Interactive Whole Class Teaching' in the National Literacy Strategy

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2003

‘Interactive Whole Class Teaching’in the National Literacy StrategyFRANK HARDMAN, FAY SMITH & KATE WALLUniversity of Newcastle upon Tyne

ABSTRACT Building on evidence from an earlier small-scale study of the discourse of theNational Literacy Strategy (NLS) in England, the findings of a more extensive investigation(n � 70) into interactive and discourse styles of a nationally representative sample of primaryteachers are presented. Using a computerised observation schedule and discourse analysis system,the paper explores the impact of the official endorsement of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ inthe teaching of the NLS to see whether it is promoting higher levels of interaction and cognitiveengagement by pupils. The findings support our earlier study and suggest that the NLS isencouraging teachers to use more directive forms of teaching with little opportunities for pupilsto explore and elaborate on their ideas. The implications of the findings are considered in thelight of their impact on classroom pedagogy and the professional development of teachers whoare charged with implementing the national policy-led initiatives like the NLS.

INTRODUCTION

According to the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) Framework document,which saw the introduction of a national policy-led initiative to raise literacystandards in English primary schools, the ‘most successful teaching’ is where‘interactive-pupils’ contributions are encouraged, expected and extended’(DfEE, 1998, p. 8). Consequently, ‘whole class interactive teaching’ wasadopted in English educational policy as a means to raise standards of literacyin state maintained primary schools. Following criticism that the concept ofinteractive whole class teaching was poorly defined and that little evidence hasbeen presented to show it differs from traditional whole class teaching, aretrospective review of relevant research was published (Beard, 1999). It arguedthat the NLS drew on school effectiveness research advocating the use of direct,interactive teaching focusing on higher order questioning and discussion. Citingthe work of Reynolds and Farrell (1996), it suggested that interactive wholeclass teaching will play a vital role in raising literacy standards. However, therewas no clear definition and little practical advice on what interactive whole classteaching is, and how teachers should use it in the classroom.

In the absence of such guidance, a training module for literacy consultantsworking with teachers in local education authorities was devised (DfEE, 1999a).It contained video material giving practical advice on what interactive teaching

ISSN 0305-764X print; ISSN 1469-3577 online/03/020197-19 2003 University of Cambridge Faculty of Education

DOI: 10.1080/0305764032000082839

198 F. Hardman et al.

is and how teachers should use it in the classroom. Two pamphlets (DfEE,1999b, c) based on the training materials were also produced and distributed toschools, suggesting that teachers could use a range of discourse strategies inaddition to teachers’ questions to encourage more sustained pupil contributions.These included asking for clarification of a pupil answer, encouraging pupils toelaborate on their answers and giving them time to gather their thoughts beforeanswering a teacher’s question. However, teachers were cautioned againstallowing increased pupil contributions to interfere with meeting the short-termobjectives of lessons or with the pace of the lesson.

English et al.’s (2002) research suggests that such official advice—urgingteachers to instil a sense of pace and to meet short-term objectives, while at thesame time encouraging pupil contributions—is setting up pedagogic conflicts forteachers. Their evidence suggests that in trying to meet the competing demandsof the training materials, teachers are becoming more directive in their teaching,with little opportunity for pupil elaboration. In their observations of lessons,English and her colleagues found that teachers are asking more questions andmaking more statements compared to Galton et al.’s (1999) pre-NLS findings:a rise from 74.6% to 83.8%. However, the increase in teacher/pupil interactiondid not mean pupil contributions were ‘extended’: pupils were limited toproviding answers which were three words or less for 90% of the responses.

Like English et al. (2002), our earlier study (Mroz et al., 2000) of classroomdiscourse in the Literacy Hour (LH) suggested that, despite official endorse-ments of interactive teaching encouraging more extended pupil contributions,the discourse is dominated by what Tharp and Gallimore (1988) call the‘recitation script’. In its prototypical form teacher-led recitation, first identifiedby Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), consists of three moves: an initiation, usuallyin the form of a teacher question, a response, in which a pupil attempts to answerthe question, and a follow-up move, in which the teacher provides some form offeedback (very often in the form of an evaluation) to the pupil’s response.However, research (e.g. Dillon, 1994; Nystrand et al., 1997; Wells, 1993;Wood, 1992; Nassaji & Wells, 2000) suggests that the ‘initiation-response-feed-back’ (IRF) structure can take a variety of forms and functions leading todifferent levels of pupil participation and engagement, particularly through theuse that is made of the follow-up move. Nassaji and Wells (2000), for example,suggest that through feedback which goes beyond evaluation of the pupil’sanswer, the teacher can extend the answer to draw out its significance so as tocreate a greater equality of participation for the pupils. Similarly, Nystrand et al.(1997) advocate that teachers pay more attention to the way in which theyevaluate pupil responses so that there is more ‘high-level evaluation’ wherebyteachers incorporate pupils’ answers into subsequent questions. In this process,which they term uptake, they suggest that teachers’ questions should be shapedby what immediately precedes them so that they are genuine questions. This isin contrast to recitation where there is usually a prepared list of test questionswith pre-specified answers from a list of ‘essential’ information, against which apupil’s knowledge can be checked. However, as with Alexander’s (2000) and

‘Interactive Whole Class Teaching’ in the NLS 199

English et al.’s (2002) studies, we found little evidence of teachers extending thenegotiation of meaning through sustained, in-depth, one-to-one interaction withpupils, using a range of discourse strategies as suggested in NLS trainingmaterials.

Therefore research suggests that official endorsements are having littleimpact on changing teachers’ discourse styles to encourage extended pupilcontributions. Traditional patterns of whole class teaching seem to be preserveddespite the appearance of organisational and curriculum change within theNLS. As Alexander et al. (1996) and Leat (1999) argue, such evidence ofpowerful continuities and a resistance to change in teacher–pupil interactionsupports the view that curriculum innovations are probably a weaker influencethan factors specific to the teacher, the classroom and the professional culture.

Given the paucity of research into classroom interaction and discoursefollowing the introduction of the NLS, we decided to carry out a more extensivestudy of a national sample of teachers. In addition to investigating generalinteractive and discourse styles, we wanted to study whether ‘effective’ teachers,as measured by value-added scores, were using different discourse strategiescompared to ‘average’ teachers. We also wanted to investigate whether therewere variations in discourse styles across the different stages of the literacy hour,in group-based activities, and across Key Stages 1 and 2. Our study of classroominteraction and discourse formed part of a larger investigation into the literacylearning of pupils with special educational needs in the literacy hour funded bythe Nuffield Foundation (Hardman et al., 2001).

THE STUDY

In order to study the interaction and discourse styles of the 70 teachers teachingthe LH, we used quantitative and qualitative methods: a computer-assistedobservation schedule and discourse analysis of transcripts from video-recordedlessons. The two approaches allowed for methodological triangulation to givegreater confidence in the findings.

Computerised Observation Schedule

The computerised system known as ‘The Observer’ (Noldus Information Tech-nology, 1995) is highly mobile and discreet. The software can be loaded on toa laptop, but after extensive piloting we preferred to use a handheld device (aPsion Workabout). This battery-operated ‘calculator-sized’ hardware allows theresearcher to move around the classroom observing teachers and pupils andthere are no leads to trip over, and no concerns about accessing a power supply.

We developed the computerised coding scheme based on a pencil andpaper version (Ackers & Hardman, 2001), which built on the work of Sinclairand Coulthard (1975), Good and Brophy (1991) and Galton et al. (1999). Ourclassroom interaction system (CIS) enabled us to observe the lesson in real-timeand was quicker than traditional paper and pencil methods because the data


were instantly stored, and therefore available for immediate analysis. For eachteaching exchange the computerised system logged the actor, the discoursemove and who the receiver was. The scheme therefore primarily focused on thethree-part, IRF structure and gathered data on teachers’ questions, whetherquestions were answered (and by whom), and the types of evaluation given inresponse to answers. It also recorded pupil initiations in the form of questionsand statements.

Within each discourse move a range of modifiers were available. Forexample, the system recorded whether teacher questions were ‘open’ (i.e.defined in terms of the teacher’s reaction to the answer: only if the teacheraccepted more than one answer to the question would it be judged as open) or‘closed’ (i.e. calling for a single response or offering facts). Responses could becoded according to whether a boy or girl answered or whether there was a choralreply. Teacher feedback to a pupil’s answer was coded according to whether itwas praised, criticised, accepted or probed for further elaboration. The systemalso recorded teacher explanations, directions, refocusing of the class, andreading and writing activities. In order to see whether teachers were using arange of discourse styles as suggested in the research literature, particularly inthe feedback move, in addition to probing, the system also recorded uptakequestions (where the teacher incorporates a pupil’s answer into a subsequentquestion).

