Scaffolded Academic Conversations: Access to 21st-Century Collaboration and Communication Skills

Abstract

Communication and collaboration are essential components of 21st-century learning skills. In response, national standards have increased attention on these competencies through rigorous speaking and listening requirements. Mastery of these standards is contingent on academic oral language development. Oral language not only is the foundation for communication and collaboration skills, but also plays a prominent role in students’ academic achievement. For students with disabilities, these standards pose specific challenges as they are often characterized as having poor oral language skills. The challenges are further compounded for students who are also learning English. Effective language instruction for students who are learning English includes multiple opportunities for lengthy interactions and incorporates instructional scaffolds to support language delays students with disabilities may have. This article presents an instructional sequence to scaffold academic conversations for students with disabilities who are learning English, leading toward grade-level speaking standards.

Keywords

instruction accommodations learning disabilities language linguistic diversity

Communication and collaboration are essential components of 21st-century learning skills (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2016). In response, national standards, specifically the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013), have brought increased attention to these skills through rigorous speaking and listening standards. In the CCSS, two strands of the standards, namely comprehension and collaboration and presentation of knowledge and ideas, explicitly suggest that students develop the ability of oral communication in diverse contexts, endorsing the importance of both communication and collaboration skills. The NGSS explicitly link the science standards with the CCSS speaking standards, highlighting the critical need for students to develop the oral language skills essential to comprehend, collaborate, and present knowledge and ideas in accordance with the discipline.

Historically, students have had extensive opportunities to listen and speak in the classroom. Students spend a considerable amount of time listening to the teacher, and more recently there has been a push for more student talk in the classroom. Absent, however, is a focus on interaction, particularly extended conversation among students (Zwiers & Soto, 2017). It is through these interactions that students will develop the essential 21st-century communication and collaboration skills.

Although communication and collaboration skills pose much promise for preparing students for the complexities and challenges of the workforce, for students with disabilities and those who are also learning English, these tasks present specific challenges. Students with disabilities often have less developed oral language skills than their peers, and this is further compounded for those students who are also at various stages of second language acquisition. Effective language instruction for students who are learning English must include opportunities for lengthy interactions (Téllez & Waxman, 2006), but should also include instructional scaffolds to support students with learning disabilities. As such, this article presents an instructional sequence to support students with disabilities who are learning English with access to communication and collaboration skills delineated in the standards. The power of scaffolded and instructionally supported academic conversations as a bridge to the speaking standards within the content areas is highlighted.

Oral Language, Academic Achievement, and Conversations

In addition to critical communication and collaboration skills, oral language skills also play a prominent role in students’ academic achievement. In general, students with stronger oral language skills have better academic outcomes (Babayiğit, 2014; Evans & Bangs, 1972; Prevoo, Malda, Mesman, & van IJzendoorn, 2016; Semel & Wiig, 1975; P. Snow, 2014). Academic oral language skills, rather than conversational language skills, are closely related to academic success (van Kleeck, 2014). Specifically, academic talk, or the language used in teaching and learning, supports students in developing understandings as well as demonstrating knowledge and ideas (van Kleeck, 2014).

Academic conversations are sustained, intentional, back-and-forth exchanges about academic topics (Zwiers & Crawford, 2010). Academic conversations create a context for students to co-construct understanding of the topic, deepen content knowledge, and develop communication skills aligned to the academic discipline leading to improved academic and linguistic outcomes. Well-planned academic conversations provide students with (a) opportunities for multiple exposures to academic vocabulary and discourse, (b) the repetition of ideas, (c) verbal rehearsal to improve memory and writing, (d) collaborative critical thinking opportunities (i.e., cooperative learning), (e) the building of content connections, and (f) the fostering of inner dialog and self-talk (Zwiers & Crawford, 2010).

Academic Conversations

Researchers have identified various instructional strategies that are effective in working with students learning English. Academic conversations integrate multiple strategies deemed effective in the second language acquisitions research. Academic conversations implicitly support (a) cooperative learning, (b) activation of prior knowledge, (c) use of native language, and (d) understanding of English language development levels.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning has long been cited as an effective strategy to enhance student learning, particularly for students who are learning English. Through cooperative learning activities, students are given the opportunity to co-construct meaning, develop a deeper understanding of academic content and have plentiful opportunities for language use surrounding the academic content (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). These cooperative learning opportunities not only enhance student learning but also improve oral language development (McGroarty & Calderon, 2005) through sustained back-and-forth exchanges.

