Collaborative Conversations:

Speaking and Listening in the

Primary Grades

Resources / Publications / Young Children / March 2019 / Collaborative

Conversations: Speaking and Listening in the Primary Grades

LAURA BETH KELLY MERIDITH K. OGDEN LINDSEY MOSES

Supporting meaningful conversations among young children can be

challenging but is well worth the effort. Many studies have
demonstrated the importance of developing speaking and listening
skills in early childhood (Hall 1987; Clay 1991; Kirkland & Patterson
2005). As part of a collaborative study, we—a firstgrade teacher and
two university-based researchers—set a goal to facilitate meaningful,
student-led discussions about literature. We began by having students
bring books to whole- and small-group activities and encouraging
them to talk. While this was a good start, we quickly realized that the
children needed support to learn how to interact appropriately during
conversations that were not led by the teacher. Figuring out what types
of supports would be effective became the heart of our study.
In this article we share several strategies that we found successful in
enhancing the speaking and listening skills of a class of 28 first
graders. The children— who came from diverse linguistic, economic,
and social backgrounds—began the school year with below average to
average literacy skills. Meridith, the teacher (and second author), had
12 years of teaching experience; throughout the yearlong study, she
acted as both a researcher and a participant, trying out and reflecting
on each of our instructional ideas.

Advertisement

We wanted to help the children develop the ability to have meaningful

conversations about books without needing Meridith’s guidance. Our
goal was for the children to collaboratively construct interpretations of
texts through group discussions. Discussion increases students’
engagement, helps them take responsibility for their learning, prompts
higher-level thinking, offers room for clarification, encourages
children to build and share knowledge, and gives them opportunities
to apply comprehension strategies (Kelley & Clausen- Grace 2013). We
aimed to create an environment where children could scaffold each
other’s learning (Johnston 2004) through talk. Knowing that research
has demonstrated that discussion supports comprehension (Wells
1999; Nystrand 2006), we set out to teach young children to engage in
such exchanges.

Discussion also offers the benefit of being inclusive of students from

diverse backgrounds. Previous work has found that discussion
increases participation for dual language learners and reading
enjoyment for all (Carrison & Ernst-Slavit 2005), and that
conversations enable teachers to publicly value all students’ thinking
and talk.
However, powerful literary discussions do not emerge naturally in the
primary grades. Research and our experiences have identified the need
for teacher support (Baker, Dreher, & Guthrie 2000) through methods
such as explicitly teaching children the social skills necessary for
conversation (Harvey & Daniels 2015), teaching students to talk to
each other without relying on the teacher (Serafini 2009), and
providing time for children to prepare and reflect (Kelley & Clausen-
Grace 2013).

In addition to the academic, social, and motivational benefits of

literature discussions, the Common Core State Standards (NGA &
CCSSO 2010) reinforce the importance of teachers devoting time to
enhancing children’s speaking and listening skills. Speaking and
listening standards are part of the Common Core Language Arts
Standards for each grade. Through our study, we expected to address
the following standards, which focus on collaborative talk, following
discussion norms, adding to the contributions of others, and asking
questions:
 •
SL.1.1: Participate in collaborative
conversations with diverse partners about
grade 1 topics and texts with peers and adults
in small and larger groups.
•
SL.1.1.A: Follow agreed-upon rules for
discussions (e.g., listening to others with
care, speaking one at a time about the topics
and texts under discussion).
•
SL.1.1.B: Build on others’ talk in
conversations by responding to the
comments of others through multiple
exchanges.
•
SL.1.1.C: Ask questions to clear up any
confusion about the topics and texts under
discussion.

Fostering student-led
discussions

From the beginning of the year, Meridith taught speaking and

listening in academic contexts. She supported children in listening to
and learning from each other, preparing for discussions, and taking
responsibility for discussions.

Teacher support for speaking and

listening

Meridith provided explicit instruction in speaking and listening. First,

she focused on teaching students to listen. She offered explanations,
modeled appropriate behaviors, and gave children time to practice
sitting up, resisting distractions, and looking at the speaker. When
students struggled to stay focused, she gently encouraged the speaker
to pause until all the students were looking. In the following transcript
from a fall classroom observation, Meridith provided explicit
instruction about how to listen during whole-group discussions:
Meridith: If you’re touching and playing with
your book, it’s hard to listen to the person who’s
speaking. It means the speaker will have to wait
for you to be a respectful listener, reader, and
friend. So, if you want to share, your hands
should be off your book. I want you looking at
the person talking. You have to wait until that
person is finished to put your own opinion in.

Meridith also offered more subtle speaking and listening support by

calling attention to conversational norms—like saying, “I hear Jorge
talking,” when another student was about to interrupt—and using
nonverbal cues, like eye contact and pointing, to remind children of
expectations.