Given that there were three observers using the computerised system, it wasimportant that we measured inter-observer reliability (the extent to which twoor more observers obtain the same results when measuring the same behaviour)and intra-observer reliability (how consistent an observer is over time whenobserving the same social episode on two separate occasions). We thereforecarried out such measurements and obtained an inter-rater correlation of 0.86and an intra-rater correlation of 0.78. We were, therefore, confident that wewere getting over 80% agreement in the coding of the interactions, adding to thereliability of the findings.

Discourse Analysis

In order to triangulate the systematic observation using the CIS schedule, asubsample of ten lessons were video-recorded for transcription and coding usingdiscourse analysis. The whole class sections of the lessons were then analysedusing a framework adapted from Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) system ofdiscourse analysis.

The descriptive apparatus for spoken discourse developed by Sinclair andCoulthard proposes that lessons can be analysed as having five ranks: lesson,transaction, exchange, move, act. A lesson consists of one or more transactions,which consist of one or more exchanges, which consist of one or more moves,which consist of one or more acts. Figure 1 helps to illustrate this. The studyanalysed the discourse at the rank of the teaching exchange, as it is here that


FIG. 1. Levels of discourse analysis.

Sinclair and Coulthard are confident that the system is most reliable in terms ofits linguistic analysis.

Sinclair and Coulthard identify 11 categories of teaching exchanges withspecific functions and unique structures (the re-initiation exchanges weremerged for the purposes of the current study). The four main functions ofexchanges are: informing, directing, eliciting and checking. The teacher informexchange is used for passing on facts, opinions, ideas and new information tothe pupils, and usually there is no verbal response to the initiation. The teacherdirect is designed to get the pupils to do but not say something, whereas theteacher elicit is designed to get a verbal contribution from the pupil. The elicitexchange which occurs inside the classroom has a different function from mostoccurring outside it because the teacher usually knows the answer to thequestion which is being asked. This accounts for the feedback move being anessential element in an eliciting exchange inside the classroom, because thepupils, having given their answer, want to know if it was correct. The tenvideo-recorded lessons were transcribed and coded into ten different categoriesof teaching exchanges and the results quantified and turned into percentagescores to compare the patterning of the teacher/pupil interactions across all tenlessons.

Sample

The national sample of 70 primary school teachers was identified using Per-formance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) data provided by the Curricu-lum, Evaluation and Management Centre at Durham University (Tymms,1999). This ensured that the sample included teachers working in a range ofsocio-economic and geographical settings from Reception through to Year 6.The sample was drawn from the north-east, north-west and south-east ofEngland. Only six of the 70 teachers were male. Forty-six per cent of theteachers taught Key Stage 1 (KS1) and 54% taught Key Stage 2 (KS2). A


FIG. 2. Duration of Literacy Hours observed.

quarter of the sample taught Reception, while the rest were evenly distributedbetween Years 1 to 6. Most of the teachers taught a mixed ability group (74%),14% taught a lower set, 6% taught a middle set and 6% an upper set. Most ofthe observations took place first thing in the morning (53% before the morningbreak), 41% took place just before lunch, and the remaining observations (only6%) were just after lunch. The classes ranged in size from ten to 33 pupils, with53% male pupils in class being the average. The average length of the 70Literacy Hours (LHs) we observed was 57 minutes (SD � 11 mins). However,as Figure 2 shows, the LHs varied in length from 31 minutes to 1 hour 19minutes.

Forty-five of the 70 teachers (64%) followed the traditional format of theLH by having one whole class section, one groupwork section and then aplenary section. Some of the other teachers broke up the LH more, by, forexample, having two group sessions and two whole class sessions. Of oursample, 19 teachers did not hold a plenary session (27%).

We found that teachers are spending slightly more time on groupwork andless time on the plenary session (only five minutes on average). Figure 3 showsthe average duration of the LH sections. The average length of an LH was 57minutes, hence the three-minute gap in the pie chart.

FINDINGS

The following section reports on the findings of the CIS schedule analysing thepatterns of teacher–pupil interaction and discourse analysis of the transcriptsfrom the video-recorded lesson. All 70 lessons were analysed using the comput-


FIG. 3. Average duration of the Literacy Hour sections.

erised observation schedule, and a subsample of ten ‘effective’ teachers (dividedequally between Key Stages 1 and 2) were video-recorded for transcription andcoding using discourse analysis.

