1. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Supporting Rigorous Mathematics Teaching and Learning Using Academically Productive Talk Moves: Orchestrating a Focused Discussion Tennessee Department of Education Elementary School Mathematics Grade 3

2. Rationale Mathematics reform calls for teachers to engage students in discussing, explaining, and justifying their ideas. Although teachers are asked to use students’ ideas as the basis for instruction, they must also keep in mind the mathematics that the class is expected to explore (Sherin, 2000, p. 125). By engaging in a high-level task and reflecting on ways in which the facilitator structured and supported the discussion of mathematical ideas, teachers will learn that they are responsible for orchestrating discussions in ways that make it possible for students to own their learning, as well as for the teacher to assess and advance student understanding of knowledge and mathematical reasoning. 2

3. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Session Goals Participants will: learn about Accountable Talk ® features and indicators and consider the benefit of all being present in a lesson; learn that there are specific moves related to each of the talk features that help to develop a discourse culture; and consider the importance of the four key moves of ensuring productive discussion (marking, recapping, challenging, and revoicing). 3 ACCOUNTABLE TALK ® IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

4. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Overview of Activities Participants will: review the Accountable Talk features and indicators; identify and discuss Accountable Talk moves in a video; and align CCSS and essential understandings (EUs) to a fraction task and zoom in for a more specific look at key moves for engaging in productive talk (marking, recapping, challenging, and revoicing). 4

5. TASKS as they appear in curricular/ instructional materials TASKS as set up by the teachers TASKS as implemented by students Student Learning The Mathematical Tasks Framework Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000 Linking to Research/Literature: The QUASAR Project 5

6. TASKS as they appear in curricular/ instructional materials TASKS as set up by the teachers TASKS as implemented by students Student Learning The Mathematical Tasks Framework Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000 Linking to Research/Literature: The QUASAR Project Setting Goals Selecting Tasks Anticipating Student Responses Orchestrating Productive Discussion Monitoring students as they work Asking assessing and advancing questions Selecting solution paths Sequencing student responses Connecting student responses via Accountable Talk ® discussions Accountable Talk ® is a registered trademark of the University of Pittsburgh 6

7. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Features and Indicators 7

8. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Discussion Study the Accountable Talk features and indicators. Turn and Talk with your partner about what you would expect teachers and students to be saying during an Accountable Talk discussion so that the discussion is accountable to: −the learning community; −accurate, relevant knowledge; and −standards of rigorous thinking. 8

9. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Features and Indicators Accountability to the Learning Community Active participation in classroom talk. Listen attentively. Elaborate and build on each others’ ideas. Work to clarify or expand a proposition. Accountability to Knowledge Specific and accurate knowledge. Appropriate evidence for claims and arguments. Commitment to getting it right. Accountability to Rigorous Thinking Synthesize several sources of information. Construct explanations and test understanding of concepts. Formulate conjectures and hypotheses. Employ generally accepted standards of reasoning. Challenge the quality of evidence and reasoning. 9

10. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Solving and Discussing the Cognitive Demand of the Bubble Gum Task 10

11. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH The Structure and Routines of a Lesson The Explore Phase/Private Work Time Generate Solutions The Explore Phase/ Small Group Problem Solving 1.Generate and Compare Solutions 2.Assess and Advance Student Learning Share, Discuss, and Analyze Phase of the Lesson 1. Share and Model 2. Compare Solutions 3.Focus the Discussion on Key Mathematical Ideas 4. Engage in a Quick Write MONITOR: Teacher selects examples for the Share, Discuss, and Analyze phase based on: Different solution paths to the same task Different representations Errors Misconceptions SHARE: Students explain their methods, repeat others’ ideas, put ideas into their own words, add on to ideas and ask for clarification. REPEAT THE CYCLE FOR EACH SOLUTION PATH COMPARE: Students discuss similarities and difference between solution paths. FOCUS: Discuss the meaning of mathematical ideas in each Representation. REFLECT: Engage students in a Quick Write or a discussion of the process. Set Up the Task Set Up of the Task 11

12. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Engaging in a Lesson: The Bubble Gum Task Solve the task. Discuss your solutions with your peers. Attempt to engage in an Accountable Talk discussion when discussing the solutions. Assign one person in the group to be the observer. This person will be responsible for reporting some of the ways in which the group is accountable to: −the learning community; −accurate, relevant knowledge; and −standards of rigorous thinking. 12

13. Engaging in a Lesson: The Bubble Gum Task Adapted from DMI Making Meaning for Operations, 2007 13

14. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Reflecting on Our Engagement in the Lesson The observer should share some observations about the group’s engagement in an Accountable Talk discussion. 14

15. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Reflecting on Our Engagement in the Lesson In what ways did small groups engage in an Accountable Talk discussion? In what ways did we engage in an Accountable Talk discussion during the group discussion of the solutions? 15

16. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Aligning the CCSS to the Bubble Gum Task Study the Grade 3 and 4 CCSS for Mathematical Content within the Number and Operations-Fractions domain. Which standards are students expected to demonstrate when solving the fraction task? Identify the CCSS for Mathematical Practice required by the written task. 16

17. The CCSS for Mathematical Content: Grade 3 Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 24, NGA Center/CCSSO Number and Operations—Fractions 3.NF Develop understanding of fractions as numbers. 3.NF.A.1 Understand a fraction 1/b as the quantity formed by 1 part when a whole is partitioned into b equal parts; understand a fraction a/b as the quantity formed by a parts of size 1/b. 3.NF.A.2 Understand a fraction as a number on the number line; represent fractions on a number line diagram. 3.NF.2a Represent a fraction 1/b on a number line diagram by defining the interval from 0 to 1 as the whole and partitioning it into b equal parts. Recognize that each part has size 1/b and that the endpoint of the part based at 0 locates the number 1/b on the number line. 3.NF.A.2b Represent a fraction a/b on a number line diagram by marking off a lengths 1/b from 0. Recognize that the resulting interval has size a/b and that its endpoint locates the number a/b on the number line. 17

18. The CCSS for Mathematical Content: Grade 3 Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 24, NGA Center/CCSSO Number and Operations—Fractions 3.NF Develop understanding of fractions as numbers. 3.NF.A.3 Explain equivalence of fractions in special cases, and compare fractions by reasoning about their size. 3.NF.A.3a Understand two fractions as equivalent (equal) if they are the same size, or the same point on a number line. 3.NF.A.3b Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g., 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3). Explain why the fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. 3.NF.A.3c Express whole numbers as fractions, and recognize fractions that are equivalent to whole numbers. Examples: Express 3 in the form 3 = 3/1; recognize that 6/1 = 6; locate 4/4 and 1 at the same point of a number line diagram. 3.NF..A3d Compare two fractions with the same numerator or the same denominator by reasoning about their size. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. 18

19. The CCSS for Mathematical Content: Grade 4 Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 30, NGA Center/CCSSO Number and Operations—Fractions 4.NF Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering. 4.NF.A.1 Explain why a fraction a/b is equivalent to a fraction (n x a)/(n x b) by using visual fraction models, with attention to how the number and size of the parts differ even though the two fractions themselves are the same size. Use this principle to recognize and generate equivalent fractions. 4.NF.A.2 Compare two fractions with different numerators and different denominators, e.g., by creating common denominators or numerators, or by comparing to a benchmark fraction such as 1/2. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with symbols >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. 19

20. The CCSS for Mathematical Content: Grade 4 Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 30, NGA Center/CCSSO Number and Operations—Fractions 4.NF Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers. 4.NF.B.3 Understand a fraction a/b with a > 1 as a sum of fractions 1/b. 4.NF.B.3a Understand addition and subtraction of fractions as joining and separating parts referring to the same whole. 20