Meridith’s reflection

At the start of every year, I envision students independently

engaging in meaningful discussions while I take notes and think
about how these grand conversations will guide my instruction.
Then I remember it is August and they are six. Starting with basics
—such as body language, conversational turns, and voice
projection—helps set the tone for future discourse. While it seems
simple, and we often assume children have already internalized
these skills, many have not. Investing time in explicitly teaching
basic conversation skills allows children to be more independent
and go deeper with their thoughts.
 

Children’s responsibilities in
discussions

Meridith taught students to take ownership of discussion norms. She

expected children to wait until there was silence and eye contact from
everyone before they started to talk. If children began speaking before
listeners were ready, she would remind them to get the attention of the
audience. For example, she taught them to use a cue—saying, “Class,
class,” and waiting for the other students to respond, “Yes, yes?”—
before continuing the discussion (Biffle 2013). She had students take
responsibility for calling on each other, including recognizing who still
needed to participate in the conversation. Meridith also taught them
the language frame “Questions, comments, or connections?” to
generate discussion and responses. (For additional language frames
that supported discussion, see the photo “Literature Discussions
Anchor Chart.”)

The children needed practice to internalize these norms, as the

following observation shows.

Meridith: Brandi, do you want to say something

to Logan at this time?

Brandi: Will you please stop, Logan? ’Cause I’m

trying to say something, and you keep on
interrupting me and doing funny stuff because
everyone’s looking at you. So, can you please be
really serious in the group?

(Logan puts his head down on the table, as if

upset.)

Brandi: I don’t mean like put your head down.

(Logan sits up.)

Meridith’s reflection

Putting power in the hands of the students produced one of their

greatest transformations because it held them accountable and
made them leaders. It was an initiative to steer them away from
the traditional classroom discourse in which teachers ask
questions and students raise their hands to respond. The children
quickly learned that I was not the only one who had power.
Encouraging students to ask each other for questions, comments,
or connections helped them move conversations forward without
my support. Those three words were a catalyst for collaborative
conversations as children discovered their classmates had ideas to
share and that a conversation was a two-way street.

Discussion preparation

Meridith emphasized that students needed to come to the class’s

literature discussions prepared. She provided common texts ahead of
time, with the expectation that children would read them and record
their thinking (things learned, questions wondered, and personal
connections) on sticky notes (Moses, Ogden, & Kelly 2015). During
informal one-on-one conferences that Meridith regularly had with
each child, they discussed their thoughts on the texts and which ones
would be good topics to bring up at the group discussion. When
students came together, they had comments and questions ready.

In the following exchange from the spring, Meridith explored with the
class why thinking about the text beforehand is helpful for discussion.

Meridith: I want you to reread your literature

discussion book, stop and think, and use your
stickies. If we’re not stopping and thinking while
we’re reading, when we come to a literature
discussion, are we going to have a lot to say?

Orin: You can’t just be like, if you brought Henry

and Mudge’s Big Sleepover, “Well, it was about
Henry and Mudge and a big sleepover.” You can’t
just say that.

Meridith: Is that a very exciting conversation?

Class: No.
Meridith: So, your conversation needs to be . . .

Bianca: Bigger.

Meridith: Interesting and bigger, I like the way

you said that. And one of the ways we achieve
that is by using our sticky notes and thinking.

Meridith’s reflection

Initially, I thought stickies might interfere with the children’s

reading and thinking. I feared they would focus on spelling or the
process of writing rather than on generating thoughtful ideas to
share. I was wrong. As I introduced and modeled different uses for
stickies, my students used them with great intent. It gave them
purpose while reading and something to share during discussion
(Kelly & Moses 2018). It is not always easy to think on the spot—
sticky notes helped us collect our thoughts before participating,
enabling students to voice their ideas and be heard and valued.

Gradually increasing
children’s independence

Meridith first taught speaking and listening in the context of turn and
talk and whole-group discussions. As students gained independence,
they moved into teacher-scaffolded small-group discussions and later
small-group discussions with minimal adult support.

Turn and talk

Meridith used turn and talk in a variety of settings— such as during

morning message and lessons—not just in literature discussions. For
turn and talk, she asked an open-ended question and gave the children
two to three minutes to discuss it with their assigned partner. (To
increase children’s comfort but still avoid partnering children only
with their close friends, Meridith assigned long-term turn-and-talk
partners.) Meridith then called the students back together and asked
them to share their thinking and what they learned from their
partners.

Discussion increases students’ engagement, helps

them take responsibility for their learning, and
prompts higher-level thinking.
To make turn and talk successful, Meridith started working with
students at the beginning of the year to ensure they knew the basics of
how to talk and listen. She emphasized the importance of physically
turning to face partners and of making eye contact. To encourage
engaged listening, Meridith often asked students to retell what their
partners had said. In this transcript from the beginning of the year,
Meridith modeled asking questions, provided explicit instruction in
speaking and listening, and checked in with different student groups.
Meridith: Remember, you want to be looking that
person in the eye, straight forward. (Brief
pause.) Now, ready? Ask the question. Start
with, “How was your weekend?” (Students talk.)