Computerised Systematic Observation

Figure 4 below shows the typical teacher-initiated discourse profile for an LH.The data shows the averages per hour: thus taking into account the length ofeach teacher’s lesson. This graph shows that closed questions were the mostfrequent form of discourse behaviour (on average 52 closed questions wereasked per LH). The teachers in our sample directed the pupils 29 times per LHand explained 28 times per LH. It is clear that teacher presentation andteacher-directed question-and-answer dominated most of the classroom dis-course in all 70 lessons. Less frequent teacher-initiated behaviours includeduptake questions (three per LH), writing—where the teacher would be writingon a board—(three per LH), and answering a pupil’s questions (four per LH).

In Figure 5, it is interesting to compare the profiles for the group part andwhole class parts of the LH (ignoring the plenary part). A t-test found significantdifferences between the discourse in the group part and the whole class part.The biggest differences (all significant at p � 0.001) were as follows:


FIG. 4. Discourse profile for a typical Literacy Hour.

• More explaining, reading, repeat, open and uptake questions during thewhole class part;

• More direction and more teacher answers during the group part.

Our findings therefore suggest teachers were more directive in their teachingwhen working with a group of pupils within the LH. It was assumed that byworking with a smaller number of pupils, teachers would provide more opportu-nities for pupils to initiate ideas, ask questions and to elaborate on their answers.In fact, we found teachers tended to use a larger number of lower cognitiveinteractions with fewer challenging questions and sustained interactions. How-

FIG. 5. Comparison of discourse profiles for whole class and group parts of LH.


FIG. 6. Comparison of discourse profiles highly effective and average teachers—entire LH.

ever, the groups we observed the teachers working with were mainly made upof pupils identified as having special educational needs in literacy and this mayhave influenced the findings.

Going back to Figure 4 (the entire LH), we looked to see if this discourseprofile was any different between ‘highly effective’ and ‘average’ teachers. Thisgraph shows that those teachers classed as ‘average’ by the PIPS value-addeddata asked more closed questions and fewer open questions than the ‘highlyeffective’ teachers. We found that highly effective teachers ask significantly moreopen questions per hour than the average teachers (t � 2.54, p � 0.05). Thedifference between these two groups for asking closed questions was notsignificant (t � � 1.19, ns). The difference in the number of closed questionsasked appears to be as big as the difference in the number of open questionsasked, but proportionately the difference is not as large. The graph also showsslightly more direction from the average teachers, but this difference was notsignificant. The findings suggest, therefore, that highly effective teachers wereusing more higher cognitive interactions than the average teachers. In interpret-ing these findings, however, we are conscious of the fact that value-added scoresobtained for each teacher from pupils whom they taught in the previous year canonly serve as indicators of a teacher’s effectiveness. Many other variables willaffect the progress made by a class, and by saying that class progress isequivalent to teacher effectiveness, we are over-simplifying the situation. Forexample, in visiting schools we found that in some cases the class was taught bymore than one teacher so the value-added score could have been indicative ofmore than one teacher’s effectiveness.


FIG. 7. Comparison of discourse profiles across Key Stages—entire LH.

Figure 7 shows the results of a comparison of discourse profiles acrossKey Stages 1 and 2. The significant results are indicated on the graph.KS1 teachers ask twice the number of closed questions compared to KS2teachers (t � 4.85, p � 0.001), they also direct more (t � 2.80, p � 0.01). KS2teachers ask significantly more uptake questions (t � � 3.08, p � 0.01), openquestions (t � � 2.79, p � 0.01), and they answer more questions (t � � 2.17,p � 0.05).

Evaluation of Pupil Answer

When a pupil has given an answer to a question, the teacher can then evaluatethis answer with praise, acceptance, or criticism, or invite a more in-depth,one-to-one interaction through further probing of a pupil’s answer. Figure 8shows the answer evaluation profile for a typical LH. The majority of evalua-tions of answers were acceptances (57%). The teachers offered praise 21% ofthe time, probed for another answer (from the same pupil) 14% of the time andrarely criticised an answer (7%).

On average, an answer was ‘accepted’ 57 times per LH, praised 22times/hr, probed 16 times/hr and criticised seven times/hr (see Table I). It canbe seen that the amount of criticism and probing during the LH variedconsiderably between teachers.

We investigated the role of several independent variables upon answerevaluations (teacher effectiveness, Key Stage, class male percentage and time ofday LH taught). The only variable for which we found a relationship was KeyStage: KS 1 teachers praise more than KS2 teachers (t � 4.60, p � 0.001); see


FIG. 8. Evaluations of pupils’ answers.

Figure 9 below. Whereas a KS1 teacher praises 26% of all answers, this dropsto 17% for a KS2 teacher: the trade off occurs with the number of acceptances.

We investigated answer evaluations further to see if teachers used differentkinds of evaluations depending upon who the answer came from: an individualpupil or the whole class. We found a large significant difference between theamount of acceptances according to the receiver (see Figure 8). Figure 8 showsthat 57% of answer evaluations are in the form of acceptances. This figureincreases to 87% if the answer originates from the whole class. It seems that thehigher impact evaluations are reserved for individual pupils: a whole classanswer receives praise only 6%, probes 6% and criticism 1% of the time.

TABLE I. Amount of evaluations offered per hour

Minimum Maximum mean SD

Praise 3 65 21.66 13.83Accept 20 142 56.92 25.61Criticise 0 28 6.91 5.89Probe 0 101 15.96 16.17


FIG. 9. Evaluation of pupil answer by Key Stage.

Pupil-initiated Discourse

We looked at the most common forms of discourse shown by the pupils (asactors). Table II shows that when pupils spoke it was to answer a question (86%of the time). Reading was the next most common activity (10%). This tableshows that, for the 70 lessons observed, someone other than the teacherperformed some form of discourse 5212 times.

Discourse Analysis of Ten ‘Effective’ Teachers

The discourse analysis framework provided a clear and systematic basis foranalysing the classroom discourse in all ten lessons. The quantification andsubsequent patterning of the teaching exchanges provided a useful means of

TABLE II. Discourse profile for all pupils during whole-classteaching

Behaviour Frequency Percentage

Open question 17 0.3%Closed question 53 1.0%Explain 75 1.4%Answer 4468 85.7%Read 534 10.2%Write 65 1.2%Total 5212 100%


FIG. 10. Patterning of teaching exchanges for all ten lessons.

exploring in greater depth the discourse styles of the ten teachers so that theresults could be triangulated with the findings from the computerised systematicobservation schedule. In addition to analysing the teaching exchanges, we alsoexplored and quantified the use of open and closed questions, uptakes and probesin response to pupils’ answers, and the length of pupil utterances.

Figure 10 shows the patterning of the teaching exchanges based on thepercentage scores for all ten teachers teaching the Literacy Hour. The analysisshows that there was little overall variation in the patterning of the teacherexchanges used by the ten teachers as they taught across the two Key Stages. Italso replicates our earlier analysis of the discourse of the LH (Mroz et al., 2000).Teacher explanation (teacher inform) and teacher-directed question-and-answer(teacher elicit) make up the majority of discourse moves in all ten lessons,accounting for 83% of the total teaching exchanges. Much of the discoursetherefore consisted of teacher-led recitation made up of the three IRF moves.The discourse analysis shows that, overall, teachers exercised close control overthe nature, pace and direction of the knowledge pursued in the lessons. Thefindings therefore support the computerised systematic observation data, whichsuggests that the teaching was mainly directive in nature.

However, the aggregation of the discourse analysis data masks some of theindividual variation found in the discourse. Teachers sometimes encouragedhigher levels of pupil participation and engagement through the use of open-ended questions and by making different use of the follow-up move. Throughfeedback which got beyond evaluation of the pupil’s answer (i.e. probing and theuse of uptake), teachers extended the answer to draw out its significance, or tomake connections with other contributions during the lesson topic so as toencourage greater pupil participation.

The following extract, taken from a Year 4 lesson, is typical of the discoursestyle used by all ten teachers when interacting with pupils. Here the teacher isexploring the genre of non-fiction (the moves, Initiation, Response, Feedback,make up the three-part teaching exchange which in turn are made up of acts:


cl � clue; com � comment; e � evaluation; el � elicitation; i � inform;rep � reply; s � starter, n � nominate).

