Interactive or inactive? a consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching

Abstract

Recent learning theories and the suggested importance of ‘interactive’ approaches in national initiatives, (NLS, NNS) led to an ESRC‐funded action research project involving the University of Exeter and teachers in three schools—‘Using Talk to Activate Learners’ Knowledge' (TALK). This investigated how ‘interactive’ whole class teaching was and whether teacher‐pupil interactions permitted recoding of information and understanding. The findings corroborate those from Galton ( 1999 Galton M Hargreaves L Comber C Wall D Pell T (1999a) Inside the primary classroom—20 years on (London, Routledge) [Crossref] [Google Scholar] a, 1999 Galton, M , Hargreaves, L , Comber, C , Wall, D and Pell, T . (1999b). Changes in patterns of teacher interaction in primary classrooms: 1976–1996. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1): 23–37. [Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar] b), Mroz ( 2000 Mroz, M , Smith, F and Hardman, F . (2000). The discourse of the Literacy Hour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(3): 379–390. [Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar] ) and English ( 2002 English, E , Hargreaves, L and Hislam, J . (2002). Pedagogical dilemmas in the National Literacy Strategy: primary teachers' perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(1): 9–26. [Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar] ): that teacher‐led questioning and explanation still dominate, as do teachers' objectives. Interaction as participation was differentially experienced by higher and lower abilities, boys and girls, with few opportunities for pupil initiation or extended response. The study, however, provides a model for more fully analysing the varying forms and functions of teachers' questions and statements which may lead to a greater clarity in recognising ways to provide more effective discourse for learning.