This scale measures the extent of talking to learn and to understand in the classroom. There are two dimensions to this construct: one is the substance of subject matter, and the other is the character of dialogue.

In classes where there is little or no substantive conversation, teacher-student interaction typically consists of a lecture with recitation where the teacher deviates very little from delivering a preplanned body of information and set of questions; students typically give very short answers. Because the teacher’s questions are motivated principally by a preplanned checklist of questions, facts, and concepts, the discourse is frequently choppy, rather than coherent; there is often little or no follow-up of student responses. Such discourse is the oral equivalent of fill-in-the-blank or short-answer study questions.

In classes characterized by high levels of substantive conversation there is considerable teacher-student and student-student interaction about the ideas of a topic; the interaction is reciprocal, and it promotes coherent shared understanding. (1) The talk is about subject matter in the discipline and includes higher order thinking such as making distinctions, applying ideas, forming generalizations, raising questions; not just reporting of experiences, facts, definitions, or procedures. (2) The conversation involves sharing of ideas and is not completely scripted or controlled by one party (as in teacher-led recitation). Sharing is best illustrated when participants explain themselves or ask questions in complete sentences, and when they respond directly to comments of previous speakers. (3) The dialogue build coherently on participants’ ideas to promote improved collective understanding of a theme or topic (which does not necessarily require an explicit summary statement). In short, substantive conversation resembles the kind of sustained exploration of content characteristic of a good seminar where student contributions lead to shared understandings.

To recognize sustained conversations, we define an interchange as a statement by one person and a response by another. Interchanges can occur between teacher and student or student and student. Sustained conversation is defined as at least three consecutive interchanges. The interchanges need not be between the same two people, but they must be linked substantively as consecutive responses. Consecutive responses should demonstrate sensitivity either by responding directly to the ideas of another speaker or by making an explicit transition that shows the speaker is aware he/she is shifting the conversation. Substantive conversation includes the 3 features described above. Each of the features requires interchange between two or more people. None can be illustrated through monologue by one person.

This scale measures the extent to which the class has value and meaning beyond the instructional context. In a class with little or no value beyond, activities are deemed important for success only in school [now or later), but for no other aspects of life. Student work has no impact on others and serves only to certify their level of competence or compliance with the norms and routines of formal schooling.

A lesson gains in authenticity the more there is a connection to the larger social context within which students live. Two areas in which student work can exhibit some degree of connectedness are: [a) a real world public problem; i.e., students confront an actual contemporary or persistent issue or problem, such as applying statistical analysis in preparing a report to the city council on the homeless. [b) students’ personal experiences; i.e., the lesson focuses directly or builds upon students’ actual experiences or situations. High scores can be achieved when the lesson entails one or both of these.