Exchanges Moves ActsTeaching T OK now we‘ve been doing a lot of work I s

on non-fiction texts in our shared readingnon-fiction is made up of what Paul n/el

2 P facts R rep3 T it’s full of facts that’s right F e4 T I wonder who can remember what the piece I s

of non-fiction text we looked at last week wasaboutKaty what was our piece of non-fiction text n/elabout

5 P it was about smoking R rep6 T yes it was about smoking well done F e7 T and what did the article tell us about smoking I el

John n8 P how dangerous it was R rep9 T right well done F e

The teachers’ questions were analysed according to whether they were open-ended (defined as a question to which the teacher accepts more than oneanswer) or closed (same answer for all pupils). In the above extract, thequestions are all closed; however, the teacher went on to ask a more open-endedquestion eliciting more than one response:

Exchanges Moves ActsTeaching T OK so we read and talked about all the dangers I s

from smokingwhy then do you think young people start elsmoking if they know the dangers

2 P because it looks grown up to smoke R rep3 P yeah they think it looks good R rep4 P and they want to show off in front of mates R rep5 T right so young people can be influenced by F e

friendsand we know that once you start smoking comit is very addictive as it is a drug and veryhard to give up

It was found just over 20% of questions asked by the teacher, averaging at justover 60 questions per hour, were open. Teachers’ questions were also analysedfor the use of uptake (incorporation of pupil’s answer into subsequent question)by the teacher. The following extract, from a Year 6 lesson exploring figurativelanguage, demonstrates a teacher’s use of an uptake question:


Exchanges Moves ActsTeaching T right now last week we were looking at I s

figurative language in poetrycan anyone give me an example of what we elmean by figurative language

2 P it’s when we use similes in our poems R repto say something is like something else

3 T good when we use similes to compare things F e4 T can anyone point out an example of a simile I el

in the poem on the OHP

Uptake occurs here when the teacher picks up on the pupil’s response of a simileas an example of figurative language and incorporates it into her subsequentquestion. Uptake was often marked by the use of pronouns, for example, ‘Howdo you know it was the case?’; ‘What caused it to happen?’; ‘What type ofsentence is this?’. In each of the questions, the pronoun refers to a previousanswer and facilitates the negotiation of understanding as speakers listen andrespond to each other. Overall, uptake questions accounted for just over 8% ofthe questions asked.

Teachers also sometimes made use of probing questions in response to apupil’s answer. Such questions represented nearly 20% of the total questionsasked. The following extract from a reception class in which the teacher directsher questions to the same child is typical of such exchanges:

Exchanges Moves ActsTeaching T now what have we been reading today I el2 P a story R rep3 T a story that’s right F e4 T what’s the story about I el5 P three little pigs R rep6 T I wonder if you can help me write pig on the I s

whiteboardwhat is the first phoneme for pig el

7 P pa R rep8 T well done Daniel F e9 T what is the last phoneme in pig I el10 P ga R rep11 T ga good right pig F e

The length of pupil utterances were also analysed to explore to what extentpupils were encouraged to elaborate on their answers. We found only 15% ofresponses were of more than three words and only 8% were longer than tenwords. Overall, eight out of ten pupil contributions were less than three words.This supports the findings of English et al. (2002) that pupil contributions wererarely ‘extended’, with pupils providing answers which were three words or lessfor 90% of the time.


Comparison of the KS 1 and KS 2 teachers, however, showed somevariation in the type of questions asked and the length of pupil utterance. KeyStage 1 teachers asked fewer open-ended questions (15%), only 10% of re-sponses were more than three words long and only 5% were longer than tenwords. Therefore the analysis suggests that KS1 teachers tended to use fewerchallenging questions, which in turn encouraged fewer sustained interactions.

The results of the discourse analysis therefore support the overall findingsfrom the CIS schedule. Both studies show that teachers exercise close controlover the nature and direction of classroom talk. There were, however, individualvariations and variation across the key stages in the opportunities teachersprovide for extended and higher cognitive interactions on the part of pupils.

