5. Paraphrase the following using the active vocabulary from the list:

1. These two subjects do not go together at all. 2. Can you pronounce it clearly? 3. What was the result of the session? 4. He was doing his best to monopolize the conversation. 5. Have you counted the results yet? 6. You may develop your listening skills in the lab. 7. The conclusions you have drawn sound suspicious. 8. It was a written exam with a great deal of tasks. 8. He copied the information from the encyclopedia as it is, word for word. 9. The open class we had yesterday was conducted by two teachers at a time. 10. Our task was to write an essay on one of the topics within the proposed time. 11. The discussion we enjoyed was proposed by the students. 12. As a result of taking the first place the winner was given a prize.

6. Translate the first paragraph of the part Authentic Assessment and Discussion in writing. Compare your variants of translation for accuracy.

7. Analyze the plan. Which of the parts of the article provides no relevant information for the abstract?

1. Introduction.

2. The Art of Discussion.

3. Authentic Assessment and Discussion.

4. The Scored Discussion.

5. Synthesizing the Literature with the Current Project.

8. Decide which sub-topics are developed in each point of the plan. Compare with other students.

9. Prepare questions on the meaningful points of the plan, paying attention to the subtopics. Address them to your group-mates. See if their answers are complete, may be complemented or provide extra information.

10. Summarize the article in theses in your own words on the basis of the plan and the answers to questions.

11. Compare your variants of theses and elaborate them if necessary.

12. Analyze the abstracts written by other students on this article and see if they meet the requirements of volume, completeness, logic, no extra or repeated information, no grammar mistakes and are stylistically adequate.

13. Follow-up:

1. Can you think of benefits and disadvantages of taking a scored discussion in Speech Practice?

2. What does the author mean saying that she “was committed to making assessment match classroom practices… match the instructional strategy that occurs daily in the classroom”? See the title.

3. Felicia A. Dixon says she didn’t want to jeopardize the students’ comfort level in taking an exam. In other words she…

4. The technique of discussion is aimed at developing critical thinking. And does it hold any opportunities for creative thinking?

5. Do you know anything about the methods which were used by such philosophers as Hegel or Socrates? What do they have to do with the topic?

6. Do you find the proposed format effective? Why?

Text 13

THE DISCUSSION EXAMINATION:

MAKING ASSESSMENT MATCH INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY

Several years ago I began teaching at a specialized school for gifted and talented adolescents. More specifically, I taught English and chaired the Humanities Division at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities from 1990 –1998. The students at this school were juniors and seniors who had applied and been accepted for admission based on SAT scores, recommendations, portfolios of their works, and personal interviews. They could perform many academic tasks well in the mathematics/science areas as well as in the humanities areas. As I worked with them, I found that they could read challenging and advanced works, formulate logical thought in essays, and answer questions when asked directly. However, discussion between students needed work. Although it was obvious that they could critically think for themselves, they needed to develop listening skills to enhance the sharing of ideas in the classroom setting.

I love a good class discussion about as much as any aspect of teaching. I find that the best literary works are made even more interesting when high ability students add their interpretation in a shared discussion. I personally learn so much from listening to students consider literature from their personal perspective. In addition, I am a firm believer in the shared inquiry technique (Junior Great Books) and have developed my own method of inquiry to promote critical thinking from studying great philosophers like Hegel and Socrates. I believe that bright adolescents have the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information, and it is the teacher's responsibility to give them the chance to use these skills regularly in the classroom. So, as I worked with my students at the Indiana Academy, I was increasingly challenged to develop a classroom atmosphere where critical thought would flourish. Such an atmosphere focused on class discussion regularly.

Because the central mode of operation was class discussion, it always seemed a bit artificial to give a multiple choice or even an essay examination at the end of the semester as the culminating form of assessment. Increasingly, I felt uncomfortable in stating that the final would be a combination of multiple choice items and short essays and that they would be responsible for all the works we had read in the course. The second year I taught at the Academy, I decided to try a different format for the final examination. At that time I had not read anything about discussion examinations, but I was committed to making assessment match classroom practices. Hence, with ambivalence, I decided to try a discussion format for the final examination.

