Date: 15 Nov 2007
Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Classroom discussion practices that can lead to reasoned participation by all students are presented and described by the authors. Their research emphasizes the careful orchestration of talk and tasks in academic learning. Parallels are drawn to the philosophical work on deliberative discourse and the fundamental goal of equipping all students to participate in academically productive talk. These practices, termed Accountable TalkSM, emphasize the forms and norms of discourse that support and promote equity and access to rigorous academic learning. They have been shown to result in academic achievement for diverse populations of students. The authors outline Accountable Talk as encompassing three broad dimensions: one, accountability to the learning community, in which participants listen to and build their contributions in response to those of others; two, accountability to accepted standards of reasoning, talk that emphasizes logical connections and the drawing of reasonable conclusions; and, three, accountability to knowledge, talk that is based explicitly on facts, written texts, or other public information. With more than fifteen years research into Accountable Talk applications across a wide range of classrooms and grade levels, the authors detail the challenges and limitations of contexts in which discourse norms are not shared by all members of the classroom community.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135–167.CrossRef
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Yearbook of the national society for the study of education, constructivism in education (pp. 193–224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Worthy, J., Sandora, C. A., & Kucan, L. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 305–314.CrossRef
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn: Grades 1–6. Sausalito: Math Solutions Publications.
Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social, institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 455–478). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delpit L., & Dowdy J. K. (Eds.). (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. New York: New Press.
Dewey, J. (1966). Liberalism and social action. New York: Putnam Sons.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond—liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.
Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.CrossRef
Goldenberg, C. (1992/3). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. Reading Teacher, 46, 316–326.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kapoor, I. (2002). Deliberative democracy or agonisitic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas–Mouffe debate for third world politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(4), 459–487.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141.CrossRef
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (Part II: Learning with understanding). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32–51.
Luria, S. E. (1984). A slot machine, a broken test tube: An autobiography. New York: Harper & Row.
Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mercer, N. (2002). Developing dialogues. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 141–153). Oxford: Blackwell.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Michaels, S., Sohmer, R. E., & O’Connor, M. C. (2004). Classroom discourse. In H. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (2nd ed., pp. 2351–2366). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., Hall, M., & Resnick, L. (2002). Accountable Talk: Classroom conversation that works (CD-ROM set). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
O’Connor, M. C. (2001). “Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 143–185.CrossRef
O’Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L., & Moses, R. P. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics, science. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science (pp. 89–125). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Connor, M. C. (1996). Managing the intermental: Classroom group discussion and the social context of learning. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context and language (pp. 495–509). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 189–196.CrossRef
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., & Lesgold, S. (1992). Developing thinking abilities in arithmetic class. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education (pp. 210–230). London: Routledge.
Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRef
Roth, K. (2003). Freedom of choice, community and deliberation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(3), 393–411.CrossRef
Walqui, A., & Koelsch, N. (2006). Scaffolding academic uses of english: Accelerating the achievement of secondary school english learners. San Francisco: WestEd.
Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. (1996). ‘This question is just too, too easy’: Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97–125). Hillsdale: Earlbaum.
Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.CrossRef
Wells G. (Ed.). (2001). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRef
- Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life
Studies in Philosophy and Education
Volume 27, Issue 4 , pp 283-297
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Accountable Talk
- Deliberative discourse
- Discourse community
- Discourse norms
- Diverse learners
- Learning community
- Reasoned participation
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Education, Jacob Hiatt Center for Urban Education, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA
- 2. Program in Applied Linguistics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- 3. Department Psychology and Cognitive Science, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA