This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 25 October 2012, At: 20:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlae20

Interactive Whole Class Teachingand Pupil Learning: Theoretical andPractical ImplicationsLaura Black aa School of Education, University of Manchester, UK

Version of record first published: 22 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Laura Black (2007): Interactive Whole Class Teaching and Pupil Learning:Theoretical and Practical Implications, Language and Education, 21:4, 271-283

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/le679.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Interactive Whole Class Teaching andPupil Learning: Theoretical and PracticalImplications

Laura BlackSchool of Education, University of Manchester, UK

Recently, classroom talk has re-emerged within educational policy as instrumentalin delivering standards-based reform in several counties. In England, both the Na-tional Numeracy and Literacy Strategies and the National Strategy for Key Stage 3emphasised the importance of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ (IWT) where ‘pupilsare expected to play an active part by answering questions, contributing points todiscussions, and explaining and demonstrating their methods and solutions to othersin the class’ (DfEE, 2001: 26). The aim is to increase the quality of teaching and learn-ing in both the primary and secondary classroom by engaging pupils and demandingactive participation. This paper explores the pedagogic value of interactive forms ofwhole class teaching from a sociocultural standpoint and considers whether policyguidelines (such as those referred to above) incorporate an understanding of teacher– pupil talk which is likely to be effective in terms of promoting children’s learning.It also considers the potential conflicts and contradictions that the teachers face inimplementing guidelines on effective classroom talk in a climate of performance andtesting. The paper concludes that interactive whole class teaching can really becomean effective mechanism for learning only if certain assumptions regarding its functionas a pedagogic tool are challenged within policy guidelines and in day-to-day teachingpractices.

doi: 10.2167/le679.0

Keywords: pedagogy, interactive teaching, dialogue, teacher – pupil interaction,classroom talk

IntroductionThe past two decades have seen a global shift towards standards-based reform

in education driven partly by the need to raise pupil performance in interna-tional comparison tables (e.g. Gonzalez et al., 2004; PISA, 2000) particularly inindustrialised countries such as the US (Resnick & Zurawsky, 2005), Australia(Hammond, 2001) and England (Alexander, 2004; Reynolds & Farrell, 1996). Ashas been well documented, this has instigated stronger prescription over whatand how teachers should teach, an increase in state control over curricula andassessment, and much greater accountability for teachers and schools when ob-jectives are not met (Larsen, 2005; Resnick & Zurawsky, 2005). More recently,this focus has shifted attention to classroom pedagogies with recognition of theneed to give more prominence to high quality classroom dialogue. In the US,following the implementation of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy framework,

0950-0782/07/04 271-13 $20.00/0 C© 2007 L. BlackLANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Vol. 21, No. 4, 2007

271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

272 Language and Education

many local districts and professional educational organisations (e.g. NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics) have provided guidelines on effective class-room discourse as the medium for achieving teaching objectives which complywith standards set at state level (Cazden, 2001; Resnick & Zurawsky, 2005). Forexample, Resnick and colleagues in the Institute for Learning at the Univer-sity of Pittsburgh have developed guidelines on ‘accountable talk’ (Michaelset al., 2002) that instruct teachers to facilitate classroom discussions whichdemonstrate:

� Accountability to the learning community: Students should listen to oneanother and expand upon each others’ ideas. Teachers are to keep the talkfocused and academically rigorous and, at the same time, keep all membersof the class engaged.

� Accountability to accurate knowledge: Students and teachers should sup-port all ideas with evidence either through reference to previous findingsor specific information. Teachers must ensure every discussion foregroundsaccurate and relevant knowledge.

� Accountability to rigorous thinking: Students should examine evidencecritically and build a cogent and coherent argument. Teachers should pushstudents to make their ideas clear and available to others whilst simultane-ously create classroom norms which allow students to engage in hypothet-ical modes of talk.

In England the concept of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ (IWT) has beenendorsed (DfEE, 1998a, 1999, 2001), based on its apparent role in raising edu-cational and economic performance in continental Europe and South East Asia(Bierhoff & Prais, 1995; Last, 1997; Luxton & Last, 1997; Reynolds & Farrell,1996). This claim is supported by the Primary Mathematics Initiative (PMI)(DfEE, 1998b), undertaken by the London Borough of Barking and DagenhamLEA, which demonstrated the value of this method as a means of raising pupilattainment in mathematics. The most recent definition of IWT within policy(DfEE, 2001) suggests that it should consist of:

� Directing and telling: Sharing teaching objectives with the class to ensurethat pupils know what to do pointing out which bits they should take extracare over.

