Sp e n c er Sal as, Paul G.

F i tc h e t t, a nd L e on ardo Mercado
U n i t e d S tat e s

and

Peru

Talking to Learn across

Classrooms and Communities

s teachers, we value the role

of participatory and exploratory civil dialogue in our
classrooms for its pedagogical benefits
(Haneda and Wells 2008; Heyden
2003; McCann et al. 2006; OKeefe
1995) and, even more, for what discussion profoundly represents for
democratic societies (Dewey 2009;
Fitchett and Salas 2010; Hoffman
2000; McCoy and Scully 2002).
Despite its many benefits, discussion
does not always come easily, especially
in language classrooms. Some educators dismiss dialogue as too advanced
for emerging English speakers. Others
believe in and want to include thoughtful discussion in their curricular repertoire, but they hesitate, worried that
students are not yet ready. Problematically, when students approach the end
of their formal trajectories as language
learners, they and their teachers have
had little practice with the ins and outs
of talking with each other in purposeful and thoughtful ways; thus, we are
all disappointed.
In our combined experiences, we
have seen the familiar sequence of a
18

2013

u m b e r

teacher asking a question, a student

or students responding, and the same
teacher evaluating that response while
the rest of the students wait their
turns. In other instances, talking is
framed as a debate with two teams
committed to outtalking each other
and competing for the teachers attention. Yet discussion can be something
much more than a contest for the
teachers recognition or an argument
with a winner and a loser. Structured
and focused classroom discussion
talking to learncan move student
interactions with the target language
forward while simultaneously serving
as a catharsis whereby competitiveness and egocentrism are replaced
with respect, empathy, and perspective sharing (Fitchett and Salas 2010).
In this article, we will outline
our guiding principles for engaging
students in thoughtful, participatory
classroom discussions. These broad
underlying principles or macro-strategies strike a balance between structure
and creativity central to orchestrating participatory, student-centered
dialogue (Freire 2000; Shor 1992).
1

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

We begin by articulating a model for promoting principled discussion (see Figure 1). We
conclude with a set of three specific but versatile formats for talking to learn in the English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom.

lectures, videos, and specialized websites on

the Internet or other sources.
At the same time, students do come
to classrooms with a multitude of lived
experiences. We suggest focusing discussions around those funds of knowledge
(Moll 2011) to stimulate purposeful and
introspective talk. For example, a potential
theme for discussion might focus critically
on the gendered roles that define women
and men in their homes and communities.
Questions generated around such a theme
might include, What are the roles of fathers
and mothers in raising children? or Should
children be raised equally by both parents?
Other theme-based questions may include,
What is the difference between having only
one working parent as opposed to two?;
What can be done to stem crime in our
neighborhoods?; or How is bullying a seri-

Engage participants in focused

discussions drawing from their
experiences

Although there are compelling reasons

to engage students in critical discussions of
current events, frequently learners may lack
the background knowledge to engage in such
discussions. Teachers who do opt for discussions of contemporary or historical events
should make sure that students are given
access to multiple information sources and
ample content preparation in order to discuss
the topic in an informed manner (Adler 2004;
Hess 2009). Participants can access articles,

Engage
students in
lived
experiences
Align
dialogue with
student goals
and
expectations

Honor
difference,
reflect, and
offer closure

Principled
Discussion:
Talking to
Learn
Offer multiple
opportunities
for students
to prepare

Focus on
meaning and
value active
listening
Keep the
conversation
horizontal

Figure 1. A model for principled discussion

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

Number

2013

19

ous problem and what should be done to

address it in schools?
Student involvement in the composition
of the questions is a way of approaching the
complexity or diversity of thought that a
theme might generate. With a theme in hand,
small groups of participants might then move
to developing potential questions for discussion. The theme of friendship, for example,
might generate questions such as What
are the qualities of a true friend? or What
are the limits of friendship? At this point,
teachers can help students sculpt thoughtful,
well-structured, and emotionally and developmentally appropriate questions for discussion.
Questions generate more questions. For
example, thinking about the limits of friendship, participants might begin to critically
examine their personal working definition of
friendship with specific examples of how
that relationship is or is not demonstrated.
With some thoughtful facilitation on the part
of the teacher, participants can choose what is
personally most relevant to them while maintaining coherence with the curriculum.

discussion writing and small-group work.

