Raising the Level of Student Engagement in Higher Order Talk and Writing

Many studies have documented the indirect effects of a rich discourse environment on developing literacy skills, both in and out of school (Edwards & Westgate, 1987; Greenleaf & Freedman, 1993; Gundlach, 1982; Gutiérrez, 1994; Heath, 1983a, 1983b; Marshall, Smagorinsky, & Smith, 1995; Newell & Durst, 1993; Nystrand, 1997; Wells, 1999). Together these studies affirm the important formative role played by the sociocultural environment in the development and acquisition of literacy. Yet in American English classrooms, while classroom discourse is ubiquitous, it is typically neglected as a resource for learning. It is ubiquitous in that it is the modus operandi of whole-class instruction. It is neglected in that teachers’ focus in its use is typically on instructional objectives unrelated to the quality of the talk; classroom discourse is simply the medium for getting things done in the classroom. For example, Nystrand and Gamoran (Nystrand, 1997; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991) discovered that 85% of all instructional time in a comprehensive sample of eighth- and ninth-grade English language arts classrooms is some combination of recitation, lecture, and seatwork. The prominence of recitation is not a new finding. Indeed, as early as 1860, Morrison complained that "young teachers are very apt to confound rapid questioning and answers with sure and effective teaching" (cited in Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969). More recent studies continue to find similar results: see Duffy (1981), Durkin (1978-79), Hoetker & Ahlbrand (1969), Goodlad (1984), Sarason (1983), and Tharp & Gallimore (1988).

Building on work by Heath (1983a) and Britton (1969), who viewed classroom discourse as "the ocean on which all else floats," we now know that the quality of classroom talk is significantly related to student achievement in English language arts. In his meta-analysis of research on writing instruction, for example, Hillocks (1986) found that the classroom discourse most conducive to enhancing writing skills involved peer-response groups with an "inquiry" focus: assigned topics involving analysis of readings or other "data" and attention to rhetorical strategies. Lee’s (1993) study of signifying in literature instruction with African American students shows the pedagogical importance of discourse genres related to students’ communities and cultures. Sperling’s (1995) study, examining a single secondary lesson in great detail, provocatively traces the clear influence of classroom talk on student writing, even involving the talk of some students who chose to do no writing.

The relationship between classroom discourse and achievement in both literature and writing has been a major focus of research by CELA principals for more than a decade. Overall, these studies find that learning is most effective when classrooms emphasize knowledge derived from active participation in meaningful conversations within important fields of study. For example, Langer’s (1987) research relates high literacy to classroom environments that are inquiry based, response based, and support students in the role of problem finders as well as problem solvers. Langer (1995) and Applebee (1996) have shown how writing development is clearly shaped by the underlying philosophy of instruction as enacted through the discussion of literature and other instructional activities. In recent award-winning work on curriculum as conversation, moreover, Applebee’s (1996; Applebee et al., 2000) work illuminates the important role that classroom discourse plays in shaping curriculum and what students learn.

In the largest empirical study of classroom discourse ever undertaken, Nystrand and Gamoran (Nystrand, 1997; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991a, 1991b) discovered that discussion (or what Tharp & Gallimore [1988] call instructional conversation) was one of the rarest of activities in English classes – on average less than a minute a day in the classes they studied. It nonetheless accounted for significant gains in students’ achievement in literature as measured by tests assessing recall, depth of understanding, and response to aesthetic elements of literature. This research is the first ever to find significant empirical support associating discussion with student learning. In addition, the students they studied tended to make significant gains to the extent that teachers asked authentic questions (open-ended, interpretive questions with unprescripted answers) and followed up student responses with probing questions about their responses (a practice known as uptake; cf. Collins, 1982). In subsequent work on the same data (Nystrand, 1999), they found such dialogic patterns of classroom discourse are significantly promoted when teachers allow and encourage students to ask questions about their work.

In all, CELA research clearly shows that classroom discourse mediates the development of high literacy because it is the chief mechanism in the construction of classroom epistemology: What counts as knowledge is largely shaped by the questions teachers ask, the responses they make to their students, and how they structure small-group and other pedagogical activities. This is why a major component of the Partnership for Literacy focuses on teachers’ use of classroom discourse to enhance their students’ achievement.

A comprehensive reference list is available.