� Demonstrating and modelling: Providing clear, well-structured demonstra-tions and modelling using appropriate resources and visual displays.

� Explaining and illustrating: Giving accurate, well-paced explanations andreferences to previous work or methods.

� Questioning and discussing: Matching the direction and pace of the lessonto ensure all pupils take part. Includes use of open and closed questionswhich should be adjusted and targeted at pupils according to ability so thatall pupils can contribute.

� Exploring and investigating: Asking pupils to pose problems or suggest aline of inquiry.

� Consolidating and embedding: Providing varied opportunities to practiceand develop newly learned skills. Encourage group work where pupils

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 273

reflect on and talk through a process, inviting them to expand ideas andreasoning or to compare and refine their methods.

� Reflecting and evaluating: Identifying pupil errors and using them as posi-tive teaching points. Discuss pupil’s justifications of the methods they havechosen.

� Summarising and reminding: Reviewing what has been taught and whathad been learned, make links to other work, give pupils insight into nextstage.

A common aim underpinning this recent emphasis on classroom discourseis that teachers should transform classrooms into dialogic, learning environ-ments where pupils are active participants – challenged and supported as theyprogress towards meeting national benchmarks. However, the evidence sug-gests that, in practice, this aim has not been achieved. For example, in England,several studies have reported little change to the traditionally didactic teacher– pupil interaction styles of the primary classroom (see Earl et al., 2003; En-glish et al., 2002; Mroz et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2004). In fact, such evidenceappears to have inspired England’s policymakers to reconsider the apparentpedagogic value of IWT and the latest policy document, the National PrimaryStrategy (DfES, 2003), contains no mention of IWT and favours a more individ-ualised pedagogy which is tailored to students’ individual needs and abilities(Alexander, 2004). This paper seeks to understand the key issues and possiblehindrances to the implementation of policy guidelines on effective ‘interactive’forms of classroom dialogue within the current educational climate (both inEngland and elsewhere). I argue that concepts such as ‘interactive whole classteaching’ and ‘accountable talk’ can be effective in promoting children’s learn-ing if they are presented to teachers within a coherent theoretical frameworkwhich accommodates an informed account of how children learn. It is my beliefthat sociocultural theory on classroom discourse provides such a framework,since it recognises the role that language and communication plays in children’slearning and offers insights into how teacher – pupil talk can be used mosteffectively in the classroom (Barnes, 1976; Cazden, 2001; Mercer, 1995, 2000;Wells, 1999). The paper focuses specifically on the concept of interactive wholeclass teaching (IWT) endorsed by England’s policymakers; however, the issueshighlighted are relevant to the wider international debate on pedagogy withinthe policy context of standards-based educational reform.

What Makes Effective Interactive Teaching?Sociocultural research on classroom discourse has focused on how teacher –

pupil talk might be best used as a semiotic tool within the sociocultural con-text of the classroom (Barnes & Todd, 1995; Mercer, 1995, 2000; Mercer et al.,1999). For example, Barnes and Todd (1995) advocate the use of exploratory talkwhich enables children to test ideas and engage in speculation within wholeclass discussions in order to actively build shared ideas through engagementin a collaborative venture. Similarly, Edwards and Mercer (1987) demonstratehow teachers’ use of linguistic devices such as ‘we statements’, ‘reformulations’and ‘para-phraistic recaps’ helps create shared experiences which they and theirpupils can utilise in future conversations as a joint frame of reference (Barnes,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

274 Language and Education

1976; Mercer, 1995). A key aim within this body of research is to move awayfrom a view of teaching and learning as a de-contextualised ‘cause and effect’process where teacher’s actions (the effective use of IWT) will lead to pupil out-comes (high achievement).1 Rather, the intention is to understand the processby which such outcomes are achieved through the use of language as a sociallyshared system of communication. Consequently, a sociocultural theory of learn-ing fills in the missing blanks between pedagogic approach (cause) and pupillearning outcomes (effect). Additionally, this approach also provides an accountof how sociocultural factors can vary the learning process for different individ-uals. Interactive teaching (e.g. dialogic inquiry) is viewed as a tool for learningoperating in socially mediated practices which are permeated by socially de-fined rules, norms, values, beliefs and perspectives (Rogoff, 1995; Wells, 1999;Wertsch, 1998). In these terms, the teaching process is subject to a multitude ofinfluential factors (e.g. family background, the local neighbourhood, local peerculture) which can affect the quality of pupil learning and consequently varypedagogic processes from classroom to classroom and individual to individual.