I remember telling the students my idea to try a new format. I also remember telling them that they could choose the traditional written format if they desired. I developed both formats in the early years of the examination just in case the discussion format did not work. I absolutely did not want to jeopardize their grade or their comfort level in taking an examination. In that first year, twelve students chose the discussion format; eight chose the written format. I was encouraged by the shared thought during the first exam. I was also so busy charting what was happening that I had to take the time to analyze the process later. However, I am a firm believer in this format now, and this article outlines some of my experiences in the development of an exciting format that truly does match the assessment design with what happens daily in class. Reviewing the literature on discussion, authentic assessment, and the scored discussion format used by others has helped me synthesize what is currently in practice and how my technique fits.

The Art of Discussion

Class discussion is an art form; as students participate in meaningful interaction over important content, they are both enriched and challenged by shared ideas that come from critical analysis of worthwhile texts. Whether one chooses to call it class participation, class discussion, or shared inquiry, the focus is on oral communication of thoughts in action that include sharing and pooling thoughts from which new ideas and new understandings emerge. Not a new concept in education, discussion as a classroom strategy has been used by many teachers in a variety of disciplines. The best discussions occur in classrooms in which the teacher models discussion by being a discussant rather than the originator of all ideas. In such an atmosphere, students ask questions, answer each other's questions, and respond to each other's answers as well as try out new ideas for each other to consider (Woolfolk, 1998).

For talented learners, the need for emphasis in the area of oral communication through class discussion cannot be overstated (Chaney, 1996). Throughout their careers, these students are likely to be on the cutting edge in their fields of specialization (Coleman & Quek, 1996). They may need to present their findings and insights to others. Therefore, classrooms that encourage oral communication are helpful in practicing the verbal skills that will be so useful later.

The key to understanding the interpretation of oral communication as thinking in action is to recognize that in either the speaking or listening role, the oral communicator must engage in a multitude of tasks, including information gathering and comprehension, synthesis and analysis of arguments, comparison of alternative choices, identification of values, and feedback provisions. At the same time, the success of oral communication is subject to factors such as the effect of voice and nonverbal characteristics on speaker credibility, the need to give or adapt to audience feedback, and time constraints. Regular class discussion fosters growth in students in these verbal skills.

In developing the idea of learning through discussion, McKeachie et al. (1994) describe six skills that students can develop through practicing discussion techniques regularly. These skills are as follows:

• Development of sensitivity to confusion about what the group is discussing and asking for clarification.

• Development of a willingness to talk about their own ideas openly and to listen and respond to others' ideas.

• Development of an understanding that learning is facilitated if they formulate the issues that they need to work on when they leave the classroom.

• Development of ideas that build on others' ideas in such a way as to increase motivation.

• Development of a skill in evaluation. As students learn how to discuss issues effectively, they review periodically what aspects of their discussion prove to be worthwhile and what barriers, gaps, or difficulties have arisen.

• Development of a sensitivity to feelings of other group members.

Concerning the use of discussion skills in high school and middle school programs for the verbally gifted, VanTassel-Baska (1998) stated that secondary classes that promote discussions that become strongly analytical, theoretical, and abstract and deal with values and judgment build on the skills that the students in the class possess. Through planned experiences in discussion, debate, oral reading and interpretation, gifted youth learn to think effectively in and through language, which often provides the foundation for them to write more effectively.

Miller (1997) describes the nature of discussion as offering promise to those who are concerned about teachers telling students what to know rather than encouraging students to think critically about the information being examined. Discussion is as much a method of instruction as it is a curriculum outcome. As a method it provides an approach for teaching content, while as an outcome or goal of instruction, it emphasizes that students become competent discussants. Discussion is the kind of talking that can create perplexity, the impetus to reflective thinking (Dewey, 1933), and can dramatize the social necessity for the justification of beliefs (Rorty, 1979).