Meridith: You were all chitter-chattering very

nicely. I saw you looking each other in the eye,
listening. I saw some heads nodding.

(Meridith engages Kelsey in conversation).

Kelsey shares that she had a good weekend.
Meridith asks what she did and whom she saw.
After Kelsey answers, Meridith asks, “Anything
else special?” Kelsey talks about a cake.
Meridith asks, “What kind?,” and makes eye
contact as she listens to Kelsey’s answer.

Meridith: (Turning to the whole class.) Do you

see how I asked some questions? Could you ask
your friends some questions like that when
you’re turning and talking? If your friend doesn’t
give you a lot of information, then ask some
more questions.

Meridith’s reflection

 Turn and talk helped children work on their conversational skills

on a small scale. They were expected to use eye contact, responsive
body language, and engaged listening with only one person. For
many, especially dual language learners, this was the least
intimidating conversation type. Having a consistent turn and talk
partner helped build strong relationships; as time progressed,
partners opened up more. They learned to ask questions, take
conversational turns, and add to each other’s thoughts.

Whole-group literature discussion

In August, students began sharing their thinking about books they

each had chosen and read independently, something they continued to
work on throughout the year. To support children in engaging in these
discussions, Meridith gave them a clear framework: One student
would share about a book while the others listened. The class knew it
was their turn to respond when the presenting student asked,
“Questions, comments, or connections?”

As this transcript shows, Meridith provided specific instruction on

expected listening behaviors during a literature circle later in the year:

Meridith: We want to show our friends that we

care about what they have to say. If you’re
flipping through the pages, it doesn’t show your
friends that you care about the information that
they learned in their books. When your friend is
speaking, you’re giving them eye contact.
 Meridith’s reflection

Whole-group literature discussions were definitely the most

challenging. Getting 28 first-graders to care about what each had
to say seemed overwhelming; but we kept reviewing listening and
speaking expectations, and over time the discussions transformed.
Implementing “Questions, comments, or connections?” and
utilizing sticky notes helped take whole-group discussions to the
next level. Students started to see the value in whole-group
discussions as the discussions became a forum for sharing and
recommending books.

After the children learned the norms of whole-group literature

discussions, they began small-group discussions about a book they had
all read. These discussions required sustained adult support to move
forward and stay on topic; teachers also ensured that all students had
a turn to speak and that multiple students didn’t share at the same
time.

In this springtime classroom observation, Meridith guided Evan in

order to help him and the other group members learn how to facilitate
their own discussion with less adult support.

Meridith calls on Evan. She tells him to wait

until he has everyone’s eyes on him. He
announces whose eyes he’s still waiting for.
Meridith prompts him to say, “Excuse me.” He
says, “Excuse me, Beck,” and once Beck looks up,
Evan starts reading aloud his connection about a
time when he was stubborn.

Meridith’s reflection

Small-group literature discussions were my favorite because they

were full of energy. The children loved discussing a common text.
At first, they were so excited they often spoke over each other
before a student’s thoughts were complete. Because of this, we
modeled effective conversation insertions and provided explicit
instruction and language frames to help children get back on track.
We also found that literature discussion groups were easier to
manage with no more than five students.

Less-guided small-group literature

discussion

Although the first graders made great strides toward independence

and required much less scaffolding as the year progressed, they did not
develop the ability to hold deep, on-topic literary discussions without
adult support. With practice, however, they internalized discussion
norms, took responsibility for moving literature discussions forward,
and used strategies for keeping their peers focused (Moses, Ogden, &
Kelly 2015).

In the following late spring observation, Eloise helped Alexis identify

and understand the author’s message in a story.

Eloise: Oh, I got a good author’s message at the

end.

Alexis: What! There’s an author’s message?

Eloise: Yeah. This is in the back too. If someone
. . . If someone is being mean, really try hard.
Ask, If I were you, then what you want me to do?
Make you clean up my mess? Treat others the
way you want to be treated.

Alexis: I didn’t know there was an author’s

message.

Meredith’s reflection

Alexis’s lightbulb moment was powerful. She was listening to her

friend and walked away with a deeper inferential understanding,
becoming aware that the author was conveying a message beyond
just the surface story. These sorts of incidents occurred often and
supported students’ abilities as a community to construct
meaning. With smaller groups (no more than five children) and
discussion norms in place, the children were more successful. As
the year progressed, they required less support. Providing children
with strong scaffolds and giving them space to hold meaningful
discussions taught them to listen; more important, it taught them
to care about what others had to say and to learn from each other.
Ultimately, collaborative conversations helped students find their
voices.