Conclusion and Implications

The paper set out to investigate the interactive and discourse styles of anationally representative sample of primary teachers to explore the impact of theofficial endorsement of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ in the teaching of theNLS. Our current study supports our earlier findings (Mroz et al., 2000) andthat of English et al. (2002), which suggest that since the introduction of theNLS there has been an increase of whole class teaching which is dominated byteacher-led recitation. Far from encouraging and extending pupil contributionsto promote higher levels of interaction and cognitive engagement, the majorityof the time teachers’ questions are closed and often require convergent factualanswers and pupil display of (presumably) known information. This style ofteacher questioning therefore seeks predictable correct answers and only rarelyare teachers’ questions used to assist pupils to more complete or elaboratedideas. We also found in our computer analysis that teachers were replicatingtheir whole class, teacher-led recitation style when working with a group ofpupils within the LH. Key Stage 1 teachers were found to be even moredirective in their teaching as they asked twice the number of closed questionscompared to KS2 teachers and they also directed the pupils more. Our studytherefore supports the findings of English et al. (2002, p. 24) who found ‘KS1teachers tended to use higher levels of low cognitive interaction, fewer challeng-ing questions and had fewer sustained interactions’.

Such an emphasis on directive forms of teaching in the NLS goes againstthe widely accepted social constructivist theory of learning (e.g. Barnes & Todd,1995) which suggests that classroom discourse is not effective unless pupils playan active part in their learning. According to this theory, our most importantlearning takes place when we relate new information, new experiences, andnew ways of understanding to our existing understanding of the matter in hand.One of the most important ways of working on this understanding is throughtalk, particularly where pupils are given the opportunity to assume greatercontrol over their own learning by initiating ideas and responses which conse-quently promote articulate thinking. If the pupil is allowed to contribute to theshaping of the verbal agenda in this way, the discourse is more effective in


developing the pupil’s own cognitive framework. However, our findings suggestpupils are mainly expected to be passive and to recall, when asked, what theyhave learned and to report other people’s thinking. It therefore questions thevalue of the linguistic and cognitive demands made on pupils within thetraditional teacher-led recitation format and suggests there may be benefits frompupils being given wider communicative options. This is supported by researchinto reciprocal forms of teaching which shows that significant gains in learningwere achieved when pupils were able to talk about their understanding in theirown ways, which acted as an important aid to increasing knowledge andimproving understanding (Johnson & Johnson, 1990).

The findings of the current study suggest the need for the exploration andresearching of alternative teaching and learning strategies to raise the quality ofteachers’ interactions with their pupils and promote broader pupil participationbeyond the role of listeners or respondents. If the IRF structure is to take avariety of forms and functions, leading to different levels of pupil participationand engagement, teachers will need to pay attention to their use of questionsand introduce alternative conversational tactics to recitation of the kind beingadvocated in NLS training materials (DfEE, 1999a, b, c). If teachers are goingto use alternative discourse strategies to teacher-led recitation (e.g. probing,uptake questions, pupil questions, teacher statements), monitoring and self-evaluation will need to become a regular part of in-service training so as to giveteachers a degree of ownership of the process of school improvement.

Our findings suggest new ‘top-down’ curriculum initiatives like the NLS,while bringing about a scenario of change in curriculum planning, assessmentand record-keeping, often leave deeper levels of pedagogy untouched. In otherwords, they will not easily replace existing practices as there is a process ofadaptation which leaves discourse styles and patterns of interaction largelyuntouched. Studies looking at dimensions of teacher development and teachingstyle (e.g. Joyce & Showers, 1995; Alexander et al., 1996; Leat, 1999) suggestthat teachers are slow to change their ways of teaching and new teachingmethods or innovations are not readily taken on.

Tharp and Gallimore (1988, p. 191) suggest that because innovation andchange always cost time, anxiety, and uncertainty, it is essential that teachershave supportive interactions with peers through modelling and feedback if the‘recitation script’ is to be changed to ‘new repertoires of complex socialbehaviour necessary for responsive teaching’. Similarly, Dillon (1994) suggeststhat coaching and talk-analysis feedback may be useful tools for professionaldevelopment whereby sympathetic discussion by groups of teachers of dataderived from their own classrooms could be an effective starting point. Inaddition to recordings and transcriptions, systematic observation schedules ofthe kind used in the current study could prove a very useful means of providingsuch quality feedback.

English et al. (2002) also argue that if teachers are to modify their practicein order to encourage reciprocal interactive teaching, they need unambiguousguidelines or the opportunity to identify and work through the contradictions


between official guidelines and their own educational beliefs. English and hercolleagues found using video clips of lessons selected by the teacher to be apowerful means of promoting critical reflection on professional practice. Theyfound that their video project, entitled ‘video-stimulated reflective dialogue’,encouraged teachers to articulate and demonstrate their own understanding oftheir interactive styles and provided opportunities for monitoring and self-evalu-ation.

Our findings suggest that there is a need for further research into ways ofeffectively supporting teachers in their professional development in order topromote more reciprocal forms of teaching to increase the opportunities forextended interactions with pupils. We also need more research to providecomprehensive evidence, for both teachers and policy-makers, that interactivestyles of teaching encouraging more active pupil involvement can producesignificant gains in learning.

Correspondence: Frank Hardman, University of Newcastle Department of Edu-cation, St Thomas’ Street, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

REFERENCES

ACKERS, J. & HARDMAN, F. (2001) Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools, Compare,31(2), pp. 245–262.

ALEXANDER, R. (2000) Culture and Pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education(Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd).

ALEXANDER, R., WILLCOCKS, J. & NELSON, N. (1996) Discourse, pedagogy and the NationalCurriculum: change and continuity in primary schools, Research Papers in Education, 11(1),pp. 81–120.

BARNES, D. & TODD, F. (1995) Communication and Learning Revisited: making meaning throughtalk (Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann).

BEARD, R. (1999) National Literacy Strategy: review of research and other related evidence (London,DfEE).

DfEE (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: a framework for teaching (London, Department forEducation and Employment).

DfEE (1999a) The National Literacy Strategy Training Modules 1: teaching and learning strategies(London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (1999b) Talking in Class (London, Department for Education and Employment).DfEE (1999c) Engaging All Pupils (London, Department for Education and Employment).DILLON, J. T. (1994) Using Discussion in Classrooms (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).ENGLISH, E., HARGREAVES, L. & HISLAM, J. (2002) Pedagogical dilemmas in the National

Literacy Strategy: primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour, Cam-bridge Journal of Education, 32(1), pp. 9–26.

GALTON, M., HARGREAVES, L., COMBER, C., WALL, D. & PELL, A. (1999) Inside the PrimaryClassroom: 20 years on (London, Routledge).

GOOD, T. & BROPHY, J. (1991) Looking in Classrooms (5th edn) (New York, Harper & Row).HARDMAN, F., SMITH, F. & WALL, K. (2001) An Investigation into the Impact of the National

Literacy Strategy on the Literacy Learning of Pupils with Special Educational Needs in Literacy inMainstream Primary Schools (The Nuffield Foundation/University of Newcastle upon Tyne).

JOHNSON, D. W. & JOHNSON, R. T. (1990) Co-operative learning and achievement, in: S. SHARAN

(Ed.) Co-operative Learning: theory and research (New York, Praeger).


JOYCE, B. & SHOWERS, B. (1995) Student Achievement Through Staff Development: fundamentals ofschool renewal (New York, Longman).

LEAT, D. (1999) Rolling the stone uphill: teacher development and the implementation ofThinking Skills programmes, Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), pp. 387–403.

MROZ, M., SMITH, F. & HARDMAN, F. (2000) The discourse of the Literacy Hour, CambridgeJournal of Education, 30(3), pp. 379–390.

NASSAJI, H. & WELLS, G. (2000) What’s the use of ‘Triadic Dialogue’?: an investigation ofteacher–student interaction, Applied Linguistics, 21(3), pp. 376–406.

NOLDUS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (1995) The Observer, Base Package for Windows, Referencemanual, Version 3.0 edition (Wageningen, The Netherlands).

NYSTRAND, M., GAMORAN, A., KACHUR, R. & PRENDERGAST, C. (1997) Opening Dialogue:understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (New York,Teachers College Press).

REYNOLDS, D. & FARRELL, S. (1996) Worlds Apart?—a review of international studies of educationalachievement involving England (London, HMSO for OfSTED).

SINCLAIR, J. & COULTHARD, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English used by teachersand pupils (London, Oxford University Press).

THARP, R.G. & GALLIMORE, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: teaching, learning, and schooling insocial context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

TYMMS, P. (1999) Baseline Assessment and Monitoring in Primary Schools: achievements, attitudes,and value-added indicators (London, David Fulton).

WELLS, G. (1993) Re-evaluating the IRF Sequence: a proposal for the articulation of theories ofactivity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom, Linguisticsand Education, 5, pp. 1–37.

WOOD, D. (1992) Teaching talk, in: K. NORMAN (Ed.) Thinking Voices: the work of the NationalOracy Project (London, Hodder & Stoughton).

Documents

Interactive Whole Class Teaching' in the National Literacy Strategy