Category:Group talk: Difference between revisions

Why Group Talk Matters

This resource is licenced under an Open Government Licence (OGL).

This resource is part of a larger document (QCA, (2003), New Perspectives on Spoken English in the Classroom), downloadable from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6062/

The educational value of 'dialogic talk' in 'whole-class dialogue'

Neil Mercer, Open University

Introduction

In this paper, I will discuss the nature and educational significance of the kind of interaction called 'dialogic talk' and its use in 'whole-class dialogue'. To do so, I must begin by saying something more general about patterns of classroom interaction and teachers' use of questions.

Research in many countries has shown that in whole-class sessions teachers tend to talk much more than their pupils. They also ask the great majority of questions. Moreover, most of their questions will form the first part of an exchange between a teacher and pupil known as an initiation-response-feedback (IRF) exchange.¹ These IRF exchanges give classroom talk its distinctive and familiar form.

There has been much debate amongst educational researchers over the years about the functions and value of this characteristic form of classroom interaction.² In this debate, it was at one time very common to find researchers criticising teachers for talking and questioning too much. However, most classroom researchers would probably now agree that such judgements were too simplistic. One reason is that critics did not properly acknowledge teachers' professional responsibility for directing and assessing pupils' learning of a curriculum, and the ways that they must rely on questions and other prompts to do so. Secondly, they tended to assume that all IRF exchanges were performing the same communicative function. Through the work of sociolinguists, linguistic philosophers and psychologists, we now know that it is dangerous to assume that forms of language have any direct and necessary relation to their functions. By this I mean that, for example, we cannot assume that when someone poses a question to another person, they will always be 'doing the same thing'. At an everyday level, we all appreciate this very well. In a personal conversation we are likely to perceive the question 'Do you really think that you can talk to me like that?' as carrying a very different kind of message from 'Do you want a cup of tea?'. What is more, even an apparently simple and direct question may take on special meanings within a particular setting or relationship.

In the classroom, teachers' questions can have a range of different communicative functions. For example, they can be used to test pupils' factual knowledge or understanding ('Can anyone tell me the capital city of Argentina?'), to manage classroom activity ('Are you all ready now to put your pencils down and listen?') and to find out more about what pupils are doing ('Why did you decide to have just three characters in your play?').

Even the above analysis is an oversimplification, because a question can have more than one function (for example, to find out what pupils are doing and to make them think about it) and because it takes on special meanings in the life of a particular class (have they studied Argentina already or are they about to begin?). But the key point is that the distinction between form and function is important for analysing and evaluating teacher-pupil dialogue.

'Dialogic talk' and 'whole-class dialogue'

Through his comparative research in the primary school classrooms of five countries, Robin Alexander³ has shown that if we look beneath the superficial similarity of talk in classrooms the world over, we will find teachers organising the communicative process of teaching and learning in very different ways. In most of the classrooms he observed, teachers talked more than the pupils; but the balance and nature of contributions varied considerably, both between countries and between classrooms. One of the reasons for this variation was that in some classrooms a teacher's questions (or other prompts) would elicit only brief responses from pupils, while in others they often generated much more extended and reflective talk. The concept of 'dialogic talk' emerged from these observations as a way of describing a particularly effective type of classroom interaction. 'Dialogic talk' is that in which both teachers and pupils make substantial and significant contributions and through which pupils' thinking on a given idea or theme is helped to move forward. It may be used when teachers are interacting with groups or with whole classes.

I can illustrate my understanding of the function of this kind of talk through the example below. It was recorded in an English primary school by Open University researcher Manuel Fernandez, who is investigating the role of computers in children's literacy development. In this extract, the teacher is talking with some members of her year 5/6 class about their current activity; they are communicating by e-mail with members of a class in another local school about the shared curriculum topic 'How to have a healthy lifestyle'.