Authentic Assessment and Discussion

Learning to think requires thinking and communicating the thinking through talking, writing, or doing so that others can react to it (McKeachie, Chism, Menges, Svinicki, & Weinstein, 1994). If an ultimate teaching goal is to encourage gifted students to hone their skills as competent thinkers both individually and as group members, then teachers must be comfortable with assessing class discussions to reinforce the effective demonstration of thinking competency. They must build authentic standards into the process skills that they want their students to master. They must develop rubrics that focus on assessing students in responding to good questions, in stimulating intellectual student initiated dialogues, and in maintaining classroom discourse that displays students' cognitive processing mechanisms (Feldhusen, 1998). Furthermore, they must understand and conceptualize what thought patterns are like in a discussion so that they can assess the discussion objectively. Through discussion, cognitive growth occurs as students use their abilities to think creatively and critically; if teachers value and expect discussion, they must assess it as an integral and authentic part of the course grade.

Matching the process required by the task with the process of the assessment is reinforcing the valued experience. Teachers train their students to think, to justify, to tolerate different points of view, to use textual evidence in support of what they are suggesting. These are important process skills to develop and to use regularly. They are equally important to assess in an authentic way. Wiggins (1992) states that typical tests, even demanding ones, tend to overassess student knowledge and underassess student know-how with knowledge-that is, intellectual performance. Auditing local tests with Bloom's taxonomy as criteria, for example, shows that synthesis is infrequently assessed at present, and is inherently resistant to assessment by multiple-choice tests because it requires production of a unique communication that bears the stamp of the student. In a later article that discusses the potential harm of current testing procedures, Wiggins (1993) states, “The simplest way to sum up the potential harm of our current tests is to say that we are not preparing students for real, “messy” uses of knowledge in context-the doing of a subject” (p. 202). When teachers of verbally talented students use discussion examinations that mirror the class discussion that occurs daily, they teach students to engage in this “doing of a subject”.

The Scored Discussion

The scored discussion format blends the act of discussion with the realm of assessment. It is a valid means of assessment in the classroom if the teacher/professor emphasizes class participation and discussion as an integral and daily part of instruction. Zola (1992) suggested that the scored discussion helped students acquire and practice the skills of analyzing and discussing significant issues from history and from policy debates. He described the scored discussion as small groups of students who receive points, both positive and negative, for their participation in a discussion. The teacher scores the discussion as it progresses and shares the results at its conclusion. Positive points are awarded for taking a stand on an issue, presenting factual or research-based information, making a relevant comment, drawing another student into the discussion, asking clarifying questions that move the conversation along, and making analogies. Negative points are assigned when students distract others, interrupt, monopolize, make personal attacks, or make irrelevant comments. Teachers can use negative points to keep the student audience quiet and attentive

Constructing a rubric that awards the student points for positive contributions and deducts points for negative contributions is one of many ways that Zola (1992) suggests a teacher can develop aspects of the scored discussion. There are many other facets the teacher can determine; guidelines are limited only by the teacher's imagination. Zola suggests having students sign up for a scored discussion when the topic is of particular interest to them.

Calling the scored discussion a mastery learning approach, Frazier (1997) stated that its purpose was to encourage students to engage in a content specific discussion, and in doing so, to develop cooperative conversational skills which could then be utilized in a variety of different contexts. Frazier specifies the length of time the discussion is to occur and he focuses on small groups of five or six at a time. He scores mental processes by awarding a specified number of points (in parenthesis) including drawing inferences or conclusions (4), using logic (4), synthesizing information (4), making analogies (4), giving examples (3), introducing new ideas (3), introducing past learning (3), recognizing contradictions (2), stating a position (2). In addition to the mental processes, students are awarded points for involving others (4), stating `I' messages (3), affirming others' viewpoints (3), questioning for clarification (3), using an articulate delivery (2), and actively listening to others (2). Similar to Zola (1992), Frazier suggests deducting points for the following behaviors: interrupting (1), repeating (1), introducing an unrelated topic (1), dominating (1), personally attacking another (5), distracting others (5), never speaking (5), and not paying attention (4) (Frazier, 1997).

