3,201
edits
Teaching Approaches/Group talk: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
no edit summary
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== The Importance of Talk == | == The Importance of Talk == | ||
{{adaptedfrom|The Importance of Speaking and Listening|ImportanceOfTalk|Recent research has shown the importance of the link between spoken language, learning and cognitive development (e.g. Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004 – see below). Through using language and hearing how others use it, children become able to describe the world, make sense of life's experiences and get things done. They learn to use language as a tool for thinking, collectively and alone. However, children will not learn how to make the best use of language as a tool for communicating and thinking without guidance from their teachers. School may provide the only opportunity many children have for acquiring some extremely important speaking, listening and thinking skills. | {{adaptedfrom|The Importance of Speaking and Listening|ImportanceOfTalk|Recent research (see the collection edited by Littleton and Howe (2010)) has shown the importance of the link between spoken language, learning and cognitive development (e.g. Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif & Sams, 2004 – see below). Through using language and hearing how others use it, children become able to describe the world, make sense of life's experiences and get things done. They learn to use language as a tool for thinking, collectively and alone. However, children will not learn how to make the best use of language as a tool for communicating and thinking without guidance from their teachers. School may provide the only opportunity many children have for acquiring some extremely important speaking, listening and thinking skills. | ||
=Exploratory Talk and the Thinking Together approach= | |||
One approach to thinking about group talk has come out of the Thinking Together project based at the University of Cambridge. In this approach, ‘group talk’ is characterised as one of three ‘types’ – cumulative, disputational, or exploratory (Mercer & Littleton, 2007) as Table 1 indicates. | |||
Table 1 - Typology of Talk | |||
= | |||
{| style="border-spacing:0;" | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Type of Talk''' | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Characteristics''' | |||
| style="border:0.018cm solid #000000;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Analysis''' | |||
|- | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Disputational''' | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| “Characterised by disagreement and individualised decision making. There are few attempts to pool resources, to offer constructive criticism or make suggestions.” | |||
| style="border:0.018cm solid #000000;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| “short exchanges, consisting of assertions and challenges or counter-assertions (‘Yes it is.’ ‘No it’s not!’).” | |||
|- | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Cumulative''' | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| “Speakers build positively but uncritically on what the others have said. Partners use talk to construct ‘common knowledge’ by accumulation.” | |||
| style="border:0.018cm solid #000000;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| “Cumulative discourse is characterized by repetitions, confirmations and elaborations.” | |||
|- | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| '''Exploratory''' | |||
| style="border-top:0.018cm solid #000000;border-bottom:0.018cm solid #000000;border-left:0.018cm solid #000000;border-right:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| “Partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas. Statements and suggestions are offered for joint consideration. These may be challenged and counter-challenged, but challenges are justified and alternative hypotheses are offered. Partners all actively participate, and opinions are sought and considered before decisions are jointly made. Compared with the other two types, in exploratory talk knowledge is made more publicly accountable and reasoning is more visible in the talk.” | |||
| style="border:0.018cm solid #000000;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Explanatory terms and phrases more common – for example, ‘I think’ ‘because/’cause’, ‘if’, ‘for example’, ‘also’ | |||
|} | |||
Adapted from (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, pp. 58–59) | |||
The Thinking Together site at the University of Cambridge gives some typical sequences of each talk type<ref name="ftn1">[http://thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk/resources/5_examples_of_talk_in_groups.pdf http://thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk/resources/5_examples_of_talk_in_groups.pdf]</ref> (Mercer, 2008) in small group work. | |||
It is important to note that often dialogue will contain elements of each of these, and indeed that there are times when one ‘type’ of talk might be more appropriate than another – however generally speaking, higher levels of exploratory talk are associated with the educational gains discussed in the introduction to this chapter. A typical pattern of research in these studies has involved an intervention including the development of classroom ‘ground rules’, followed by lessons which are specifically designed to encourage high quality, dialogic, talk which engages pupils in explaining. The typology provides teachers with a simple way to understand the nature of the talk in their own classrooms, and – through encouraging explanation, elaboration, and mutual listening – some clear ways to improve the quality of the talk, as shall now be outlined further. | |||
== Ground Rules == | |||
[[Ground Rules]] are important to consider in order to establish effective group talk in classroom contexts. </nowiki>Again, the resources on the Thinking Together website website<ref name="ftn2"><sup>http://thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk/resources/Are_these_useful_rules_for_discussion.pdf </sup></ref> are useful for this purpose. | |||
== Exploratory Talk == | |||
Such ground rules should be designed to encourage mutual respect, and understanding, while also fostering high quality critique and reasoning through dialogue. | |||
---- | |||
<references/> | |||
= What Do Pupils Think of Group Talk? = | = What Do Pupils Think of Group Talk? = | ||
| Line 100: | Line 137: | ||
Read [[Group Talk in Science - Research Summary]]. Use a highlighter pen and mark those reasons for the promotion of effective group talk which are the most important for you in your lessons.}} | Read [[Group Talk in Science - Research Summary]]. Use a highlighter pen and mark those reasons for the promotion of effective group talk which are the most important for you in your lessons.}} | ||
=References= | |||
Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. | |||