Speaking and listening

leads to learning

Throughout the year, the children demonstrated deeper literary

understandings because they spoke and listened to each other. One
day, after taking a reading assessment required by the school district,
Meridith overheard the children talking about how easy it was. Eloise
explained why: “They didn’t even ask us to infer!”

At the end of the school year, Meridith summed up her experience:

 When children participate in collaborative
conversations, they use more inferential thinking as
opposed to literal recall of the text. Since I began
initiating collaborative conversations, I have noticed
that the children take more risks and share ideas
beyond what is right there in the text. Without these
conversations, we miss the opportunity to address
social injustices, share life experiences, and express
compassion and empathy.

When I think about whether or not literature

discussions are effective, I think about the moments
that would never have happened had we not given
students the chance to talk in an environment that
truly nurtured and valued student voice. Mateo
might never have discovered his love for
megalodons, Alexis might still be searching for the
author’s message, and Maria might have gone the
whole year without sharing a single idea. It’s not so
much about the routines and procedures, but more
about what the routines and procedures allow you to
accomplish.
We place great value on encouraging, nurturing, and sharing young
children’s voices. Children’s thinking and meaning-making
experiences with texts bring richness and engagement to literacy.
Throughout this yearlong collaborative study, we identified important
strategies for supporting the development of speaking and listening
skills with first-grade students. These instructional ideas provided
opportunities for supporting deeper literary conversations with and
among young learners.

References

Biffle, C. 2013. Whole Brain Teaching for Challenging Kids (and the
Rest of Your Class, Too!). Yucaipa, CA: Whole Brain Teaching LLC.

Baker, L., M.J. Dreher, & J.T. Guthrie, eds. 2000. Engaging Young
Readers: Promoting Achievement and Motivation. Solving Problems
in the Teaching of Literacy series. New York: Guilford.

Carrison, C., & G. Ernst-Slavit. 2005. “From Silence to a Whisper to

Active Participation: Using Literature Circles with ELL Students.”
Reading Horizons 46 (2): 93–113.

Clay, M.M. 1991. Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner

Control. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hall, N. 1987. The Emergence of Literacy. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Harvey, S., & H. Daniels. 2015. Comprehension & Collaboration:

Inquiry Circles for Curiosity, Engagement, and Understanding. Rev.
ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Johnston, P.H. 2004. Choice Words: How Our Language Affects

Children’s Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse.

Kelley, M.J., & N. Clausen-Grace. 2013. Comprehension Shouldn’t Be

Silent: From Strategy Instruction to Student Independence. 2nd ed.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Kelly, L.B., & L. Moses. 2018. “Children’s Literature That Sparks

Inferential Discussions.” The Reading Teacher 72 (1): 21–29.
Kirkland, L.D., & J. Patterson. 2005. “Developing Oral Language in
Primary Classrooms.” Early Childhood Education Journal 32 (6):
391–95.

Moses, L., M. Ogden, & L.B. Kelly. 2015. “Facilitating Meaningful

Discussion Groups in the Primary Grades.” The Reading Teacher 69
(2): 233–37.

NGA (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices) &

CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers). 2010. Common Core
State Standards. Washington, DC: NGA & CCSSO.

Nystrand, M. 2006. “Research on the Role of Classroom Discourse as

It Affects Reading Comprehension.” Research in the Teaching of
English 40 (4): 392–412.

Serafini, F. 2009. Interactive Comprehension Strategies: Fostering

Meaningful Talk about Text. New York: Scholastic Teaching
Resources.

Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice

and Theory of Education. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and
Computational Perspectives series. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Photographs: 1, 3 © Getty Images; 2 courtesy of the authors

Audience: Trainer
Age: Early Primary
Topics: Child Development, Language, Oral Language, Social and
Emotional Development, Relationships, Subject Areas, Literacy,
Comprehension, YC

LAURA BETH KELLY

Laura Beth Kelly, PhD, is an assistant professor of elementary literacy at
Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee. She has National Board
Certification in early to middle childhood reading and language arts.
kellyL@rhodes.edu

MERIDITH K. OGDEN
Meridith K. Ogden has worked as a first- and secondgrade classroom
teacher in the greater Phoenix, Arizona, area for the past 13 years. She is
currently a first-grade demonstration teacher in the Paradise Valley Unified
School District, where she shares her passion for reading workshops with
other educators. mogden@pvschools.net

LINDSEY MOSES

Lindsey Moses, EdD, is an associate professor of literacy education and

the program coordinator for the master’s in literacy education program at
Arizona State University, in Tempe. Lindsey conducts long-term research
on language and literacy in diverse elementary classroom settings.
lindseymoses1@gmail.com

© National Association for the Education of Young Children

1401 H Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005 | (202)232-8777 |

(800)424-2460 | help@naeyc.org