love’s sake quoteunquote only for love’s sake. … Isee three, four, five hands up. …Megan, begin.

FramingQuestionlaunching aPDDWait-Time

CausalClaim

Interpretive question(with multiple answersthat could be arguedfor with evidence fromthe text). Question isambiguous:1) What caused Sniffto change?2) What does “forlove’s sake” mean?3) What makes youthink Sniff haschanged?

2 Megan: I think that that Sniff loves.. at the end of Cedric, for love’ssake because now that he he don’thave a moonstone to like more thanCedric, he thought that he shouldlove him the way he was now nowthat he don’t have the moonstone.

Note: Megan’s written answerbefore discussion: “I think Sniffloved Cedric only for love sakebecause now that Cedric did nothave the topazes and moonstones. Ithink that because at the beginningCedric’s expression didn’t matteronly the moonstones.”

Claim based onevidence in text:(Accountabilityto Knowledgeand Reasoning)

ClaimEvidence

Megan’s answer, “Ithink X because Y” isambiguous. Is shemaking a causalclaim? An evidentialclaim? Interpreting“for love’s sake?”

Taken for grantedpremise: At thebeginning, Sniff lovesCedric more forjewels.

If-Then logicalstructure:If (A) Cedric has nojewels, and (B) Sniffloves him the way heis, then (C) Sniff lovesCedric for love's sake.At end of story, (A) nojewels.(B) Sniff thought heshould love Cedric theway he is.Therefore, C (Sniffloves Cedric for love’ssake)

3 Teacher: Why did he think that heshould love him now just eventhough he doesn’t have themoonstone?

Why?(Accountabilityto Knowledgeand Reasoning)

AskingforCausalClaim

Asking for linkbetween claim andevidence. Pushing fora causal claim.

4 Derrick: I have a question. Wouldhe still love him if he still had themoonstone?

ChallengingStudent Warrant(Accountabilityto Reasoning)

Warrant Derrick’sinterpretation ofMegan’s argument:At beginning Cedrichas moonstone.Losing Moonstonewould cause Sniff toLove Cedric for love’ssake.

Derrick is doing oneor both: Challengingimplicit warrant inwhat he thinks is acausal claim (that theloss of the moonstonecaused Sniff to loveCedric) or challengingassumption that inbeginning Sniff lovedCedric only for jewels,with hypothetical:what if he still hadmoonstone. Would itmake a difference?

5 Teacher: Go ahead. Derrick whatwas your question again baby?

So all can hear.(Accountabilityto Community)

6 Derrick: Do you think he would stilllove him with the moonstone?

Clarifyingclassmate’swarrant(Accountabilityto Communityand Knowledge)

Warrant Restating question.Still challengingwarrant.

7 Cs: Yeah … of course.8 Derrick: Well then why did you

say, that he loves him now that hedidn’t have the moonstone? Anddid it make any difference?

ChallengingStudent Claimor Evidence andWarrant(Accountabilityto Reasoning)

Claim,EvidenceandWarrant

Refining or clarifyinghis question.Challenging relevanceor significance ofevidence.

Video of first 5 minutes:

Insert video

• Text is rich and ambiguous;• Framing question, by design, is complex;• Students are not yet highly skilled at making and explicating

arguments;• Accountable Talk moves give the students tools to persist at

challenging intellectual work, take each other’s ideas seriously, to clarify misunderstandings, expand on one another’s ideas, and to build increasingly cogent arguments — bolstering their claims with clearly cited evidence and explicit warrants.

Transfering Moves into Text

Transfering Moves into Textinterpretive claimlocating textquoting or paraphrasing textwarrant (linking claim and evidence)mentioning evidence or argumentation or weighing evidence

EmmaIt always amazes me how reading a story can raise so many questions in my mind.

For example, in the story of Cedric by Tove Jansson why at the end of the story doesSniff love Cedric only for love’s sake? The only way to answer these questions is tocarefully examine the evidence. After examining the evidence in the story, I believe thatSniff missed Cedric.

First of all, on page 80, it says, as soon as he gave Cedric away he regretted it todesperation. I believe this supports my argument because when he said that he regrettedit to desperation and that means he missed Cedric.

Secondly, on page 80, it said he nether ate nor sleep nor talked he only regrettedit. I believe this supports my argument because he is thinking about Cedric, he can’t talkabout any thing because he missed Cedric to much.

Lastly on page 82, he said “I am not interested in fairy tales tonight,” Sniffmumbled wrinkling himself up. I believe this supports my argument because when hesaid, I am not interested in fairy tales tonight he is thinking about Cedric and he misseshim. In conclusion, based on evidence and my reasoning, I think that the best answer tothe question, why at the end of the story does Sniff love Cedric only for love’s sakebecause when he gave Cedric away he don’t eat, sleep, or talked because he miss Cedricto much.

Writing Sample #2

Transferring Moves into Textinterpretive claimlocating textquoting or paraphrasing textwarrant (linking claim and evidence)mentioning evidence or argumentation or weighing evidence

CoreyReading can raise so many questions. For example Why at the end did Sniff love

Cedric for love sake? After much thought the best answer’s we had were, He learns alesson from Snifkins story, Sniff misses Cedric, Gaffsie’s daughter teachers Sniff alesson, and He learned a lesson from Moominmama.

The best answer I can conclued is Gaffsies daughter teaches Sniff a lesson. Thisanswer proves me right because I have proff. Also It helps me conclued this answer.

For example on page 89 it says that Gaffsie made the topazes into ear drops. Alsoit says one day Sniff found Cedric laying forgotten in the rain. On page 80 it said it waspossibly the jewels were more important to Sniff. It was more important to Gaffsie andher daughter. But the differents is he changed. He love him for himself.

This is soproting my answer because she’s teaching Sniff what exactly what notto do. She is doing that by being unresponsable. She’s doing that by doing what Sniffdid. What he use to be. She does not know the true love if she does not for Cedric.

I think the answer is not he misses Cedric because he could be missing him for hisjewels at the part. It is not because of Moominmamma. She just told him to give it tosomeone you [liked] and it was one part. It is not that Snufkin story because it has oneflow [flaw]. That’s on page 88. It says if you’d have listened you should remember.

Recruiting Intellectual Moves in Answering Questions on

Standardized Reading Tests

Which of the following best describes the Crane’s behavior?a) caringb) thoughtfulc) selfishd) dangerous

Students’ ReasoningDiara: I put C….Selfish.T: Why?Diara: I put C because Tall Crane was not friendly to tired travelers.T: What makes you think he was not nice to the travelers?Diara: In the third paragraph it say (reads) “Tall Crane …. squawked…. you are not

welcome here.”T: Did anyone else pick C? (all raise hands). Did anyone pick a different letter?

(no hands)T: Did anyone have a different reason?Jason: He didn’t let the frogs stay.T: Can you read the place?…Jason: (searches and then reads) “you are….stay here”T: Why does that prove your answer?Jason: Because he didn’t let the frogs stay ‘cause he wanted everything to be the

same.T: Why is THAT selfish?Jason: That’s selfish because they’re tired and they just finished walkin’ for hours

for milesT: But, what’s HE doing that is selfishJason: Not letting them stay.T: OKCorey: I picked that he was being selfish because where it says “he squawked

harshly….except big frog”

interpretive claimlocating textquoting or paraphrasing textwarrant (linking claim and evidence)mentioning evidence or argumentation or weighing evidence

Accountable Talk and Reading Comprehension: The Case of Shared Inquiry in the South Bronx.

Documents

Transcript of Accountable Talk and Reading Comprehension: The Case of Shared Inquiry in the South Bronx.