Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 9-10 topics, texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
Common Core State Standards, Grades 9-10, Speaking & Listening · Read it at the source · Checked October 14, 2026
What SL.9-10.1 Means in Plain English
Ninth and tenth graders arrive having read and researched, and cite it by page. With peers they set the rules (consensus or a vote, a deadline, roles), tie questions to larger ideas, draw in quiet classmates, sum up agreement and disagreement, and qualify their view when evidence warrants.
Eighth graders (SL.8.1) followed agreed rules, linked several speakers with questions and qualified their views. Now students write the rules themselves and push talk toward broader themes. In grades 11 and 12 (SL.11-12.1), they make sure every position gets a hearing and decide what still needs research.
SL.9-10.1 I Can Statements
I can bring researched evidence to a discussion and cite it.
I can ask a question that ties our talk to a larger idea.
I can sum up where we agree and disagree, then qualify my view.
SL.9-10.1 Worked Example
Two replies near the end of a seminar on a proposed honor code, and only the second moves the group toward the decision it owes.
Prompt
Seminar on two readings: a proposed school honor code that would require students to report any cheating they see, and a summary of surveys comparing schools with and without honor codes. At the start, the group set its rules: aim for consensus, and if there is none with ten minutes left, take a vote and let the losing side present its view to the class too. Bram said, “Reporting a friend is snitching. Nobody will do it.” Saoirse said, “Then the code is just words on a poster.” Yusuf hasn’t spoken yet. Respond.
Not YetI agree with Bram. Nobody is going to snitch on their friends, and catching cheaters is the teachers’ job anyway. So the honor code is pointless and we should just say no.It picks a side on feeling, cites neither reading, skips past Saoirse’s point and leaves Yusuf out. It also ignores the rules the group set: there is no summary to build consensus from and no second view to present.
Meets the StandardLet me try a summary. We all agree cheating is a real problem, and we disagree about whether anyone would ever use a reporting rule. The survey summary on page 2 says schools with honor codes report less cheating, but it doesn’t say the reporting rule is the reason. So maybe the bigger question is where honesty comes from: rules that make people report, or a culture where people feel trusted. Yusuf, you’ve served on the student court. Which one have you seen work? I came in for the code as written, but now I’d narrow it: keep the code, drop the required reporting. If we can’t agree with ten minutes left, we vote, and the other side still gets to present.It sums up agreement and disagreement, cites the survey and names its limit, lifts the question to a larger idea (does honesty come from rules or from trust?), invites Yusuf in by name, qualifies the speaker’s own view and holds the group to the rules it set.
Moves to Use
Bring the readings marked up, and cite a page when the evidence matters.Hold the group to the rules it set: the goal, the deadline, how it decides.Ask a question that lifts the talk to a larger idea, and invite a quiet voice in by name.Sum up where the group agrees and splits, then qualify or justify your own view.
Common Mistakes with SL.9-10.1
Rules the teacher wrote
A laminated list of discussion norms that students recite but never chose, so nobody enforces them
Try this: Have each group draft three rules before the seminar: how it decides, its deadline and who keeps time, then review them afterward.
Questions that stay small
“Do you agree with what she said?” asked five times in a row, so the talk circles one claim and never reaches a bigger idea
Try this: Post two stems, “What does this tell us about…?” and “Is this really about…?”, and require one per round.
Summaries that pick a winner
“So basically our side won,” offered as a summary while half the group still disagrees
Try this: Teach the two-part summary, “We agree that… We still disagree about…,” and have a different student give it each round.
Classroom TimerFree ToolPut the group’s own deadline on the board: timed discussion rounds, then a final ten minutes for the summary and the decision.Seminar roundsFinal ten minutes
Random Name PickerFree ToolSpin for the student who gives the two-part summary at the end of each round, so everyone listens for where the group agrees and splits.SummarizerWhole class
How does the strong reply sum up the discussion so far?
Everyone agrees cheating is a real problem, and the group disagrees about whether anyone would actually use a reporting rule.
What larger idea does the strong reply connect the honor code to?
Where honesty comes from: rules that make people report, or a culture where people feel trusted.
How does the speaker qualify their view, and what evidence prompts it?
They would keep the honor code but drop required reporting, because the survey links honor codes to less cheating without showing that reporting is the cause.