Activation of Prior Knowledge

The activation of prior knowledge is a core component of any well-developed lesson plan. It is important for teachers to consider that students’ prior knowledge can be activated in two primary ways: (a) through their cultural experiences and (b) through shared experiences (M. A. Snow & Katz, 2010). Students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds bring a wealth of cultural experiences that help them make critical connections between their experiences and new learning. Similarly, shared classroom learning experiences help make connections between existing and new knowledge. For students who are learning English, familiarity with the topic allows them to more easily access the language to engage in conversation (Zwiers & Soto, 2017). The basis of academic conversations is the shared experiences.

Use of the Native Language

Unlike monolingual English speakers, students who are learning English bring with them a range of academic and linguistic experiences in their native language. Students’ native language is an intellectual, social, and personal resource (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010). Students’ use of the native language during academic conversations can serve as a resource for deepening content understanding. Teachers can provide strategic opportunities for students to use their native language at school even when English is the main language of instruction (M. A. Snow & Katz, 2010).

English Language Development

A final consideration specifically related to second language instruction is the understanding of students’ developmental stages of English proficiency. While the academic standards call for increased rigor in speaking, the reality is that students who are learning English will need time to develop the English proficiency required of the standards. Teachers need to be aware of how the second language, in this case English, develops. This will help teachers better understand how the students’ English proficiency level influences their language output. In addition, if teachers understand their students’ proficiency levels, they can align the complexity of their syntax to better engage students. Teachers can utilize their understanding of students’ language proficiency to strategically created academic conversation partners. Table 1 displays the progression of English language development, specifically linguistic complexity related to speaking.

Table 1.

Progression of Speaking in English Language Development (WIDA, n.d.).

Level	Linguistic complexity
1	● Words, phrases, or chunks of language ● Single words used to represent ideas
2	● Phrases or short sentences ● Emerging expression of ideas
3	● Short and some expanded sentences with emerging complexity ● Expanded expression of one idea or emerging expression of multiple related ideas
4	● Short, expanded, and some complex sentences ● Organized expression of ideas with emerging cohesion
5	● Multiple, complex sentences ● Organized, cohesive, and coherent expression of ideas

Academic Conversations and Students With Disabilities

While academic conversations provide an exceptional context for students learning English to develop oral language, students with disabilities who are learning English need additional supports to help them access the academic conversations that may otherwise be restricted due to language challenges they face as a result of their disability. Students with disabilities often display (a) delays in the recall of content, (b) limited academic vocabulary, (c) inability to use complex grammatical structures, and (d) a lack of understanding of academic discourse. These linguistic challenges hinder students’ engagement in academic conversations and oral presentations of their ideas and learning. These challenges are described in more detail below not to isolate and highlight students’ limitations, but rather to frame the instructional sequence and supports providing students access to meaningful and challenging academic conversations.

Recall of Knowledge

Students with disabilities often have delays in recall and the usage of new knowledge, further challenging their abilities to effectively communicate the understanding of content. Students with language and learning disorders are characterized as having delays in processing speed (Moll, Gobel, Gooch, Landerl, & Snowling, 2016). These students also may display difficulties with verbal memory (Moll, et al., 2016). Inefficient recall and usage of new knowledge make academic conversations difficult as students are asked to engage in quick back-and-forth exchanges.

Vocabulary

In general, students with disabilities have smaller vocabularies compared to their peers, which are further compounded by fewer opportunities for language interaction. Students with disabilities may struggle with the ability to generate words specific to the situation, context, or conversation (Sheng & McGregor, 2010). They often display limited depth of word knowledge and difficulties with multiple meaning words and frequently overuse nonspecific terms. Narrow discipline-specific academic vocabulary prevents students from speaking with the precision and clarity presented in the standards.

Grammatical Understanding

Students with disabilities often display grammatical errors including incorrect verb endings and fragmented phrasing (Fey, Catts, & Proctor-Williams, 2004; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Speech patterns indicate difficulty with adjectives, prepositions, connectives, and article usage (Weller, 1979). Syntactical structures particularly challenging for students with disabilities include passive verb constructions, adverbial clauses with temporal and casual conjunctions, center-embedded relative clauses, and sentences with three or more clauses (Zipoli, 2017). Content area academic language is characterized by these syntactical structures, and deficits in this area will impede students’ ability to communicate findings in accordance with the specific academic discipline.

Academic Discourse

An understanding and application of the larger bodies of language related to the academic discipline is essential for college and career-ready students. Students with disabilities are often not sensitive to text structure (Englert & Thomas, 1987), thereby negatively influencing their ability to produce coherent speech aligned to the academic discipline. Academic conversations and the oral presentation of ideas require students to understand how to present their understanding in organized ways in which listeners can follow students’ lines of thinking.

Students who are learning English, irrespective of disability, also display limited vocabulary, errors in syntax, and difficulty with organizing language into meaningful discourse. These markers, specifically students’ use of vocabulary, language forms and conventions, and linguistic complexity, highlight their progression toward English proficiency (WIDA, n.d.). For typically developing English learners, limited language skills are simply due to the lack of time spent in the target language as well as fewer opportunities for explicit instruction. Therefore, students with disabilities who are also learning English need intentionally planned academic conversations that foster their second language acquisition, yet also provide direct and explicit instruction to address language development needs that may be a result of the their disability. As such, an instructional sequence to scaffold and support academic conversations leading toward speaking outcomes is presented.

Scaffolding Academic Conversations

As previously noted, the CCSS explicitly and implicitly require students to orally present their knowledge and ideas. Table 2 highlights an example of two second-grade language arts standards related to a lesson on the author’s craft. In this example, for the speaking outcome, students will orally present their own story using the same character and story structure applied to a different setting. The learning activities for this unit center on the reading of No David (Shannon, 1998), a narrative text about a little boy who gets into mischief and his mother’s responses along the way. Students will listen to the story, develop an understanding of the repetitive story structure, and then re-create the story using a grocery story as the main setting.

Table 2.

Language Arts Standards, Assessment, and Instructional Activities.

Standard	Assessment	Instructional activities
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.7 Use information gained from the illustrations and words in a print or digital text to demonstrate understanding of its characters, setting, or plot (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010).	Create a new story using the same characters and story structure but with a new setting	● Listen to and discuss the story elements, including the story structure ● Complete a story map ● Use a graphic organizer to brainstorm the new story/
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.2.5 Create audio recordings of stories or poems; add drawings or other visual displays to stories or recounts of experiences when appropriate to clarify ideas, thoughts, and feelings (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).	Orally retell the story	Present stories in pairs and in whole group

Carefully sequenced conversations scaffold students to higher levels of academic talk and give them multiple opportunities to practice the academic vocabulary and content before producing organized discourse. Figure 1 displays a sequence of conversation prompts leading to the presentation of knowledge. These prompts are carefully sequenced from low to high inference and are narrowly focused leading students to the summative speaking task. First, students will be prompted to discuss the academic vocabulary. Then, students will recall the content learned. Last, students will organize their discourse in accordance with the academic discipline and practice cohesion devices.

Figure 1.

Discussion sequence.

Students with disabilities who are learning English need support for academic conversations in relation to their second language development and any language delays students may have as a result of their disability. To engage in scaffolded conversations leading students toward the presentation of knowledge and ideas, students will need academic supports to (a) recall the academic vocabulary pertinent to the conversation and learning, (b) recall content knowledge, and (c) organize and produce cohesive discourse. Each step of the instructional sequence includes embedded supports for students who are learning English (e.g., cooperative learning, activation of prior knowledge, use of native language, and understanding of language proficiency levels).

Recall of Academic Vocabulary

The purpose of this first academic conversation prompt is for students to be able to recall the target vocabulary, understand the vocabulary term’s meaning in depth, and use the word in context. The academic conversation prompt activates students’ prior knowledge about the words and encourages students to talk about the academic vocabulary in depth and within the context of the summative speaking assignment. At this stage the goal is for students to utilize the instructional supports employed to teach the vocabulary and to be able to speak comfortably about the words. This includes allowing students to speak about the content in their native language. Table 3 displays guiding questions to help plan conversation prompts about target vocabulary as well as example prompts.

Table 3.

Discussion Prompt Questions to Sequence Academic Conversations.

Vocabulary discussion prompts	Recall of academic content prompts	Discourse and cohesion prompts
● How can students talk about target academic vocabulary in depth? How can students make personal connections in the academic conversations to the vocabulary terms? ● How can students talk about the vocabulary as it relates to the context of the summative oral language activity? ● How can students talk about the academic vocabulary to aid in recall?	● How can students talk about the targeted content area to review and deepen understanding? ● How can students talk about and begin to organize their learning? ● How can I focus academic conversations to review content specific to the summative oral language activity?	● How can I organize prompts so that students have the opportunity to organize their conversation toward the oral language outcome?	● How can I encourage students to use cohesion devices in their academic conversation to support the oral language outcome?

There are multiple strategies teachers may employ to practice the target vocabulary. In this lesson, vocabulary was taught through semantic mapping (for more information of semantic mapping, see Spies & Dema, 2014). This type of vocabulary instruction lends itself to discussion about experiences with the target vocabulary. Figure 2 displays the academic conversation prompt and semantic map used to initially teach target vocabulary that now serves as a base for students’ academic conversations. It also includes the prompt presented with less syntactical complexity for students at lower levels of English proficiency.

Figure 2.

English language arts vocabulary prompt and semantic map.

Recall of Content Knowledge

After engaging in conversations about the academic vocabulary, students talk about what they have learned as a result of instruction. The purpose of this conversation is for students to be able to recall and deepen their understanding of the content without having to utilize their cognitive energy in presenting their learning in an organized manner. The academic conversation prompt is narrowly focused on the content to be presented in the summative speaking task and serves as an opportunity to activate students’ prior knowledge about the content. This academic conversation also includes the use of a graphic organizer to help students see the relationships in their learning and begin to organize their thinking. The intent at this point is not for students to be able to present their thoughts in an organized manner, but rather to utilize this structured talk opportunity to aid in recall, further their learning, and deepen their understanding. Because the focus is on recall and deepening their understanding, students should be allowed/encouraged to use their native language. Table 3 also presents guiding questions to help plan conversation prompts requiring students to recall content knowledge as well as example prompts.

In this lesson, students are given two academic conversation prompts to aid in recalling content critical to the learning outcome. In the first conversation prompt students are asked to discuss how the characters’ actions contribute to the story’s development. The second prompt asks students to imagine the main character in a different setting and to discuss how the story would develop using the same story structure (see Figure 3). These academic conversation prompts first move students to a narrow focus on the story structure, then to the application of the structure to a new context. This content knowledge and skill is essential to the learning outcome. The purpose of the graphic organizer is to aid students in discussing and better understanding the story’s structure and activating their prior knowledge of shared experiences.

Figure 3.

English language arts recall prompt and supporting graphic organizer.

Academic Discourse and Cohesion Devices

After conversations scaffolding the recall and deeper understanding of academic vocabulary and content knowledge, the academic conversation guides students to producing organized discourse. The purpose of this conversation is for students to first present their ideas in a logical manner and then present those ideas utilizing cohesive devices that align to the manner and format of the academic discipline. The academic conservation prompt helps students structure their ideas in organized ways leading to the learning outcome. Once again, the use of graphic organizers is encouraged, but unlike the academic conversation to aid recall, the goal is for students to be able to present organized discourse.

In this example, students are given a prompt in which they are directed to collaboratively retell the story using the same story structure but with a different setting. Students are prompted to use the graphic organizer to discuss first the introduction of the story, then the characters’ actions and results, and finally the conclusion (see Figure 4). Students then repeat the conversations using the cohesion devices aligned with the narrative story structure (see Figure 5). This academic conversation prompt structures the conversation in a way that scaffolds students’ development of the story structure for the final speaking outcome.

Figure 4.

English language arts organization prompt and supporting graphic organizer.

Figure 5.

English language arts cohesion devices prompt and supporting graphic organizer.

At this point, students are now being asked to present their ideas in organized ways and aligned with the academic language of the discipline; the influence of second language development will be evident. Educators must understand that while students may have gained the academic vocabulary and also know how to present their thoughts in an organized manner, their proficiency may still hinder their ability to elaborate (e.g., vocabulary), produce the sentence structures of the discipline (e.g., passive voice), and speak with ease (e.g., cohesion). Familiarity with second language development is essential at this stage (see Table 1). It is recommended that teachers encourage students to present their ideas, yet utilize revoicing to scaffold students to the next level of English proficiency. Revoicing is the intentional repetition, clarification, and extension of students’ ideas by the teacher, resulting in language modeling of the academic discourse (Ferris, 2014).

Conclusion

Approximately 11% of students identified with learning disabilities are nonnative English speakers and are at various stages of second language acquisition (Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, 2017). The empirical research literature in special education has a long-standing history; however, the empirical literature in PK–12 U.S.-based second language acquisition is relatively recent. The intersection of the two areas to address the complex needs of students with disabilities who are learning English is in its infancy.

In this instructional sequence, the most prevalent language needs of students with disabilities (i.e., recall, organization, cohesion) with layers of effective practices for second language development are addressed in an effort to support students with disabilities who are also learning English. These scaffolded academic conversations are tools to support the oral language development of students but must be embedded into culturally and linguistically responsive evidence-based instruction. Conversations must be purposefully and intentionally planned and used as a consistent tool of content area learning.

As schools continue to press forward in their quest that all students either graduate college or are career-ready with 21st-century skills, the oral language skills that characterize the students of our future workforce cannot be forgotten. Oral language skills are critical for collaboration and presentation skills and play a tremendous role in students’ academic attainment. They are paramount for the development of literacy skills (Kim, Park, & Park, 2015). Society needs individuals who can effectively communicate with and learn from one another. Students deserve the opportunity to learn how to articulate their thoughts and ideas, listen effectively to decipher meaning, knowledge, values, attitudes and intentions, and communicate effectively within diverse communities (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2016). As such, the critical need for educators to purposefully and intentionally teach students to effectively communicate cannot be underemphasized. Academic oral language development cannot be overlooked simply because reading, writing, and math are a priority

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Babayiğit

(2014). The role of oral language skills in reading and listening comprehension of text: A comparison of monolingual (L1) and bilingual (L2) speakers of English language. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), S22–S47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01538.x

Calderon

Slavin

Sanchez

(2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21, 103–127.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts standards: Anchor standards: College and career readiness anchor standards for speaking and listening. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/SL/

Englert

C. S.

Thomas

C. C.

(1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A Comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93–105.

Evans

Bangs

(1972). Effects of preschool language training on later academic Achievement of children with language learning disabilities: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 585–592.

Ferris

S. J.

(2014). Revoicing: A tool to engage all learners in academic conversations. Reading Teacher, 67, 353–357. doi:10.1002/TRTR1220

Fey

M. E.

Catts

H. W.

Proctor-Williams

(2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1301–1318. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/098)

Kim

Y. S.

Park

(2015). Dimensions of discourse level oral language skills and their relation to reading comprehension and written composition: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing, 28, 633–654. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9542-7

McGroarty

Calderon

(2005). Cooperative learning for second language learners: Models, applications, and challenges. In Richard-Amato

P. A.

Snow

M. A.

(Eds.), Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K–12 mainstream teachers (pp. 174–194). White Plains, NY: Longman.

10.

Moll

Gobel

S. M.

Gooch

Landerl

Snowling

M. J.

(2016). Cognitive risk factors for specific learning disorder: Processing speed, temporal processing, and working memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 272–281. doi:10.1177/0022219414547221

11.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). College and career readiness anchor standards for speaking and listening. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/2/

12.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/

13.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf

14.

Prevoo

M. L.

Malda

Mesman

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(2016). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 237–276.

15.

Saunders

Goldenberg

(2010). Research to guide English language development. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21–82). Sacramento: California Department of Education.

16.

Scott

C. M.

Windsor

(2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.

17.

Semel

Wiig

(1975). Comprehension of syntactic structures and critical verbal elements by children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 53–58.

18.

Shannon

(1998). No David!. New York, NY: Blue Sky Press.

19.

Sheng

McGregor

K. K.

(2010). Lexical-semantic organization in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 146–159. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0160)

20.

Snow

M. A.

Katz

(2010). English language development: Foundations and implementation in kindergarten through grade five. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 83–150). Sacramento: California Department of Education.

21.

Snow

(2014). Oral language competence and the transition to school: Socio-economic and behavioral factors that influence academic and social success. International Journal on School Disaffection, 11(1), 3–24.

22.

Spies

T. G.

Dema

A. A.

(2014). Beyond word meaning: Vocabulary instruction for students with exceptional language needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 271–280.

23.

Téllez

Waxman

H. C.

(2006). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on effective Teaching practices for English language learners. In Norris

J. M.

Ortega

(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 245–277). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

24.

van Kleeck

(2014). Distinguishing between casual talk and academic talk beginning in the preschool years: An important consideration for speech-language pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 724–741.

25.

Weller

(1979). Improving syntactical skills of language-deviant children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 470–479.

26.

WIDA. (n.d.). WIDA performance definitions—Speaking and writing. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=543

27.

Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (2017). Identifying ELLs with specific learning disabilities: Facts, advice, and resources for school teams. WIDA Focus On. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2133

28.

Zipoli

R. P.

(2017). Unraveling difficult sentences: Strategies to support reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 218–227.

29.

Zwiers

Crawford

(2010). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

30.

Zwiers

Soto

(2017). Conversational discourse in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.