21. The CCSS for Mathematical Content: Grade 4 Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 30, NGA Center/CCSSO Number and Operations—Fractions 4.NF Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers. 4.NF.B.4 Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication to multiply a fraction by a whole number. 4.NF.B.4a Understand a fraction a/b as a multiple of 1/b. For example, use a visual fraction model to represent 5/4 as the product 5 x (1/4), recording the conclusion by the equation 5/4 = 5 x(1/4). 4.NF.B.4b Understand a multiple of a/b as a multiple of 1/b, and use this understanding to multiply a fraction by a whole number. For example, use a visual fraction model to express 3 x (2/5) as 6 x (1/5), recognizing this product as 6/5. (In general, n x (a/b) = (n x a)/b.) 4.NF.B.4c Solve word problems involving multiplication of a fraction by a whole number, e.g., by using visual fraction models and equations to represent the problem. For example, if each person at a party will eat 3/8 of a pound of roast beef, and there will be 5 people at the party, how many pounds of roast beef will be needed? Between what two whole numbers does your answer lie? 21

22. The CCSS for Mathematical Practice 1.Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. 2.Reason abstractly and quantitatively. 3.Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. 4.Model with mathematics. 5.Use appropriate tools strategically. 6.Attend to precision. 7.Look for and make use of structure. 8.Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. Common Core State Standards, 2010, p. 6-8, NGA Center/CCSSO 22

23. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Determining the Cognitive Demand of the Task: The Bubble Gum Task 23

24. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Determining the Cognitive Demand of the Task Refer to the Mathematical Task Analysis Guide. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A., 2000. Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development, p. 16. New York: Teachers College Press. How would you characterize the Bubble Gum Task in terms of its cognitive demand? (Refer to the indicators on the Task Analysis Guide.) 24

25. The Mathematical Task Analysis Guide Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000) Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development, p. 16. New York: Teachers College Press. 25

26. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH The Bubble Gum Task: A Doing Mathematics Task Requires complex and non-algorithmic thinking (i.e., there is not a predictable, well-rehearsed approach or pathway explicitly suggested by the task, task instructions, or a worked-out example). Requires students to explore and to understand the nature of mathematical concepts, processes, or relationships. Demands self-monitoring or self-regulation of one’s own cognitive processes. Requires students to access relevant knowledge and experiences and make appropriate use of them in working through the task. Requires students to analyze the task and actively examine task constraints that may limit possible solution strategies and solutions. Requires considerable cognitive effort and may involve some level of anxiety for the student due to the unpredictable nature of the solution process required. 26

27. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Moves 27

28. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH The Structure and Routines of a Lesson The Explore Phase/Private Work Time Generate Solutions The Explore Phase/ Small Group Problem Solving 1.Generate and Compare Solutions 2.Assess and Advance Student Learning Share, Discuss, and Analyze Phase of the Lesson 1. Share and Model 2. Compare Solutions 3.Focus the Discussion on Key Mathematical Ideas 4. Engage in a Quick Write MONITOR: Teacher selects examples for the Share, Discuss, and Analyze phase based on: Different solution paths to the same task Different representations Errors Misconceptions SHARE: Students explain their methods, repeat others’ ideas, put ideas into their own words, add on to ideas and ask for clarification. REPEAT THE CYCLE FOR EACH SOLUTION PATH COMPARE: Students discuss similarities and difference between solution paths. FOCUS: Discuss the meaning of mathematical ideas in each Representation. REFLECT: Engage students in a Quick Write or a discussion of the process. Set Up the Task Set Up of the Task 28

29. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Moves Examine the ways in which the moves are grouped based on how they: support accountability to the learning community; support accountability to knowledge; and support accountability to rigorous thinking. Consider: In what ways are the Accountable Talk categories similar? Different? Why do you think we need a category called “To Ensure Purposeful, Coherent, and Productive Group Discussion”? 29

30. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk: Features and Indicators Accountability to the Learning Community Active participation in classroom talk. Listen attentively. Elaborate and build on each others’ ideas. Work to clarify or expand a proposition. Accountability to Knowledge Specific and accurate knowledge. Appropriate evidence for claims and arguments. Commitment to getting it right. Accountability to Rigorous Thinking Synthesize several sources of information. Construct explanations and test understanding of concepts. Formulate conjectures and hypotheses. Employ generally accepted standards of reasoning. Challenge the quality of evidence and reasoning. 30

31. Accountable Talk Moves Talk MoveFunctionExample To Ensure Purposeful, Coherent, and Productive Group Discussion MarkingDirect attention to the value and importance of a student’s contribution. That’s an important point. ChallengingRedirect a question back to the students or use students’ contributions as a source for further challenge or query. Let me challenge you: Is that always true? RevoicingAlign a student’s explanation with content or connect two or more contributions with the goal of advancing the discussion of the content. S: 4 + 4 + 4. You said three groups of four. RecappingMake public in a concise, coherent form, the group’s achievement at creating a shared understanding of the phenomenon under discussion. Let me put these ideas all together. What have we discovered? To Support Accountability to Community Keeping the Channels Open Ensure that students can hear each other, and remind them that they must hear what others have said. Say that again and louder. Can someone repeat what was just said? Keeping Everyone Together Ensure that everyone not only heard, but also understood, what a speaker said. Can someone add on to what was said? Did everyone hear that? Linking Contributions Make explicit the relationship between a new contribution and what has gone before. Does anyone have a similar idea? Do you agree or disagree with what was said? Your idea sounds similar to his idea. Verifying and Clarifying Revoice a student’s contribution, thereby helping both speakers and listeners to engage more profitably in the conversation. So are you saying..? Can you say more? Who understood what was said? 31

32. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH To Support Accountability to Knowledge Pressing for Accuracy Hold students accountable for the accuracy, credibility, and clarity of their contributions. Why does that happen? Someone give me the term for that. Building on Prior Knowledge Tie a current contribution back to knowledge accumulated by the class at a previous time. What have we learned in the past that links with this? To Support Accountability to Rigorous Thinking Pressing for Reasoning Elicit evidence to establish what contribution a student’s utterance is intended to make within the group’s larger enterprise. Say why this works. What does this mean? Who can make a claim and then tell us what their claim means? Expanding Reasoning Open up extra time and space in the conversation for student reasoning. Does the idea work if I change the context? Use bigger numbers? Accountable Talk Moves (continued) 32

33. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Reflection Question As you watch the short video segment, consider what students are learning and where you might focus the discussion in order to discuss mathematical ideas listed in the CCSS. Identify: the specific Accountable Talk moves used by the teacher; and the purpose that the moves served.  Mark times during the lesson when you would call the lesson academically rigorous. 33

34. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH The Bubble Gum Lesson Context Visiting Teacher: Victoria Bill School #26, Grade 3 Paterson Public Schools, New Jersey The teacher wants students to use a linear model of fractions and to understand how a benchmark fraction, such as one-half, can help students think about and compare fractions. The teacher also wants to expose students to the benefit of finding common denominators when comparing fractions. The students work privately for 5 minutes and then they work in small groups to discuss the solution paths. While students work, the teacher circulates, asking assessing and advancing questions. As the teacher is asking assessing and advancing questions, students are struggling to use the number line model and as a result, it is difficult to advance student learning. The Engage phase is shortened and instead the teacher co-constructs a solution path with the students. 34

35. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Norms for Collaborative Study The goal of all conversations about episodes of teaching (or artifacts of practice in general) is to advance our own learning, not to “fix” the practice of others. In order to achieve this goal, the facilitator chooses a lens to frame what you look at and to what you pay attention. Use the Accountable Talk features and indicators when viewing the lesson. During this work, we: agree to analyze the episode or artifact from the identified perspective; cite specific examples during the discussion that provide evidence of a particular claim; listen to and build on others’ ideas; and use language that is respectful of those in the video and in the group. 35

36. The Bubble Gum Task Adapted from DMI Making Meaning for Operations, 2007 36

37. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Reflecting on the Accountable Talk Discussion Step back from the discussion. What are some patterns that you notice? What mathematical ideas does the teacher want students to discover and discuss? 37

38. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Essential Understandings Study the essential understandings the teacher considered in preparation for the Share, Discuss, and Analyze phase of the lesson. 38

39. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Essential Understandings Essential UnderstandingCCSS Comparing Fractions with Like Denominators Fractions with the same size pieces, or common denominators, can be compared with each other because the size of the pieces is the same. 3.NF.A.3d Using Benchmarks to Make Comparisons Comparison to known benchmark quantities can help determine the relative size of a fractional piece because the benchmark quantity can be seen as greater, less than, or the same as the piece. 3.NF.A.2a Recognizing Equivalent Fractions When creating equivalent fractions, all of the pieces in a whole are subdivided or partitioned, thus the amount of pieces named in the numerator are automatically partitioned in the same way. What is created is an equivalent fraction. 3.NF.A.3a Making Equivalent Fractions When you multiply a fraction by a fraction equivalent to one, a/a (a > 1), the denominator is partitioned into a new designated number of pieces that are smaller in size but larger in the number of pieces than the original; as a result of partitioning all of the pieces, those pieces referenced by the numerator end up being partitioned in the same way. 3.NF.A.3b 39

40. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Characteristics of an Academically Rigorous Lesson This task is a cognitively demanding task; however, it may not necessarily end up being an academically rigorous task. What do we mean by this statement? 40

41. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum The principle of learning, Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum, consists of three features: A Knowledge Core High-Thinking Demand Active Use of Knowledge In order to determine if a lesson has been academically rigorous, we have to determine the degree to which student learning is advanced by the lesson. What do we have to hear and see in order to determine if the lesson was academically rigorous? 41

42. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Essential Understandings 42 Essential UnderstandingCCSS Comparing Fractions with Like Denominators Fractions with the same size pieces, or common denominators, can be compared with each other because the size of the pieces is the same. 3.NF.A.3d Using Benchmarks to Make Comparisons Comparison to known benchmark quantities can help determine the relative size of a fractional piece because the benchmark quantity can be seen as greater, less than, or the same as the piece. 3.NF.A.2a Recognizing Equivalent Fractions When creating equivalent fractions, all of the pieces in a whole are subdivided or partitioned, thus the amount of pieces named in the numerator are automatically partitioned in the same way. What is created is an equivalent fraction. 3.NF.A.3a Making Equivalent Fractions When you multiply a fraction by a fraction equivalent to one, a/a (a > 1), the denominator is partitioned into a new designated number of pieces that are smaller in size but larger in the number of pieces than the original; as a result of partitioning all of the pieces, those pieces referenced by the numerator end up being partitioned in the same way. 3.NF.A.3b

43. Five Representations Adapted from Lesh, Post, & Behr, 1987 43

44. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Focusing on Key Accountable Talk Moves The Bubble Gum Task 44

45. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk: Features and Indicators Accountability to the Learning Community Active participation in classroom talk. Listen attentively. Elaborate and build on each others’ ideas. Work to clarify or expand a proposition. Accountability to Knowledge Specific and accurate knowledge. Appropriate evidence for claims and arguments. Commitment to getting it right. Accountability to Rigorous Thinking Synthesize several sources of information. Construct explanations and test understanding of concepts. Formulate conjectures and hypotheses. Employ generally accepted standards of reasoning. Challenge the quality of evidence and reasoning. 45

46. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Accountable Talk Moves Talk MoveFunctionExample To Ensure Purposeful, Coherent, and Productive Group Discussion MarkingDirect attention to the value and importance of a student’s contribution. That’s an important point. Challenging Redirect a question back to the students, or use students’ contributions as a source for further challenge or query. Let me challenge you: Is that always true? Revoicing Align a student’s explanation with content or connect two or more contributions with the goal of advancing the discussion of the content. S: 4 + 4 + 4. You said three groups of four. Recapping Make public in a concise, coherent form, the group’s achievement at creating a shared understanding of the phenomenon under discussion. Let me put these ideas all together. What have we discovered? To Support Accountability to Community Keeping the Channels Open Ensure that students can hear each other, and remind them that they must hear what others have said. Say that again and louder. Can someone repeat what was just said? Keeping Everyone Together Ensure that everyone not only heard, but also understood, what a speaker said. Can someone add on to what was said? Did everyone hear that? Linking Contributions Make explicit the relationship between a new contribution and what has gone before. Does anyone have a similar idea? Do you agree or disagree with what was said? Your idea sounds similar to his idea. Verifying and Clarifying Revoice a student’s contribution, thereby helping both speakers and listeners to engage more profitably in the conversation. So are you saying..? Can you say more? Who understood what was said? 46

47. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH To Support Accountability to Knowledge Pressing for Accuracy Hold students accountable for the accuracy, credibility, and clarity of their contributions. Why does that happen? Someone give me the term for that. Building on Prior Knowledge Tie a current contribution back to knowledge accumulated by the class at a previous time. What have we learned in the past that links with this? To Support Accountability to Rigorous Thinking Pressing for Reasoning Elicit evidence to establish what contribution a student’s utterance is intended to make within the group’s larger enterprise. Say why this works. What does this mean? Who can make a claim and then tell us what their claim means? Expanding Reasoning Open up extra time and space in the conversation for student reasoning. Does the idea work if I change the context? Use bigger numbers? Accountable Talk Moves (continued) 47

48. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Focusing on Accountable Talk Moves Read the description of each move and study the example that has been provided for each move. What is distinct about each of the moves? Revoice student contributions; Mark significant contributions; Challenge with a counter-example; or Recap the components of the lesson. 48

49. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Revoicing Extend a student’s contribution. Connect a student’s contribution to the text or to other students’ contributions.  Align content with an explanation.  Add clarity to a contribution.  Link student contributions to accurate mathematical vocabulary.  Connect two or more contributions to advance the lesson. 49

50. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH An Example of Revoicing 50

51. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Marking Explicitly talk about an idea. Highlight features that are unique to a situation. Draw attention to an idea or to alternative ideas. 51

52. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH An Example of Marking 52

53. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Recapping Summarize or retell. Make explicit the large idea. Provide students with a holistic view of the concept. 53

54. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Student Work: Recapping Example 54

55. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH An Example of Recapping 55

56. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Challenging Redirect a question back to the students, or use students’ contributions as a source for further challenge or query. Share a counter-example and ask students to compare problems. Question the meaning of the math concept. 56

57. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH An Example of Challenge 57

58. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Appropriation The process of appropriation is reciprocal and sequential. If appropriation takes place, the child transforms the new knowledge or skill into an action in a new and gradually understood activity. What would this mean with respect to classroom discourse? What should we expect to happen in the classroom? 58

59. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Orchestrating Discussions Read the segments of transcript from the lesson. Decide if examples 1 – 4 illustrate marking, recapping, challenging, or revoicing. Be prepared to share your rationale for identifying a particular discussion move. Write the next discussion move for examples 5 and 6 and be prepared to share your move and your rationale for writing the move. 59

60. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Reflecting on Talk Moves What have you learned about: marking; recapping; challenging; and revoicing? Why are these moves important in lessons? 60

61. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Application to Practice What will you keep in mind when attempting to use Accountable Talk moves during a lesson? What role does talk play? What does it take to maintain the demands of a cognitively demanding task during the lesson so that you have a rigorous mathematics lesson? 61

62. LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER © 2013 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Bridge to Practice Choose a high-level task. Identify the key mathematical ideas that are the goals of the lesson. Anticipate student responses. Plan an Accountable Talk discussion that utilizes the moves of marking, challenging, recapping, and revoicing. Record or have a colleague scribe the Share, Discuss, and Analyze phase of the lesson. Write a reflection on how planning and using these moves impacted student learning. Bring back: a copy of the task, your planning notes, and written reflection. 62