This body of research proposes two common principles in characterisingteacher – pupil talk; principles which are integrally linked to a neo-vygostkianaccount of the learning process (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). First, teacher – pupilinteractions are viewed as a tool to be collaboratively developed by teacher andpupil in order to generate common knowledge both for the benefit of pupilunderstanding (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) and for the smooth running of everyday classroom activities (Renshaw, 2003). Wells (1999) characterises classroomdiscourse as ‘the collaborative behaviour of two or more participants as theyuse the meaning potential of a shared language to mediate the establishmentand achievement of their goals in social action’ (p. 174). As an example, hehighlights how the traditional I-R-F exchange (initiation-response-feedback) isoperationalised in different ways in the classroom, depending on the realisationof the relevant task goals by both teachers and pupils. Thus, he presents teacher –pupil interactions as a semiotic tool which are jointly mediated and temporarilydynamic – evolving and changing over time in response to contradictions andtensions in their use (Wells, 1999).

Second, knowledge is viewed as flowing both ways in a bi-directional rela-tionship between pupil and teacher. Thus, the findings of those within socio-cultural research have advocated notions of ‘collaboration’ in learning (Mercer& Wegerif, 1997), ‘the joint construction of knowledge’ (Mercer, 1995), negotia-tion of meaning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and guided participation (Rogoff, 1995).This does not deny the epistemic authority of the teacher whose role as knowl-edgeable adult cannot be dismissed, but it also advocates constant shifts in thelocus of expertise between teacher and pupils which offers a variety of contextsfor learning (Wells, 1992). These might include opportunities for pupils to con-tribute their own knowledge/expertise (which the teacher may or may not beaware of) or situations in which both teacher and pupils acquire new knowledgetogether. In such contexts, teacher – pupil talk takes on a more dialogic function– the transfer of epistemic control towards the pupil offers the freedom to talkabout and explore their own ideas enabling them to take genuine ownershipof meaning and develop deeper levels of understanding (Edwards & Mercer,1987). This bi-directional flow of knowledge between teacher and pupil can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 275

contrasted with the model of teaching operationalised in policy guidelineswhich adhere to the ideals of standards-based reform (e.g. England’s NationalLiteracy and Numeracy Strategies – DfEE, 1998a, 1999, 2001). Here, the pres-ence of an intensely prescribed curriculum with pre-specified delivery targetspresents a one way linear model where knowledge (pre-selected by policymak-ers) is transmitted from teacher to pupil in a unidirectional manner.

In this form of classroom organisation the effective teacher carries the contentpersonally to the student (Reynolds & Muijs, 1999: 276).

Thus, in contrast to the principles proposed within sociocultural research, anobjective-led pedagogy (as promoted by policy aimed at achieving standards-based reform) firmly locates both epistemic and social power in the hands ofthe teacher and provides limited space for the contribution of pupil expertise.

The emphasis on teacher – pupil talk as a semiotic tool for development withinsociocultural research has led to a focus on inquiry-based forms of learningwhere a ‘dialogical’ culture is established within the classroom micro environ-ment. Wells (1999) refers to this focus on collective dialogue and participationin learning as dialogical inquiry which he insists is not a set of procedures forthe transmission of knowledge but a stance towards understanding experiencesand ideas – ‘a willingness to wonder’. Classrooms in which such cultures havebeen developed encourage students to be ‘agentive towards their own learning’(Wells, 1999) – contributing to the emergent outcomes of an activity (not prede-termined by the teacher) by working in small groups to reach a consensus onwhat is to be done and why (see Norman, 1992 for a neat collection of examples).This, Wells argues, ‘encourages students critically to examine and evaluate theanswers that they make to the questions that interest them and which simulta-neously provides an opportunity for their apprenticeship into these “genres ofpower”’ (Wells, 1999: 264). The success of this approach has been demonstratedby Mercer and colleagues, who having trained children to use exploratory talk,found improvements in students’ independent and group reasoning abilities(on Ravens Progressive Matrices) (Mercer et al., 1999, 2004). Similarly, Ryan andWilliams (2002) have shown how ‘dialogic methods’ in numeracy classroomscan be used to develop children’s use of argumentation to understand math-ematical concepts. Both studies emphasise ways of encouraging students toengage in constructive conflict or argument, and the use and consideration ofevidence to reach a resolution.

These approaches can be contrasted with recent policy guidelines aimed atenhancing the quality of classroom talk, such as those on IWT in England. Inthe first instance, there is recognition that a more equally balanced power rela-tionship between teacher and student needs to permeate the classroom microculture. The IWT guidelines fail to address this issue and even perpetuate thepower asymmetry by operating an objective-led pedagogy simultaneously. Sec-ond, inquiry-based approaches tend to emphasise working with children insmall group contexts either for the majority of classroom activities (Mercer et al.,1999, 2004) or as a bridge to whole class teaching contexts (Michaels et al., 2001refer to these as ‘hybrid talk formats’). Whilst the IWT guidelines do recognisea somewhat ancillary role for small group work aimed at ‘consolidating andembedding’ knowledge, the emphasis is on whole class teaching with the aimof maximising pupil contact time with the teacher (Reynolds & Muijs, 1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

276 Language and Education

Both points suggest the need for policymakers to incorporate mechanisms (e.g.reductions in assessment or a flexible curriculum) which help teachers to reducethe power imbalance (both epistemic and social) between themselves and theirstudents. Without this, any guidelines aimed at encouraging interactive class-room dialogue are unlikely to be effective in transforming traditional, teacher-dominated patterns of teacher – pupil talk in practice.

Possible Hindrances to Effective Interactive Classroom DialogueAs already noted, evidence suggests that the implementation of policy guide-

lines on interactive classroom dialogue is not ‘smooth running’. For example,in England’s primary schools, whilst there has been an observed increase inwhole class teaching in response to guidelines on IWT (Earl et al., 2003), severalresearch studies have indicated little change to the types of teacher – pupil inter-action which took place prior to the introduction of the National Numeracy andLiteracy strategies (Burns & Myhill, 2004; Denvir & Askew, 2001; English et al.,2002; Mroz et al., 2000). Indeed, Mroz et al. (2000) noted in their observationsof the Literacy and Numeracy Hours that teachers still dominated classroomdiscourse with predetermined question and answer sessions and presentations(Smith et al., 2004). One reason for this lies with the fact that such communicativepractices are deeply embedded in the pedagogic culture of the education system.According to the social norms of participation which operate in the classroom,the teacher, as the most powerful agent, is expected to initiate exchanges with thelearner (usually by asking a question) and pupils learn very quickly to respondin the appropriate place. The teacher’s dominance in whole class discussions asidentified by Mroz et al. (2000) reflects their use of culturally embedded ‘default’modes of discourse (Wells, 1999). This point has been recognised by Michaelset al. (2002) in their training materials designed to assist US teachers in im-plementing ‘accountable talk’. They emphasise the significance of establishingnorms and expectations for student talk within the classroom and advocate theuse of routine activities which demand student participation (e.g. pupil turn tak-ing, teacher wait time). However, whilst such guidelines may go some way tochanging the traditional modes of teacher and pupil communicative behaviour,they still do not urge teachers to engage with their pupils in critically challengingthe ‘appropriacy’ of their normative patterns of participation.

Another problematic issue in implementing guidelines on interactive class-room dialogue relates to the wider aim of promoting learning for all and particu-larly in addressing the needs of those pupils underachieving for their age group.For example, the guidelines on IWT from England state ‘Careful managementof demands and responses in whole class and group sessions offer high levelsof involvement for all pupils, particularly the least able, many of whom quicklygain confidence’ (DfEE, 1998a: 10). The evidence suggests that this aim may beproblematic, given the vast body of research which indicates that not all pupilsparticipate in whole class discussions on an equal basis (Biggs & Edwards, 1994;Graddol & Swann, 1989; Howe, 1997; Ogilvey et al., 1992; She, 2000). Myhill’s(2002) recent study of the effect of gender on patterns of interaction pinpointedthe prior achievement of pupils as crucial in determining which students arelikely to join whole class discussions, with underachieving pupils least likely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 277

participate. She also points out that high achievers are most likely to join in pos-itive forms of interaction such as making voluntary contributions and joiningin collective responses whilst underachievers are more often found talking toneighbours and engaging in off-task talk (Burns & Myhill, 2004; Myhill, 2002).Additionally, focusing on qualitative differences in the types of teacher – pupilinteraction that some pupils experience, Black (2004) found that teachers have atendency to use highly controlled forms of behaviour with pupils who are per-ceived to be of lower ability. Such ‘non-productive’ interactions are detrimentalsince they limit pupil input to monosyllabic responses which prevents themfrom engaging in the kinds of open dialogue necessary for appropriating thetools of learning and engendering ownership of meaning (Barnes, 1976). Theconsequence of such differences in teacher behaviour is that certain pupils haveless access to productive learning interactions than others.

Although these findings regarding differential participation may reflect as-sumptions concerning appropriate behaviour firmly embedded in the culture ofteaching (practices which are difficult to change) (Alexander, 2000), there is alsoa need to ensure that such assumptions are not perpetuated by policy guidelines.For example, in England, the Framework for Teaching which accompanied theNational Litaracy Strategy stated that:

This [IWT] benefits children who need help to access the curriculum e.g.low attainers, those with special needs or limited fluency in English, byintroducing them to challenging work, teaching them skills in a highly sup-portive context and raising their expectations and self esteem. Whole classwork also benefits more able pupils. By tailoring questions and invitingcontributions at more challenging levels, teachers in the National LiteracyProject expected [pupils] to be able to explain and justify their ideas, tomake generalisations, generate hypotheses, and offer critical comments.All this, in a class situation, challenged the able whilst keeping withincontexts that lower attainers could understand and in which they couldparticipate. (DfEE, 1998a: 96)

The idea that IWT serves to fulfil different functions according to whetherthe pupil is more or less able is problematic in the sense that it creates a binarybetween these pupils’ communicative rights and their access to the learningprocess. The assumption is that interactive teaching should be used to challengehigh attainers whilst low attainers are merely required to stay party to the dis-cussion. However, only the kind of talk to be experienced by high attainers hassimilarities with the recommendations of sociocultural research on classroomdiscourse discussed earlier. The advantage being that this resembles the kind ofexploratory talk desirable for pushing pupils through the ZPD (i.e. working at‘challenging levels’) (Mercer, 1994) and, at the same time, provides the oppor-tunity for students to recognise and use the discourse tools of the classroom toconstruct an understanding (Wells, 1999). Thus, the idea that low attainers canremain in a position where they consistently ‘understand’ what is under discus-sion without being involved in such exploratory talk is fundamentally flawed.Understanding is not achieved through osmosis but is acquired through dy-namic interactions in which meanings are negotiated – this very often requires

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

278 Language and Education

the pupil coming to share the perspectives of others who already understand(usually the teacher), and incorporating such perspectives into their own al-ready established frame of reference (Barnes, 1976). Indeed, Ryan and Williams(2002) have shown how using students’ errors and misconceptions (identifiedthrough diagnostic assessment) as a starting point is a useful way of helpingstudents to realise the limitations of their own propositions and recognise thevalidity of others. Fundamentally, without engagement in dynamic interactionsthis process of appropriation can not occur and can result in ritualistic rulefollowing or rote learning (Edwards & Mercer, 1987).

However, we must be wary of assuming that equal pupil participation inwhole class discussions is an effective outcome of teaching in the classroom.Alexander (2000) argues that the principle of ensuring equal time and atten-tion to all pupils is built on the ideology of democratic pedagogy which maybe distracting teachers from pursuing more effective ways of interacting withpupils. He cites evidence from Russian classrooms where, in contrast to findingsin England (Myhill, 2002), teachers spend more ‘talk time’ with less developedpupils because they deserve to achieve no less than their peers. Recent evidencesuggesting the outcome of this collective ideology is that teachers often interactwith one student over a sustained period of time (Wilson et al., 2006). Theyanswer repeated questions which build on each other so that a single pupil pro-vides several pieces or stages to the construction of knowledge process whichconsequently enhances their own understanding. Again, this suggests the valueof identifying and working through pupil errors and misconceptions in order toconstruct a collaborative explanation/answer based on justifiable propositions(Ryan & Williams, 2002). Thus, we see that Russian teachers, not restricted by anideology which suggests that all pupils should receive equal attention, are ableto engage lower attainers in the kinds of extended dialogue which, according tothe DfES guidelines referred to above, are only appropriate for their more ablepeers. Furthermore, Hufton and Elliot (2000) report a ‘sense of inclusiveness,solidarity and mutuality’ in Russian classrooms which promotes pro-learningand pro-schoolwork values amongst pupils and enhances student motivation.

Interactive Teaching and Standards-based ReformAs has been suggested, the use of interactive teaching strategies along with

the implementation of a standards-based reform can be problematic. Researchfrom England indicates the conflict that teachers have faced in conductinghighly interactive discussions (where pupils have the freedom to test out theirideas) whilst still adhering to the highly prescriptive, objective-led pedagogy ofstandards-based reform (Wyse, 2003). For example, English et al. (2002) notedthat the ‘interactive’ element of IWT was seen as a sort of luxury, and thatteachers faced a daily conflict between adherence to the pace of the curriculumand the need to foster extended pupil contributions. Thus, with limited time,teachers were forced into compromising quality dialogue in order to cover thecurriculum. Of course, highly controlled forms of interaction were observedin many classrooms long before the introduction of objective-led pedagogiesboth in England (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) and internationally (Cazden, 1988).But given the increasing pressure to adhere to the ‘hurry along’ curriculum

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 279

(Dadds, 2001), it seems that teachers are less likely than ever to engage in thekinds of open exchanges promoted in neo-vygostkian research. Dadds (2001)argues that teachers are faced with a professional dilemma between ‘a peda-gogy for delivery and a pedagogy for learning. Under the pressure of coverage,learning is sacrificed for teaching’ (p. 50). Thus, it is difficult to see how policyguidelines on classroom discourse can achieve aims such as ‘making connec-tions’ and ‘elaborating on and exploring ideas’ (DfEE, 1999) along with the timepressure induced by prescribed objectives and an emphasis on test performance.This contradiction represents the conflicting aims of educational policy reformwhich aims to bring about long term sustainable changes in teachers’ practicein order to ensure standardisation and continuity (Resnick & Zurawsky, 2005)but, at the same time, adheres to a performance agenda which emphasises theneed to meet short term targets for political gain (Newman, 2001). The emphasison adhering to a performance agenda reconstructs the role of classroom talk asa tool for delivering objectives, and it is this conflict in pedagogic intentionswhich is most likely to hinder high quality teacher – pupil talk which provideschildren with the opportunity to use talk as a social mode of thinking (Mercer,1994).

ConclusionThis paper argues that the implementation of policy guidelines on classroom

dialogue, like those on IWT in England, is not unproblematic. From a sociocul-tural perspective, such problems can be located both in the deeply entrenchedbehavioural norms which regulate teachers’ and students’ communicative be-haviour (e.g. I-R-F exchanges) and the operation of conflicting teaching ide-ologies within policy, i.e. the learner-centred focus of interactive teaching andthe objective-led pedagogy of standards-based reform. This suggests severalissues which need to be addressed: first, there should be some recognition of thesociocultural constraints on pedagogy which can vary its success both betweenclassrooms and individual students. Second, the notion of ‘collaboration’ inthe epistemic relationship between teacher and pupil needs to be emphasised.Without this element of collaboration, students cannot appropriate classroomdiscourse as a tool and take ownership of the meanings it is designed to trans-mit. Third, there should be recognition of the teacher – pupil power relationshipwhich permeates all classrooms and, if heavily imbalanced, can prevent studentsfrom actively engaging in the dialogue. Finally, the intention to use interactiveteaching to promote inclusivity and teach a range of ability levels must recognisethe pedagogic needs of such students and address the time constraints whichlimit teachers’ use of interactive teaching strategies such as IWT.

To really promote effective practice, classroom dialogue needs to be endorsedas a flexible tool for enhancing children’s learning and not as a tool for raisingattainment levels in summative forms of assessment. It should not be imple-mented along with a rigidly prescribed curriculum which hinders teachers’ useof classroom activities that are genuinely collaborative in form and content,whether that is in small group or whole class contexts.

Finally, there are ‘deficit’ assumptions regarding students’ linguistic and aca-demic ability, which are deeply embedded within the professional culture of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

280 Language and Education

teaching. These need to be tackled through professional development and train-ing, if the implementation of policy on interactive forms of classroom dialogue isto bring about pedagogic change. In England, the current evidence suggests thatthe provision of training which accompanied the endorsement of IWT withinthe National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (DfEE, 1998a, 1999, 2001) wasfairly limited and made little inroad into changing teaching practices. Smithet al. (2004) noted that teachers had no clear concept of what IWT was and hadreceived little guidance on its implementation. Dadds (2001) recalls that in thetraining sessions they observed, there was little opportunity for debate and re-flection, and no theoretical rationale was provided for the pedagogic strategiesbeing proposed. However, the need to develop the provision of professional de-velopment and training has been noted both in England and elsewhere. In theirevaluation of the National Numeracy and Literacy Strategies, Earl et al. (2003)highlighted the need for sustained professional development over a number ofyears if changes to teaching practice are to be long lasting. Similarly, the findingsof the SPRINT (Study of Primary Interactive Teaching) project indicate the needfor teachers to experience training which makes reflective links between prac-tice, theory and knowledge in order to develop the high quality elements of IWT(Moyles et al., 2001). But such training cannot simply rely on teachers reviewingtheir practice from the standpoint of the ‘reflective practitioner’ – critical reflec-tion is required which offers teachers the opportunity to become aware of andtransform the pedagogic cultures that are played out in their classrooms and thesociocultural constraints which influence their work. This requires engagementwith theory in order to challenge ‘common sense’ assumptions and ideas abouthow children learn and the processes that teachers are trying to set in place.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr Laura Black, School of

Education, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK (laura.black@manchester.ac.uk).

Note1. This has been a major criticism of the body of ‘school effectiveness’ research (e.g.

Brophy, 1986; Good et al., 1983; Good et al., 1990; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986) whichunderpinned the guidelines on IWT in England.

ReferencesAlexander, R. (2000) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education.

Oxford: Blackwell.Alexander, R. (2004) Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary

education. Cambridge Journal of Education 34 (1), 7–27.Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. London: Penguin.Barnes, D. and Todd, F. (1995) Communication and Learning Revisited: Making Meaning

Through Talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Bierrof, H.J. and Prais, S.J. (1995) Schooling as a Preparation for Life and Work in Switzerland

and Britain. London: National Institute for Economic and Social Research.Biggs, A. and Edwards, V. (1994) ‘I treat them all the same’: Teacher – pupil talk in multi-

ethnic classrooms. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B. Steirer (eds) Researching Languageand Literacy in Social Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 281

Black, L. (2004) Differential participation in whole class discussions and the constructionof marginalised identities. Journal of Educational Enquiry 5 (1), 34–54.

Brophy, J. (1986) Teachers’ influences on students’ achievement. American Psychologist41 (10), 1069–1077.

Burns, C. and Myhill, D. (2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature ofinteraction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education 34 (1), 35–49.

Cazden, C. (2001) Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth,NH: Greenwood.

Dadds, M. (2001) The politics of pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 7 (1),43–58.

Denvir, H. and Askew, M. (2001) Pupils’ participation in the classroom examined inrelation to ‘interactive whole class teaching’. In T. Rowland (ed.) Proceedings of theBritish Society for research into learning mathematics: Proceedings of the day confer-ence held at Manchester Metropolitan University, 3 March, British Society for Researchinto Learning Mathematics 21 (1), 25–30.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998a) The National Literacy Strategy:A Framework for Teaching. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (1998b) Implementation of the National Nu-meracy Strategy: A Summary for Teachers of Primary Aged Pupils. London: DfEE.

Department for Education and Employment (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy: Frame-work for Teaching Mathematics from Reception to Year 6. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (2001) The Framework for Teaching Mathemat-ics: Years 7,8 and 9. Nottingham: DfEE.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Excellence and Enjoyment: A Strategy for Pri-mary Schools. London: DfES.

Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M. and Torrance, N. (2003) Watchingand Learning 3: Final Report of the External Evaluation of England’s National Literacy andNumeracy Strategies. Nottingham: DfES.

Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: The Development of Understandingin the Classroom. London: Routledge.

English, E., Hargreaves, L. and Hislam, J. (2002) Pedagogical dilemmas in the NationalLiteracy Strategy: Primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour.Cambridge Journal of Education 32 (1), 9–26.

Gonzales, P., Guzman, J., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D. and Williams, T.(2004) Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics.

Good, T.L., Grouws, D.A. and Ebmeier, H. (1983) Active Mathematics Teaching. New York:Longman.

Good, T.L., Grouws, D.A., DeWayne, A.M., Slavings, R.J. and Cramer, C. (1990) Anobservational study of small-group mathematics instruction in an elementary school.American Educational Research Journal 27 (4), 735–782.

Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender Voices. Oxford: Blackwell.Hammond, J. (2001) Literacies in school education in Australia: Disjunctions between

policy and research. Language and Education 15 (2 & 3), 162–216.Howe, C. (1997) Gender and Classroom Interaction. Edinburgh: SCRE.Hufton, N. and Elliot, J. (2000) Motivation to learn: The pedagogical nexus in the Russian

school. Some implications for transnational research and policy borrowing. EducationalStudies 26 (1), 115–122.

Larson, M. (2005) A critical analysis of teacher evaluation policy trends. Australian Journalof Education 49 (3), 292–305.

Last, G. (1997) A Primary Mathematics Improvement Project Harnessing Continental TeachingMethods. London: National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luxton, R.G. and Last, G. (1997) Underachievement and pedagogy. Discussion Paper112, London, National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

282 Language and Education

Mercer, N. (1994) Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer andJ. Maybin (eds) Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon: Mul-tilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London:

Routledge.Mercer, N. and Wegerif, R. (1997) Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qual-

itative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning. Language andEducation 11 (4), 271–286.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Dawes, L. (1999) Children’s talk and the develop-ment of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal 25 (1), 95–112.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. and Sams, C. (2004) Reasoning as a scientist: Ways ofhelping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal30 (3), 359–378.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, M., Hall, M. and Resnick, L. (2002) Accountable Talk: ClassroomConversation that Works. (E-book from CD-ROM Series). Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-burgh.

Moyles, J., Hargreaves, L. and Merry, R. (2001) The development of primary teachers’understanding and use of interactive teaching. ESRC End of Project Report (R000238200).

Mroz, M., Smith, F. and Hardman, F. (2000) The discourse of the Literacy Hour. CambridgeJournal of Education 30 (3), 379–390.

Myhill, D. (2002) Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in wholeclass teaching. British Educational Research Journal 28 (3), 339–352.

Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.No Child Left Behind Act (2001) Publication License 107-110,115 Stat. 1425. US White-

house.Norman, K. (1992) Thinking Voices: The Work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder

& Stoughton.Ogilvey, C., Boath, E., Cheyne, W., Jahoda, G. and Schaffer, H. (1992) Staff – child interac-

tion styles in multi-ethnic nursery schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology10, 85–97.

PISA (2000) Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from the OECD Programme for Inter-national Student Assessment. Paris: OECD.

Renshaw, P. (2003) Community and learning: Contradictions, dilemmas and prospects.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24 (3), 355–370.

Resnick, L. and Zurawsky, C. (2005) Getting back on course: Fixing standards basedreform and accountability. American Educator 29 (1), 8–46.

Reynolds, D. and Farrell, S. (1996) Worlds Apart? A Review of International Surveys ofEducational Achievement Involving England. London: OFSTED.

Reynolds, D. and Muijs, D. (1999) The effective teaching of mathematics: A review ofresearch. School Leadership and Management 19 (3), 273–288.

Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appro-priation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio andA. Alvarez (eds) Sociocultural Studies of Minds. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rosenshine, B. and Stevens, R. (1986) Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (ed.) Handbookof Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Ryan, J. and Williams, J. (2002) Charting argumentation space in a conceptual locale.Research in Mathematics Education 4, 89–111.

She, H-C. (2000) The interplay of a biology’s teacher’s beliefs, teaching practices andgender-based student-teacher classroom interactions. Educational Research 42 (1), 100–111.

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K. and Mroz, M. (2004) Interactive whole class teaching inthe National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal 30(3), 395–411.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Interactive Whole Class Teaching 283

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language (edited and translated by Eugenia Hanfmannand G. Vakar). Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.Wells, G. (1992) The centrality of talk in education. In K. Norman (ed.) Thinking Voices:

The Work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of Education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wertsch, J. (1998) Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.Wilson, L., Andrew, C. and Below, J. (2006) A comparison of teacher – pupil interaction

within mathematics lessons in St Petersburg, Russia and the North-East of England.British Journal of Educational Research 32 (3), 411–441.

Wyse, D. (2003) The National Literacy Strategy: A critical review of empirical evidence.British Educational Research Journal 29 (6), 903–916.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 20:

36 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

012