Frazier (1997) encourages discussing the process that has occurred after its culmination in order to process the groups' perceptions of the activity. He constructs a grid with the items used for assessment in each box. A simple check as each behavior occurs makes the process easy for the teacher as he/she observes the discussion transpire. Frazier states that his students have found the process both demanding and informing; it makes them think and concentrate.

Synthesizing the Literature with the Current Project

The Indiana Academy Class that was my first attempt with the discussion examination format was a class in British Literature. Students had read such works as Jane Eyre (Bronte), Jude the Obscure (Hardy), Sons and Lovers (Lawrence), Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (Joyce), Heart of Darkness (Conrad), and To the Lighthouse (Woolf). The discussions had been stimulating and challenging in class as students analyzed each work individually. I was very sure my students had yet more to say as they thought through major themes and ideas present in all the works. When I suggested the idea of a discussion examination as a final, most of them wanted to try this assessment. The few who were a bit nervous to try this format, had their fears assuaged when I told them that they could do a pencil/paper exam over the material. I really did not want to offer this choice, but I was not totally sure of the outcome of the assessment experiment, and thought it better to protect myself. I realized that I needed strict guidelines ahead of time. I wrote the following rules which I discussed fully with the students weeks before the examination.

1. Develop three themes that span the works read this semester. Examples of themes include the role of women, the growth of the hero/heroine, the use of nature, the use of metaphor, the supernatural elements in theworks.

2. Find examples of these themes in text and come to the examination with all books as well as carefully constructed lists of passages from the texts. Leafing through the books during the examination is inappropriate since it takes too much time. Rather, come with the examples written out and give page references so that others can locate the passages quickly.

3. For this examination, desks will be arranged in a circle. At the onset, I will ask the question, “What theme do you want to develop?” We will go around the circle and mention themes. You have developed three, but you will choose one to share with the group. The other two will ensure that you have one in case someone mentions your theme before you do. By preparing three themes, you will also be better prepared to discuss with the other members of the class on the topics they introduce.

4. Each discussion examination will have a maximum of 12 students. We may have to have more than one examination session per class, but 12 is the absolute maximum number that I can assess in a single time period.

5. When everyone has mentioned a theme, I will state, “Who would like to begin?” And one student, who wants to get started, will begin.

6. You are not competing with each other. You are showcasing knowledge and the ideas you wish to share. You may add to each other's ideas with text that you have researched whenever it applies. Interrupting each other is not appropriate.

7. I will assess you using the following assessment from the levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. I will record a mark in the appropriate box when your statement reflects the thought level. In other words, for each factual statement you use, you will receive 1 point; each analytical statement will give you 2 points; each statement of synthesis will give you 3 points; and evaluation statements are worth 4 points each.

8. Your total score for the exam will be the number of points you earn during the discussion.

9. Enjoy! You will probably work harder as you prepare than you have ever worked before. However, I am sure you will be ready for the examination if you think your way through your preparation.

At first, students were nervous, but soon found that this was really what we had been doing the entire semester. They found that they could build on others' thoughts and that by doing so, they were putting new ideas together as a large group synthesis that built on the individual points of synthesis they had developed. They came with textual analysis and truly shared it. As I listened to my students, I learned new perspectives that they had developed as they thought about their themes. I can honestly say that they were not simply parroting my ideas.

My comments centered on moving from one topic to a new one when I thought we were ready to change. Often, I did not even need to do that since they would change topics when the appropriate time occurred to make the change. A student would state, “I think my topic is an appropriate extension of this theme”, and the student would launch into his/her topic. If the other student had not finished, then he/she would gracefully move the conversation back to finish the necessary points. Although I did not record students' thoughts verbatim, I did note ideas if I thought I needed to check on level of thought and how the statement reflected that level. In the beginning, the most difficult aspect of the process for me was the assurance that I was not recording a statement as synthesis if a student were using analysis of several texts separately. I did use a tape recorder one time to double check myself. I found that I did have rater agreement the second time through the process as I listened to the tape and independently recorded marks a second time.