Writing questions about questions and about
ones own initial response creates a tentative
stance, where one begins to explore ideas and
adopt an opinion about a topic. Recursive
questioning also sends the message that dialogue is not merely a space to state ones position, but also a means of questioning our own
points of view.
Writing and talking in advance of a discussion widens the circle of participation. Preparing for a discussion is not limited to helping
students gather and organize what they are
going to say, but also lays the foundation for
how they will interact with each other. In
advance of the activity, teachers and students
might outline their expectations of appropriate behaviors such as routines for turn-taking,
protocols for disagreeing and agreeing, strategies for soliciting examples from peers, and
challenging classmates to consider alternative
viewpoints. In a series of mini-lessons before
or after a discussion, teachers and students
might examine specific structures and language that are indicative of and necessary for
respectful dialogue.
Participants might practice various ways
of expressing agreement (Thats an interesting pointIve thought about that too) or
disagreement with an idea or point of view
(Im afraid I disagree), or ways to indicate
uncertainty or tentativeness in ways that promote talk as opposed to silencing or shutting
down others (Thats an interesting way to
think about it. Im not sure what my opinion
is). With training and practice over time,
language learners at different levels can use
a variety of expressions naturally and confidently (see Figure 2).

Create multiple opportunities for

participants to prepare

Teachers often reward students for spontaneity. However, spontaneity can exclude
students who prefer to think deeply before
they speak. If teachers do opt for spontaneity, questions should focus on topics that are
exceedingly familiar to students, such as daily
routines or personal preferences.
Thoughtful discussions depend on
thoughtful preparation. Language learners
benefit from structured opportunities to prepare and organize ideas before actually participating in discussion. We recommend that
teachers encourage all participants to write
their ideas on paper first and to bring that
writing to the discussionthis way we can
be certain that all participants have something to say or, if necessary, to read. Prediscussion preparation might engage students
in well-known cooperative learning practices
such as think-pair-share, three-step interview,
or round-robin brainstorming (Kagan and
Kagan 2009). We have also found it helpful
for students to end these brief preliminary
composition activities by writing down the
questions that emerged in the course of pre-

20

2013

Number

Keep the conversation horizontal

It is often a struggle to decentralize the

conversation away from what the teacher
thinks. However, the top-down talk that
teachers are expected to provide in many
classrooms undermines the dialogic format
we advocate here. Cruz and Thornton (2009)
and Oxfam (2006) identify a number of
potential teacher roles ranging from a committed participant who expresses his or her
opinion while encouraging the expression of
others to one of an impartial chairperson
who recasts students opinions without ever

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

Level Expression
Thats an interesting opinion. In addition, I think
Elementary

Thats a good point. But I have a different opinion. I

I never thought of that before. Could you explain that
point a little more?

Intermediate

You have made some interesting points, but my opinion

may be a little different.
Certainly, I would have to agree withon this issue.
Furthermore, I can say that

Advanced

What an interesting suggestion. Could you elaborate more

on that idea, please?

Figure 2. The language of discussion

or her opinion? or What do you do when
one of your classmates begins dominating the
discussion? or How did your body language
indicate that you were listening to your classmates? can elicit feedback about behaviors
that enhance or detract from dialogue.
Recognize what specific students did at
certain points of the discussion that moved the
dialogue forward, e.g., I liked the way Leo and
Paul asked each other for specific examples of
the limitations of friendship. I appreciate that
Spencer invited Leo into the conversation by
asking him what he thought. Students can
also provide feedback to their teachers, letting
them know how they felt during the discussion
because of their teachers interventions and
observations regarding their performance.

revealing his or her point of view. Teachers

might very well express their opinion or might
hold off. (Im not completely sure of what
I think. Id like to hear what everybody else
thinks first.)
One simple strategy to decentralize discussions is for teachers to position themselves
physically such that they become a participant
among participants. A circle format is ideal.
In classroom spaces that do not accommodate
grouping and re-grouping, classmates might
elect a peer to represent the range of their
opinions in a panel format. After a series of
opening statements from each of the panelists,
the discussion might turn to questions and
probing from the panelists and audience.
Discussion formats sometimes favor extroverted students. Providing specific feedback
about individuals frequency of participation at
the close of a discussion and thinking together
how we might all work to encourage each
other to participate are strategies for raising
awareness of group dynamics and individual
levels of participation. For example, ask participants to identify a contribution they made
to a discussion and contributions others made
to the discussion. Articulate questions that the
discussion generated and identify behaviors
that encouraged or discouraged participation.
Asking students questions such as What did
you do to encourage a classmate to share his

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

Focus on meaning and value active

listening

A planned, intensive focus on form might

be a part of the pre-discussion preparation
sequences when students are consciously
readying themselves to engage in high-quality
language production. There are some instructional instances when real-time, corrective
feedback is appropriate (Ellis 2001; Harmer
2007; Nation 2007). However, once the dialogue begins, the focus should be on meaning
making. When students are talking thoughtfully together about something that they care

Number

2013

21

about, teachers should concentrate on understanding and helping them clarify or elaborate
their points of view and challenging them to
consider alternative perspectives with empathy. What students are trying to say should
be valued over form. As opposed to correcting
student language, teacher-talk might sound
something like, Is there another way that
we might think about friendships? or Can
you think of any reasons why someone would
want to put limits on friendship?
During the discussion, the class might
identify individual participants who can help
out with students struggling to express their
ideas. We also imagine that students talking about something that matters to them
might have a tendency to shift into their first
language (L1). Instead of penalizing students
for attempting to express an idea or thought,
consider students use of L1 as an indicator of
their motivation.
Dialogue depends on both talking and
good listenership (OKeeffe, McCarthy, and
Carter 2007; Rost 2006). We encourage teachers to think of ways to promote active and
thoughtful listening by assigning certain students the role of observers. During a discussion
or structured interchange, observers might take
notes on content and participant strategies and
behaviors that either stimulate or block the
dialogue. After the discussion, observers might
report out to the class, highlighting strands of
the discussion that they found important or
particularly thoughtful. Students might also
reflect on individual or collective behaviors
and strategies that encouraged or discouraged
thoughtful participation. Students debriefing
might include what individuals learned from
their classmates and what new questions the
discussion generated.

ficiency standards, can bolster that potential

(Mercado 2012). Teachers can plan discussions over the course of a semester or year so
that turn-taking, question formulation, and
reflective discourse all gain complexity and
richness as students move to higher levels of
language development.
As they help students engage in evaluation
and synthesis, teachers can cross-reference
the competencies and skills that increasingly
complex discussion activities require against
the descriptors of well-known proficiency
standards or guidelines, such as the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). To
that end, discussions will advance the level
of thought, elaboration, and complexity for
successful participation and simultaneously
contribute to the consolidation of skills and
competencies that correspond to the level of
proficiency students are seeking to develop.
Parker (2003) proposes two models for progressive discussion: deliberation and seminar.
Through deliberation, participants discussion
centers on resolving a common dilemma or
controversial issue such as Should website
providers be responsible for the quality and
usage of material on the site? or Which of
the main tenants of democracy is more important: freedom or equality? Unlike debate,
deliberation challenges learners to mediate
their perspectives in order to find an alternative middle ground.
Seminar, rather than resolving issues,
attempts to expand understanding of an idea
or concept. Frequently associated with inquiry and questioning strategies, seminar formats challenge students to question their own
assumptions and understandings. For example,
a seminar might entail an investigation of a
single text, such as Hughess (1995) I Tooa
free-verse poem that challenges the racial segregation of the early twentieth-century United
States. Both deliberation and seminar provide
students the opportunities to become critical
consumers of their own language acquisition
through advanced, engaged discourse.

Align progressively more demanding

dialogue with student goals and
expectations

Teachers can carefully plan discussion

activities that engage students in meaningful, participatory dialogue in ways that make
the most of their potential at any particular
point in time or language level. Curricular
vetting or the practice of validating planned
learning events in a course or program against
well-established criteria or benchmarks, such
as Blooms Taxonomy or international pro-

22

2013

Number

Honor difference, reflect, and offer

closure

At the conclusion of a classroom discussion, we suggest that teachers try to bring

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

some closure to the dialogue. Closure might

include a synthesis or review of the various
points of view that were expressed during the
course of the conversation, the questions that
the discussion generated, and the identification of behaviors that advanced the process.
Discussions can generate strong emotions.
Teachers should recognize these feelings but
at the same time honor the diverse ways in
which individuals might problem-solve or
conceptualize a particular issue.
Ending a discussion does not involve identifying who was more right. Rather, closure as
we understand it involves reflection on where
the discussion took us in our individual and
collective thinking and what additional questions it generated. To emphasize the generative
dimension of classroom discussion, teachers
might finish the discussion with individual or
small-group writinga chance for participants
to get down on paper what they did not say but
wish they had and what they are now thinking.
We also suggest that once teachers have modeled bringing closure to a discussion, students
themselves might also take a more active role in
facilitating that process.

2. Rating agreement/disagreement
Rating activities are useful discussion scaffolds (McCann et al. 2006). In designing
a rating activity, teachers should choose a
theme that allows for a variety of opinions
some potentially controversial. We suggest,
for example, value-oriented topics that address
the lived experiences of students and encourage a wide range of responses, e.g., a ranking
activity that elicits opinions about gendered
roles in family and society; friendship; honesty, etc. We have structured ranking activities,
for example, around the theme of lovetaking popular quotes about the emotion such as
All you need is love or Love is blind and
asking student groups to rate their level of
agreement or disagreement using a numerical
scale ranging from one to five. Afterwards, a
representative from each group reports on two
to three highlights of the small groups discussion. Follow up by having students create a
multilayered definition for whatever category
the ranking activity is examining.
3. Scenarios for role play
Role plays stress the adoption of perspective. They offer emerging English speakers a
platform that emphasizes the complexity of
the human condition by simulating conflict,
resolution, and compromise (Au 2010; Cruz
and Thornton 2009). Choose a short narrative to read and identify participants who will
take on the perspectives of the various characters. Thinking about the theme of friendship,
teachers might select a short reading such as
The Giving Tree by Silverstein (1964)the
poignant tale of a tree who gives a little boy
all she has until she is nothing but a stump
for the boy-turned-old-man to sit on. Allow
characters to prepare with the support of a
small-group opening statement explaining
their motivation and point of view: Why as
tree did I give all of myself to the boy? Why
as boy did I ask so much of the tree? Follow
up with pre-prepared questions from the class
to the tree and the boy.

Three formats for classroom dialogue

Teachers can approach discussion in various

ways. We conclude here with three formats
that we have found particularly generative and
flexible in terms of age and language readiness.
1. Gallery Walk
The concept of a gallery walk comes from
the world of art. Just as in an art gallery, participants move from one image to the next
responding at an immediate level to the images
displayed. In the language classroom, images
might be visual (a picture or graphic) or textual
(a word, phrase, or short reading). Develop a set
of written or visual images around a theme or
concept and use chart paper to post the images
or texts on tables or on the wall. A gallery walk
structured around the theme of friendship
might include pictures or artistic renderings of
friendship; quotes about friendship such as A
friend to all is a friend to none; or even simple
words such as enemy or friend. Direct teams or
groups to stations with a colored marker specific to their team. Have them respond in writing
to each visual or textual prompt. Debrief the
class on responses and encourage individual or
collaborative elaboration of ideas.

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

From What do I think? to How could

we think differently together?

As current and former classroom teachers,

we recognize that, as much as we believe in
dialogue, thoughtful discussion takes practice
both in and outside the classroom. Students
have the right to articulate their individual

Number

2013

23

References

and collective values informed by their lived

experiences. However, such perspectives can
evolve. Thoughtful classroom dialogue is a
powerful medium through which students
can gain fluency and confidence in the language while making substantial progress in
developing their language proficiency. When
discussion focuses on promoting empathetic,
genuine interchange, talking to learn can
transform traditional classrooms into communities of accomplished learners who interact and respect each other as equals. We
believe that English language classrooms can
and should mirror the sorts of communities
that we are in the process of still becoming
ones committed to exploratory, civil, and
participatory dialogue. Classroom practice
that supports the notion of cultural democracy (Banks 2008; Parker 2003) honors
students individual perceptions of content
and concept as valid, educative, and fluid.
What is more, instructional environments
emphasizing openness of discourse embody
the tolerance and civic understanding that
we need more of in our communities (Avery
2002; Torney-Purta and Richardson 2003).
However, far too often, in our classrooms and
our communities, discussion is adversarial,
polemic, and insular.
It does not have to be that way. Engaging
students in discussion encourages perspectivetaking and a dialogue of civility and tolerance
grounded in mutual understanding, respect,
and empathy (Avery 2002; Fitchett and Salas
2010). Constructive dialogue, as exemplified in the model presented here, empowers
students and teachers to reach these goals
while making a substantial contribution to
their English language development. As Hess
(2002) notes, teachers should teach both for
and with discussion. That is to say, it is not
enough to teach English learners the form and
function of the language. Students must also
be skilled in how to enact and sustain mutually challenging but respectful discourse. As
such, talking to learn across classrooms and
communities can empower English learners
of all levels with the skills and stances upon
which our cultural and political democratic
traditions are grounded and upon which our
collective futures as open societies depend.

24

2013

Number

Adler, M. 2004. The paideia proposal. In The curriculum studies reader, ed. D. J. Flinders and
S. J. Thornton, 15962. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Au, W. 2010. Not playing around: Teaching roleplays in social education. In Social studies and
diversity education: What we do and why we
do it, ed. E. E. Heilman, 29295. New York:
Routledge.
Avery, P. G. 2002. Teaching tolerance: What
research tells us. Social Education 66 (5): 270
75.
Banks, J. A. 2008. Diversity, group identity, and
citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher 37 (3): 12939.
Cruz, B. C., and S. J. Thornton. 2009. Teaching
social studies to English language learners. New
York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. 2009. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York:
WLC Books. (Orig. pub. 1916.)
Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating formfocused instruction. Language Learning 51 (s1):
146.
Fitchett, P. G., and S. Salas. 2010. You lieThats
not true: Immigration and preservice teacher
education. Action in Teacher Education 32 (4):
96104.
Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum. (Orig. pub. 1970.)
Haneda, M., and G. Wells. 2008. Learning an
additional language through dialogic inquiry.
Language and Education 22 (2): 11436.
Harmer, J. 2007. The practice of English language
teaching. 4th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.
Hess, D. E. 2002. Discussing controversial public
issues in secondary social studies classrooms:
Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and
Research in Social Education 30 (1): 1041.
. 2009. Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.
Heyden, R. 2003. Literature circles as a differentiated instructional strategy for including ESL
students in mainstream classrooms. Canadian
Modern Language Review 59 (3): 46375.
Hoffman, M. L. 2000. Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, L. 1995. I, too. In The collected poems of
Langston Hughes, ed. A. Rampersad and D.
Roessel, 46. New York: Vintage.
Kagan, S., and M. Kagan. 2009. Kagan cooperative
learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan.
McCann, T. M., L. R. Johannessen, E. Kahn, and
J. M. Flanagan. 2006. Talking in class: Using discussion to enhance teaching and learning. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
McCoy, M. L., and P. L. Scully. 2002. Deliberative
dialogue to expand civic engagement: What
kind of talk does democracy need? National
Civic Review 91 (2): 11735.
Mercado, L. 2012. Guarantor of quality assurance.

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

In A handbook for language program administrators. 2nd ed. Ed. M. A. Christison and F. Stoller,
11736. Miami, FL: Alta Book Center.
Moll, L. C. 2011. Only life educates: Immigrant
families, the cultivation of biliteracy, and the
mobility of knowledge. In Vygotsky in 21st century society: Advances in cultural historical theory
and praxis with non-dominant communities, ed.
P. R. Portes and S. Salas, 15161. New York:
Peter Lang.
Nation, P. 2007. The four strands. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 112.
OKeefe, V. 1995. Speaking to think, thinking to
speak: The importance of talk in the learning process. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
OKeeffe, A., M. McCarthy, and R. Carter. 2007.
From corpus to classroom: Language use and
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxfam. 2006. Teaching controversial issues. www.
oxfam.org.uk/education/teachersupport/cpd/
controversial/files/teaching_controversial_
issues.pdf
Parker, W. C. 2003. Teaching democracy: Unity and
diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rost, M. 2006. Areas of research that influence L2
listening instruction. In Current trends in the
development and teaching of the four language
skills, ed. E. Us-Juan and A. Martinez-Flor,
4774. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Shor, I. 1992. Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Silverstein, S. 1964. The giving tree. New York:
Harper and Row.

n g l i s h

e a c h i n g

o r u m

Torney-Purta, J., and W. K. Richardson. 2003.

Teaching for the meaningful practice of democratic citizenship: Learning from the IEA civic
eduation study in 28 countries. In Civic learning
in teacher education: International perspectives
on education for democracy in the preparation
of teachers, ed. J. J. Patrick, G. E. Hamot, and
R. S. Leming, 2544. Bloomington, IN: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science
Education. Eric Digest ED 475824. www.eric.
ed.gov/PDFS/ED475824.pdf

Spencer Salas is an Assistant Professor in

TESL Education in the Department of
Middle, Secondary, and K12 Education
at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte.
Paul G. Fitchett is Assistant Professor of
Education in the Department of Middle,
Secondary, and K12 Education at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
His research interests include the
intersection of social studies education,
teacher characteristics, and educational
policy.
Leonardo Mercado, originally from Queens,
New York, is the Academic Director at the
Instituto Cultural Peruano Norteamericano
and has been an ESL/EFL teacher, teacher
trainer, program administrator, and certified
language proficiency tester for more than
15 years.

Number

2013

25