Teacher	Right. Somebody is going to read this to me now.
Declan	‘Dear Springdale. In science we are looking at the healthy human body. We need a lot of exercise to keep our muscles, hearts and lungs working.’
Samia	‘Working well.’
Declan	‘Working well. It also keeps our bones strong.’
Samia	Yeah. We don’t need a full stop.
Teacher	Yeah. That’s fine. That’s all right. Carry on. ‘Flies …’
Declan	‘Flies and other animals can spread diseases and germs. That is why it is very important to keep food stored in clean cupboards, etcetera.’
Evan	Is cupboards spelled wrong? (It is written ‘cubourds’)
Teacher	Yes, it is spelled wrong actually. It is cup-boards. Cup-boards.
Samia	(Reading as teacher writes) B-O-A-R-D-S.
Teacher	It’s a difficult word
Evan	O, A.
Teacher	OK. Can I ask you a question? And etcetera is ETC, not ECT. I want to ask you a question before you carry on. So why have you felt it is important as a group to send Springdale this information?
(Several children speak together)
Teacher	Just a minute. Let’s have one answer at a time.
Samia	Cause if they haven’t done it yet. We can give them the information …
Teacher	Yeah.
Samia	… that we have found in the book and so when they do get – when they do this part they will know, they will know, so, to answer it.
Teacher	OK. Excellent. So what were you going to say Declan?
Declan	So they can have a healthy body and they can use it for information.
Teacher	OK.
Evan	And plus, if they haven’t got the books.
Teacher	And if they haven’t got the books. Now before you tell me anything else you’ve found in a book, I think, don’t know what you think, do you think it would be a good idea to tell them why you are … what you’ve just explained to me? We are sending you this information because …
Samia	Just because, we couldn’t find, something like …
Declan	They could be doing it right now.
Teacher	Well, they might be.
Samia	We are sending you this piece of information just in case you haven’t done it yet, to help you.
Teacher	Right, discuss it how you want to say that. OK?

In the first part of the example, the teacher uses prompts to find out what the children have done. The first actual question comes from a child, on a point of spelling accuracy. When the teacher then begins to question the children, it is not to assess their spelling; it is to elicit their reasons for what they are writing to the children in the other school. She provides feedback on their answers ('OK. Excellent.'), so the episode has some features of the familiar IRF structure; but the teacher's questioning is used to encourage the pupils to perceive more clearly the nature of their task. She then picks up on what they have said to guide the next part of their activity, by suggesting that it will be useful to share their reasoning with their audience (and modelling how they might do it: 'We are sending you this information because ...'). She is using this interaction to build the knowledge foundations for the next stage of their activity - talking with them to guide their thinking forward. So we have here talk in which pupils make substantial and thoughtful contributions, and in which the teacher does not merely test understanding, but guides its development. What is more, all the pupils present are exposed to this reasoned discussion. This may not be 'whole-class dialogue', because the discussion is not shared with all members of the class; but it certainly seems to qualify as 'dialogic talk'.

We can consider further what 'dialogic talk' offers, from an educational point of view. One of the prime goals of education is to enable children to become more adept at using language, to express their thoughts and to engage with others in joint intellectual activity (their communication skills). A second important goal is to advance children's individual capacity for productive, rational and reflective thinking (their thinking skills). Dialogic talk can help achieve both these goals. The work of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky is relevant for understanding why this is so.⁴ He suggested that using language to communicate helps us learn ways to think. As he put it, what children gain from their 'intermental' experience (communication between minds through social interaction) shapes their 'intramental' activity (the ways they think as individuals). What is more, he suggested that some of the most important influences on the development of thinking will come from the interaction between a learner and more knowledgeable, supportive members of their community.

Although developed over half a century ago, Vygotsky's intriguing ideas have only really been put to the test in recent years. Now research has confirmed the validity of some of his claims about the link between language use and the learning of ways of thinking. Research has shown that teachers' modelling of ways of asking questions, offering explanations and providing reasons can have a significant and positive effect on how children use language in problem-solving tasks.⁵ Research by myself and colleagues has shown that a programme of carefully designed teacher-led and group- based activities enables children not only to become better at talking and working together but also at solving problems alone.⁶ The group-based activities of this programme are very important; but equally important is the kind of dialogue a teacher uses in whole-class plenaries and group monitoring. It is no coincidence that the teacher in the example above has been involved in this programme. And this brings us back to 'dialogic talk'.

Conclusion

For children to become more able in using language as a tool for both solitary and collective thinking, they need involvement in thoughtful and reasoned dialogue, inwhich conversational partners 'model' useful language strategies and in which they can practise using language to reason, reflect, enquire and explain their thinking to others. By using questions to draw out children's reasons for their views or actions, teachers can help them not only to reflect on their reasoning but also to see how and why to seek reasons from others. By seeking and comparing different points of view, a teacher can help those views to be shared and help children see how to use language to compare, debate and perhaps reconcile different perspectives. Providing only brief factual answers to IRF exchanges will not give children suitable opportunities for practice, whereas being drawn into more extended explanations and discussions of problems or topics will. This is the valuable kind of educational experience that 'dialogic talk' and 'whole-class dialogue' can offer.

References'

1 Sinclair, J and Coulthard, M, Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils, London, Oxford University Press, 1975.

2 Norman, K (ed) Thinking voices: the work of the National Oracy Project, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1992; Edwards, AD and Westgate, DPG, Investigating classroom talk, second edition, London, Falmer Press, 1994; and Wells, G, Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

3 Alexander, R, Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education, Oxford, Blackwell, 2000.

4 Vygotsky, LS, Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1978.

5 Brown, A and Palincsar, AS, 'Guided, co-operative learning and individual knowledge acquisition', in L Resnick (ed), Knowing, learning and instruction, New York, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989; and Rojas-Drummond, S, 'Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms', in H Cowie and D van der Aalsvoort (eds), Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge, Oxford, Elsevier, 2000.

6 Mercer, N, Wegerif, R and Dawes, L, Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom, British educational research journal, 25(1), 1999, pages 95 to 111.

What Do Pupils Think of Group Talk?

Consider the research

Cognitive and emotional development

Lev Vygotsky (1973) believed that it was children’s interaction with others through language that most strongly influenced the level of conceptual understanding they could reach. He believed that we can learn from others, both of the same age and of a higher age and development level. One of the main ways this operates is through scaffolding in the zone of proximal development. This concept refers to the gap between what a person is able to do alone and what she or he can do with the help of someone more knowledgeable or skilled than him or herself. It is here that the role of teachers, adults and peers comes to the fore in children’s learning. They can help bring the child’s knowledge to a higher level by intervening in the zone of proximal development by providing children’s thoughts with so-called scaffolds (small planned steps of support), which once the learning process is complete are no longer needed by the child.

His work has gone on to influence the thinking behind the CASE (Cognitive Acceleration though Science Education) and CLIS (Children’s Learning in Science). Materials written to support CASE Adey et al (1989) which promote the ideas of social construction (where learning takes place between members of a group) and metacognition (thinking about one’s own thinking). The success of CASE methods in getting pupils to work in groups and resolve conflict is well established and these ideas can and have been successfully adapted for use at Key Stage 4 or post-16, for example, Moran and Vaughan (2000), and into the primary curriculum.

The influential writings of Daniel Goleman (1996) also highlight the importance of working in groups as a life skill, and one which is dependent on the emotional intelligence of the group members. He argues that schools have a key role to play in this aspect of the development of the whole person.

Pupil attitudes to group talk and argument

• Pupils moving from primary to secondary classrooms are quoted in a recent study by the DfES (Curriculum continuity, 2004): ‘You were expected to work as a group’ (primary); ‘There is less group work; teachers often expect you to work individually’ (secondary); ‘There were group work rules such as taking turns, having a chair, a scribe and a timekeeper’ (primary); ‘We only have group work rules in English’ (secondary).

• In their study of pupils’ attitudes to their science education, Osborne and Collins (2000) reported how pupils they interviewed ‘appreciated teachers who were willing to engage in ‘discussions’’ and who allowed pupils to contribute. Some pupils equate ‘writing’ in science with ‘work’, with practical or discussion work seen as more engaging and providing welcome variety.

• Matthews’ (2001) project involved pupils working in small groups of varying gender mix where they are asked to reflect on their own and others involvement in group talk. He concluded that, when combined with feedback discussions, collaborative learning in the pupils studied can lead to pupils getting on better and helping each other with their learning, and that this leads to pupils liking science more and being more likely to continue with it in the future.

The emphasis in Shakespeare (2003) is to provide stimulus for argument and then provocation to continue to defend or alter one’s views in such a way that there is an emotional involvement in the science and thus greater motivation to resolve the dispute. This was supplemented by examples of phrases seen to work well in class that sustain and enhance the responses provided by pupils. In a later project, funded by Wellcome Trust and DfES entitled Running arguments? – teacher skills for creative science classrooms, D. Shakespeare, S. Naylor and B. Keogh worked with Bedfordshire teachers from Key Stage 2 to post-16 on the skills needed to run arguments in lessons. Pupils’ opinions were sought as teachers changed their practice and behaviour in class and included reference to the positive attitudes pupils developed towards regular changing of groups and the chance to work with others, including the making of new friendships. Only a small minority reported a dislike for group discussion.