We discussed for two hours (our allotted final exam time). At the end of the time, I said, “Thank you for an intellectually stimulating discussion. I will have your grades ready as soon as I tabulate your scores”. They wanted to stay to find out, but I encouraged them to let me tally their scores and then they could find out the result. I had marked the grid with a series of marks: 11111, in the appropriate column each time they stated an idea that fit. I then had to go back and do the math. I soon found out how little faith I had started with when I tallied over 150 points for several students. I had not needed to give that initial gift of 50 points at all.

What I learned from my initial experiment with the discussion examination fueled my enthusiasm for this format. It worked that time, and I used it in most of my classes for the rest of the time I taught at the Indiana Academy.

The Dickens Seminar had a free choice of a Dickens work in the class readings. Actually, the free choice worked well for Dickens because the students found compatible themes to discuss in all works. I have not changed the rules very dramatically at all since the beginning. I always found it useful to fully explain the point system I would use to assess their discussion. In fact, I spent time in class drawing the grid on the board so they could see precisely what I would do. I found that the more I did before the examination to set the tone that I thought needed to prevail, the less I had to do during the examination. I could concentrate on the scoring. I really never had to use a negative point system at all. Both Frazier (1997) and Zola (1992) suggest negative points, but concentrating on the seriousness of discussion seemed sufficient for my classes over the ten years that I used the format. Only two times did I have to actually step in and change the topic because someone was filibustering in an attempt to gain more points. A quick reminder that this was a discussion changed that quickly.

Several colleagues tried this strategy and adopted it as their assessment format. One colleague stated that she couldn't believe she hadn't used this all her life; it was such a natural way to assess the understanding of literature. I usually demonstrated it at least once a year for others as well. I always explained the process first, stressing the role critical thinking plays and why it was essential to differentiate among levels of statements made. In other words, just speaking did not earn many points. Effective thinking as reflected in discussion was what really counted.

I team taught a class with a social studies teacher in American Literature and American History. We used the format for the examination in that class and it worked very well. Since we were synthesizing courses daily, the examination was a good fit. One colleague observed the exam and commented, “Do you realize that you only spoke a total of fifteen words during the two hours, and that was to change topics?” I wasn't surprised at that point; I had learned that the format worked if I stepped out of my students' way and let them showcase their abilities. This strategy works in any class in which readings are assigned and discussion is practiced regularly. Science, social studies, art history, and many other content areas would benefit from trying this examination format if these discussion components constitute an important part of class time.

In describing effective learning environments for talented students, Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) state that evidence suggests that learning flourishes in environments and relationships that take the cultivation of passionate interest as a primary educational goal. They refer to such environments as autotelic, or self-rewarding contexts-more simply flow classes-because they consistently foster the enjoyable flow in learning. Flow classes create and sustain a shared arena of interest among often disparate individual interests. They bring into dynamic tension the complementary tendencies toward differentiation and integration, pooling individual energies in cooperative efforts that enhance the skills and experience of all. Such an environment can occur in examination formats when talented students are appropriately challenged to pool their ideas in a discussion format. I found that my students actually enjoyed assessment. They asked for the format as I became known for using this in my classes. Of course, I used other measures of assessment as well. Students wrote essays on each piece of literature and synthesized from themes present in all the works. But the discussion examination was an integral part of assessment in my classrooms.

Critical thinking is essential in the world today. Gifted students think well and need more chances to discuss with their peers. Discussion needs to be practiced in the classroom and it needs to be the focus of meaningful and authentic assessment. Being able to analyze literature critically and then synthesize these thoughts to form a new idea that helps with the big picture is a skill that gifted students have and need to use regularly. They need to be encouraged to focus thoughts and ideas in a real world context with students of like ability. The discussion examination is one useful way to make this happen and to make assessment match the instructional strategy that occurs daily in the classroom.

(By Felicia A. Dixon // Roeper Review. Dec 2000. V. 23 i2. P. 104.)