Interactive Whole Class Teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

Study Title: Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies Study Author: Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K. & Mroz, M. Publication Details: British Educational Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, 2004, pp. 395-412.

Summary: What did the research aim to do? This study investigated the impact of the official endorsement of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ on the interaction and discourse styles of primary teachers while teaching the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Interactive whole class teaching is defined in terms of ‘high quality dialogue and discussion between teachers and students’ and is linked to expectations of increased student ‘inclusion, understanding and learning performance’.

How was the study designed? The relative lack of a clear definition of what constitutes ‘interactive whole class teaching’ and absence of practical advice for teachers to use to inform their pedagogy prompted this study. Participants were selected using systematic sampling (i.e. selecting every nth case) and comprised a national sample of 72 primary school teachers (35 literacy teachers and 37 numeracy teachers) from a range of socioeconomic settings across England. Within each subject area (i.e. literacy or numeracy), half the teachers were considered ‘highly effective’, while the other half were ranked ‘average’ as judged by student performance. In addition, 14 effective teachers were selected from the larger participant pool for additional observation.

Data were collected as follows: Computerised Classroom Interaction System: This system, devised by the research team, used a handheld device and a continuous sampling method to log specific types of discourse moves made by teachers and students. Discourse moves were defined as discussion patterns that took the general form of teacher initiated question–student response–teacher feedback on response (referred to as the ‘IRF’ pattern). The following types of discourse moves were logged for teachers:  Open questions, defined in terms of whether the teachers accepted more than one answer to the question posed.  Closed questions, defined in terms of the teacher ‘calling for a single response or offering facts’.  Feedback to a student response (e.g., praise, criticism, acceptance).  Probes, where the teacher asked further questions of the one student who had responded to an initial question.  Uptake questions, where the teacher ‘incorporated a pupil’s answer into a subsequent question’. Student responses were coded according to gender of respondent/s, and whether the response was made by a single student or chorused by a group.

Video recorded lesson transcripts: The sub-sample of 14 effective teachers were video-recorded, with the recordings transcribed and coded using a system of discourse analysis developed out of the work of Sinclair and Coulthard. Discourse moves in the form of IRF patterns were quantified and converted into percentages for comparative purposes. The duration of each student response was also recorded. Teacher questionnaire: This questionnaire was mostly quantitative in design, and aimed at exploring teachers’ understandings of the concept of whole-class teaching and their perceptions of their own range of classroom discourse strategies. Teachers’ views on the quality of their own teacher education training were also collected.

What were the limitations? Limitations of the study principally concerned the researchers’ construal of ‘interactive teaching’ within classrooms as comprising initiation-response-feedback discourse patterns. This narrow focus risks overlooking other discourse patterns that may contribute directly to effective learning (e.g., ‘conversations with a purpose’, student-student dialogue). Computer-assisted observations were conducted in only one lesson per teacher (i.e. 72 lessons in all), rather than in a range of literacy or numeracy lessons per teacher over a period of time. This also limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

What were the findings? Computerised Classroom Interaction System: Results for the entire sample were as follows:  Teachers’ discourse moves (which includes ‘effective’ and ‘average’ teachers): All teachers used direct questioning (not defined or discussed in the article) and closed questions, with the latter used most often in each lesson; 43% of the teachers did not use an uptake question at any time during observations; and 15% never asked an open-ended question. Interruptions to lessons occurred 42% of the time. Spontaneous contributions by pupils were made in 82% of classrooms.  Student discourse moves: Four main types of student discourse moves were observed. Averages per lesson include: answering a question (118 moves per hour); choral response (13 moves per hour); presentation (not explained in the article; 13 moves per hour); spontaneous contribution (9 moves per hour).  Duration of discourse moves: An average of 28% of the whole class segment of each observed lesson was given over to explaining, while ‘direction from the teacher’ (not defined in this article) and individual student responses each comprised 15% of the whole class segment.  Comparison of effective and average teachers: Findings suggested that effective teachers make significantly more discourse moves in a lesson than do average teachers (on average, 55 more discourse moves per hour). General talk was also found to be more prevalent in classes taught by effective teachers.

Video-recorded lesson transcripts: The analysis of a sub-set of 14 lessons taught by effective teachers suggested little variation in patterns of discourse moves in either subject area. The majority of discourse moves comprised teacher explanation and teacher-directed question and answer exchanges (78% of total discourse moves in literacy lessons, and 77% of total discourse moves in numeracy lessons). Data showed that student responses of three words or fewer comprised 70% of the total response types.

Teacher questionnaire: It is not clear how the questionnaire results were analysed. The authors used the questionnaire data to suggest that participating teachers ‘had no clear idea of what constituted interactive whole-class teaching’, and that they had been given very little practical guidance on how to implement this approach in their classrooms. Most teachers reported that they ‘valued and frequently invited pupils to elaborate on their answers’, but the authors’ analyses suggested students had few opportunities for ‘sustained and extended dialogue’ within the observed lessons overall. What conclusions were drawn from the research? Study outcomes suggested that government endorsement of interactive whole-class teaching has not dramatically transformed traditional patterns of class teaching.

What are the implications of the study? The authors suggest that positive changes in teacher-pupil interactions require teacher self- monitoring, strategy refinement, and self-evaluation, and that these practices should be part of in- service training associated with school improvement strategies. The authors also suggest coaching and talk analysis feedback as additional professional development strategies for teachers.

Generalisability and significance for Queensland This study is not directly applicable to Queensland education contexts because interactive whole- class teaching is not a government-endorsed pedagogical innovation. Nevertheless, the authors’ findings that traditional literacy and numeracy pedagogical approaches are deep seated, and that change requires more than top-down shifts in curriculum design, are likely to be of interest to Queensland curriculum designers and to professional development service providers.

Where can interested readers find out more? Hardman, F., Smith, F., Wall, K. & Mroz, M. 2003, Interactive Whole Class Teaching in the Literacy and Numeracy Lessons: A Report for the Economic and Social Research Council, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle, UK.

Hardman, F., Smith, F. & Wall, K. 2003, ‘Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy Strategy’, Cambridge Journal of Education, vol. 33, no. 2.

Smith, F. & Hardman, F. 2003, ‘Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction’, Educational Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39-47.

Keywords: pedagogy, reflective practice, literacy, numeracy