Managing group talk and the effect of teacher behaviour

Through extensive studies of teacher and student behaviour in lessons, Kress et al (2001) illustrate the importance of teacher action in the class that helps pupils make sense of the science. Further, writers such as Robertson, and Neill and Caswell, have studied the importance of teacher behaviour and non-verbal communication and the influence on pupils’ involvement in lessons. The need to express emotions and enthusiasm is critical to communicate the subject ideas in a lesson and non-verbal aspects are critical. As part of identifying role behaviour in pupils in science, they also identified how pupils in practical work adopt roles such as the collector (gets the equipment), connector (puts it together and dominates proceedings) and observer (mostly passive), where the distance to the centre of action was important in determining the role adopted. These ideas can be applied to group talk, making the seating and orientation of pupils very important. Although based on a study of group seating in primary schools, Hastings and Chantrey Wood (2002) conclude that ‘there is a strong pedagogical, empirical and essentially intuitive case for arranging the physical environment to support the attention and activities that a task requires …’ and suggest that ‘… involving children in changing from one to another is a viable modus operandi’. A similar case can be made for secondary age pupils.

The use of Ground Rules has been explored by an Open University team led by Professor Neil Mercer since the late 1980s, studying talk in lessons. Where pupils are engaged in productive talk in lessons, teachers agreed a set of ground rules for talk, making the purpose and value of talk in lessons explicit to pupils and how and why to engage one another in lessons.

Development of scientific argument

Osborne ran the IDEAS project which culminated in 2004 in materials and ideas produced specifically for the development of scientific argument in lessons, based on teachers’ and pupils’ experiences and development in class. As well as being a source for ideas for stimuli for argument, it also promotes the explicit development of terminology with pupils: evidence, reasons, facts, persuasive language, etc.

Group talk and assessment for learning

The Assessment for learning Black Box project, as summarised in Black et al (2003) highlights the importance of the importance of questioning, feedback and self- and peer-assessment in developing deeper understanding and ultimately raising achievement in class. The research project, involving teachers changing practice and monitoring the outcomes, involved techniques where small groups were useful if not essential.

References

Thinking Science. The curriculum materials of the CASE project, P. Adey, M. Shayer, and C. Yates (Andover, Hants: Nelson 1989)

Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice, P. Black, C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall and D. Wiliam (Maidenhead: Open University Press 2003)

Emotional Intelligence, D. Goleman (London: Bloomsbury 1996)

Group seating in Primary schools: an indefensible strategy? Paper to BERA Annual Conference, N. Hastings and K. Chantrey Wood (2002)

Multimodal teaching and learning, G. Kress, C. Jewitt, J. Ogborn and C. Tsatsarelis (London: Continuum 2001)

Improving Science and Emotional Development (the ISED project): concerning citizenship, emotional literacy, science and equity, B. Matthews (London: Goldsmiths College 2001)

Words and Minds: How we use language to think together, N. Mercer (London: Routledge 2000)

Introducing CASE methodology at Key Stage 4: an example of bridging, School Science Review, 82 (299), 47–55, J. Moran and S. Vaughan (2000)

Body language for competent teachers, S. Neill and C. Caswell (London: Routledge 1993)

Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) project, J. Osborne, S. Erduran and S. Simon (Kings College, London 2004)

Pupils views of the school science curriculum, J. Osborne and S. Collins (Kings College, London 2000)

Effective classroom control, J.Robertson (London: Hodder and Stoughton 1996)

Starting an argument in science lessons, School Science Review, 85 (311), 103–108, D. Shakespeare (2003)

Running Arguments? – teacher skills for creative science classrooms (course materials and final report for the Wellcome Trust and DfES), D. Shakespeare, S. Naylor and B. Keogh (Unpublished)

Thought and Language, L. Vygotsky (Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 1973)

What Does Group Talk Look Like?

Introduction

What is meant by ‘group talk’ and ‘argument’?

Group talk includes any activity where pupils’ ideas are explored verbally between pupils, even if the final product is written or practical. It includes verbal argument (in this context the word argument is used to describe discussion between pupils who hold differing views) as much as more formal debates (about contentious topics such as genetic engineering). Group talk can be both collaborative and competitive.

Stop and think

Before reading ahead, jot down your first thoughts to complete the following statements:

1. An activity a science/maths teacher might carry out that could be called a ‘group talk’ activity is …
2. If the activity was successful, what I would expect to see the pupils doing is …and what I would expect to hear in their conversations is …and what I would expect to see the teacher doing is …
3. The benefits to the learner of science/maths would be …
4. A teacher might not use group talk activities, giving reasons, such as …

What does successful group talk and argument look like?

When you take part in productive talk as an adult, you make suggestions and support, modify or clarify others’ views. You challenge ideas, ask questions to seek clarification, summarise and evaluate the pros and cons. You care about your own opinions, but allow others to shape and counter them.

In lessons where productive group talk is taking place you will see pupils discussing ideas with each other independently of, but guided by, the teacher. Pupils will often be turning to face each other, making and maintaining eye contact with others and using animated expressions with their eyes, face and through gesture. They will want to convince others, but will be looking for opportunities to consider others’ views. Words and phrases related to reasoning (such as because, why?, what if ...?) will be used. At times, pupils will be thinking and saying little as they listen to others. The teacher will be aware of the progress of the conversations and intervening without interrupting the flow of the talk. The pupils will be in control of the time taken on a discussion and will be clear on what they are expected to produce as a result of the activity.

When the group talk is over, pupils may have changed their minds at least once. They will be able to explain their current viewpoint and any previous opinions they held, as well as some of the views held by others.

Why do it? What are the benefits to the learner?

• Higher-level thinking Pupils are challenged to defend, review and modify their ideas with their peers. It encourages reflection and metacognition (thinking about one’s own thinking). Pupils often communicate ideas better with other pupils than with teachers.

• Assessment for learning Effectively reveals the progress of the pupil to the teacher, encouraging the pupil to self- and peer-assess while allowing the teacher to plan more effectively. As such, group talk complements methods embraced as Assessment for learning.

• Illustrating science in action Working scientists use group talk – in class it models how they work, supporting the teaching of the ‘ideas and evidence’ aspects of scientific enquiry.

• Developing the whole child The ability to resolve disagreements is a life-skill.

Pupils become more reflective as they try to arrive at a consensus by expressing different points of view; or work collaboratively to explore ideas, plan and make decisions. Further, it supports the development of literacy.

• Pupil motivation and emotional involvement When argument is taking place, and pupils are actively prompted and provoked to defend a point of view – by the teacher and by others – it raises the emotional involvement in a topic, so that pupils are more engaged. In essence, they are being encouraged to ‘care’ about the science viewpoint they have, and to take a stand for or against it, even if they concede to others along the way. These features are more common in good English, RE and humanities lessons.

• Variety and learning styles Can be used as an alternative to written or practical work (for example, experiments), or just listening as the teacher explains and demonstrates. Group talk encourages the use of different learning styles and thus can be inclusive to pupils excluded from more traditional (and often written) activities.

Why is group talk relatively uncommon in science and maths lessons? What are the issues expressed by teachers?

• External factors Many teachers may feel a pressure to ‘deliver the curriculum’. There is no time in the lesson to do more than impart information. Also, the teacher may be concerned about having evidence of work having taken place (for example, usually something written down in books) – for others in the school, for parents or for Ofsted.

• Internal factors The teacher may be reluctant to take a risk with group talk because they are afraid that discipline will be a problem. They do not feel comfortable with the apparent loss of control and, as their pupils are not used to being given this level of freedom to express their ideas, they may be reluctant or misbehave. If group talk has been tried in the past it may have been unsuccessful because of a lack of consideration of factors such as classroom layout and teacher behaviour.

When are pupils more likely to engage in group talk and argument?

• when seating arrangements and environment are planned in order to facilitate discussion;
• when the teacher’s language and non-verbal communication are planned in advance in order to promote pupil confidence in the stimulus material for group talk;
• when the teacher withholds their opinion, or the answers for longer than usual;
• when groupings are chosen by the teacher, and are regularly changed;
• when timings are specifically used and usually kept short;
• when group talk is used regularly and becomes part of everyday science lessons.

It is the teacher skills of running group talk that require the most effort to develop and are the focus of this unit. Once developed, they can then be used with little preparation on the part of the teacher, allowing them to be a regular feature of lessons.

The ideas presented in this unit complement those in the resources Questioning and other resources in the

Now, revisit the STOP THINK questions you answered earlier.

Has your thinking changed? If so, in what way? If not, which ideas have been reinforced?

Why use group talk: a teacher’s perspective

Try an activity

---

Pedagogical Strategies⁽ⁱ⁾