Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 7

In the past six posts, we have taken a look at the meaning of “authentic” and discussed what it means to use “authentic resources”.

We have looked at the interpretation phase of the High-Leverage Teaching Practice and seen that the relationship between interpretation and discussion seems a bit muddled in the description of the practice.

Now we come to the second part of the practice: Leading a Text-Based Discussion.

Before looking at this smaller “grain-size practice” (P. 66) in detail, two comments about the overall practice are in order:

Sometimes what one does not say is as important as what one says, and this case is no different. Missing from the title of this portion of the HTLP is the word “authentic”. This is because the “authenticity” of a text is irrelevant to having a text-based discussion and because the practice is transcurricular, i.e. is applicable to any content are in which discussions occur.

This is output

This is output. There are a variety of positions on the place of output in the foreign language classroom, and I have no intention of discussing them at this time, but “Leading a Text-Based Discussion” is not a strategy for comprehensible input; it is a strategy for eliciting student output. A description of the practice will make this clear.

With that said, the practice is laid out well, and the description that Glisan and Donato provide could prove helpful to anyone in any content area who wants to encourage discussion. The “rules of discussion” work in any academic setting.

The first indication that this is output for students lies in the following introductory statement: “… discussions are designed to be spontaneous in nature – that is, learners should not read scripted answers to questions posed by the teacher.” (P. 76; emphases in original)

Here, then are the steps to leading a (text-based) discussion:

1. Before discussion, be certain that students demonstrate understanding of the main idea and main supporting details of the text.
2. Establish and enforce the following “rules of discussion”
   1. Rather than raising hands and waiting to be recognized, take the floor using appropriate introductory statements (in the target language)
   2. Comment on what someone else has said before adding their own thoughts
   3. Do not monopolize the conversation, but contribute to it
   4. Ask questions about portions of the text you don’t understand or are confused about; this is also participation in the discussion
   5. Ask classmates for clarification and further details as needed
   6. Use information from the text to support your opinions
   7. Be respectful of everyone’s contribution, even if you disagree
   8. Use language you already know to communicate; paraphrasis and circumlocution are good strategies (so is periphrasis, btw)
   9. Offer as much detail as possible
3. Arrange the desks or chairs in a circle or semicircle
4. The teacher sits in the circle, at least the first few times the class has a discussion of this type
5. Pose questions one at a time for discussion
   1. These can be projected onto a screen to hep students
   2. Do not show all questions at once
   3. Use questions that will elicit inferences and have multiple possible answers, not just “in the text” questions with one “correct” answer

From the above description and “rules of discussion”, I note that this practice fits the definition of “output” as “the production of language to express meaning” (cf. VanPatten 2018, 78-79). It is not simply the production of sounds that correspond to the phonology of the target language, or language-like behavior. Nor is it “practicing language” in the sense of speaking  merely to fulfill the requirements of a drill.

Students genuinely communicate spontaneously in the target language

Students are genuinely communicating (expressing, interpreting, and negotiating meaning) (relatively) spontaneously in the target language.

Thus, students must already have a certain level of proficiency before this practice becomes viable. I think, though, the challenge for teachers is to encourage discussion without forcing output. In addition, it seems to me that the “rules of discussion” can be taught in a variety of settings before engaging in the full practice as described in the book.

Glisan and Donato also provide a list of various types of teacher behaviors that facilitate discussion. These include the following:

Tolerate silence

• Tolerate silence
• Avoid the temptation to respond to each contribution by the learners
• Do not draw attention to errors unless they interfere with understanding
• Direct your gaze to all learners, not just the person speaking
• Participate in order to ask for clarification, encourage further elaboration, or react appropriately
• Do not cut off one speaker prematurely in order to prompt another student to participate
• Be vigilant that discussion remains anchored to the text
• Teach learners gambits for taking the floor
• Allow short responses where natural and encourage more detailed responses where appropriate
• Provide direct instruction when necessary to provide more information on a topic or clarify a structure for meaning
• Conclude the discussion by eliciting comments that summarize the ideas that have been shared

From my perspective, this “grain-size practice” provides some good guidelines for classroom discussion.

As I noted, the “rules of discussion” can be taught and practiced in settings other than a formal “text-based discussion”. For example, I take time on Mondays and Fridays to talk about the weekend, either what students did on the weekend or what they have planned. This is “chat time”. However, encouraging students to take the floor, commenting on other students’ contributions, taking turns, using language already acquired, asking for clarification, and showing respect are as useful in this informal setting as they are in the more formal “text-based discussion”.

The advice to teachers is also applicable in many situations, and I see areas in which I can improve my own teaching. Some of the universally applicable teacher behaviors include tolerating silence, refraining from commenting on everything, not drawing attention to errors except when they interfere with understanding, encouraging, asking for clarification, reacting, not cutting of students, and allowing short responses when they are natural.

The final section of the chapter locates the practice within the larger c0ntext of instructional goals and challenges.

Both interpretation and discussion are practices and skills that go beyond the foreign language classroom and even the school setting. The HLTP also aids the acquisition of the skills of collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and innovation. Learners also develop social and cross-cultural skills.

The practice also helps the teacher know what and how much students understand, This lets the teacher adjust and modify instruction to meet the students where they are and make decisions about remediation, elaboration, and continuation.

The last paragraph ends with a final thought that I find an excellent reminder for all teachers, not just language teachers:

In all of these practices, comprehensibility of the target language – be it oral or printed – and social interactions in the TL are pivotal to making meaning and bringing about understanding.

In other words, the core of language instruction is communication: the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning in the classroom context for cognitive-informational, psychosocial, or entertainment purposes.