Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 283–297 | Cite as

Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life

  • Sarah Michaels
  • Catherine O’Connor
  • Lauren B. Resnick


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.


Accountable Talk Deliberative discourse Discourse community Discourse norms Diverse learners Equity Learning community Reasoned participation 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn: Grades 1–6. Sausalito: Math Solutions Publications.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Delpit L., & Dowdy J. K. (Eds.). (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1966). Liberalism and social action. New York: Putnam Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond—liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldenberg, C. (1992/3). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. Reading Teacher, 46, 316–326.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32–51.Google Scholar
  21. Luria, S. E. (1984). A slot machine, a broken test tube: An autobiography. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., Hall, M., & Resnick, L. (2002). Accountable Talk: Classroom conversation that works (CD-ROM set). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roth, K. (2003). Freedom of choice, community and deliberation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(3), 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walqui, A., & Koelsch, N. (2006). Scaffolding academic uses of english: Accelerating the achievement of secondary school english learners. San Francisco: WestEd.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wells G. (Ed.). (2001). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Michaels
    • 1
  • Catherine O’Connor
    • 2
  • Lauren B. Resnick
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Education, Jacob Hiatt Center for Urban EducationClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Program in Applied LinguisticsBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department Psychology and Cognitive Science, Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations