Difference between revisions of "Accountable Talk"
Tonyguards (talk | contribs) |
(Undo revision 12519 by Tonyguards (Talk)) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Resnick, O'Connor, & Michaels (2007) illustrate accountable talk moves as follows: | |
| − | |||
| − | + | The six most important talk moves and an example of each move in its prototypical form | |
| + | follows: Talk Move (1) Revoicing: “So let me see if I’ve got your thinking right. You’re saying | ||
| + | XXX?” (with time for students to accept or reject the teacher’s formulation); (2) Asking students | ||
| + | to restate someone else’s reasoning: “Can you repeat what he just said in your own words?”; (3) | ||
| + | Asking students to apply their own reasoning to someone else’s reasoning: | ||
| + | “Do you agree or disagree and why?”; (4) Prompting students for further participation: “Would | ||
| + | someone like to add on?”; (5) Asking students to explicate their reasoning: “Why do you think | ||
| + | that?” or “How did you arrive at that answer?” or “Say more about that”; (6) Challenge or | ||
| + | Counter Example: “Is this always true?” or “Can you think of any examples that would not | ||
| + | work?” | ||
| + | Accountable talk should be accountable to community, accurate knowledge, and rigorous reasoning. | ||
| − | + | * Resnick, L., O'Connor, C., and Michaels, S. (2007). Classroom Discourse, Mathematical Rigor, and Student Reasoning: An Accountable Talk Literature Review. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:16, 4 December 2012
Resnick, O'Connor, & Michaels (2007) illustrate accountable talk moves as follows:
The six most important talk moves and an example of each move in its prototypical form follows: Talk Move (1) Revoicing: “So let me see if I’ve got your thinking right. You’re saying XXX?” (with time for students to accept or reject the teacher’s formulation); (2) Asking students to restate someone else’s reasoning: “Can you repeat what he just said in your own words?”; (3) Asking students to apply their own reasoning to someone else’s reasoning: “Do you agree or disagree and why?”; (4) Prompting students for further participation: “Would someone like to add on?”; (5) Asking students to explicate their reasoning: “Why do you think that?” or “How did you arrive at that answer?” or “Say more about that”; (6) Challenge or Counter Example: “Is this always true?” or “Can you think of any examples that would not work?”
Accountable talk should be accountable to community, accurate knowledge, and rigorous reasoning.
- Resnick, L., O'Connor, C., and Michaels, S. (2007). Classroom Discourse, Mathematical Rigor, and Student Reasoning: An Accountable Talk Literature Review.
