3,201
edits
Teaching Approaches/Group talk: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
no edit summary
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) |
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
== Exploratory Talk == | == Exploratory Talk == | ||
Such ground rules should be designed to encourage mutual respect, and understanding, while also fostering high quality critique and reasoning through dialogue. | Such ground rules should be designed to encourage mutual respect, and understanding, while also fostering high quality critique and reasoning through dialogue. | ||
= What Does Group Talk Look Like? = | = What Does Group Talk Look Like? = | ||
| Line 136: | Line 122: | ||
Read [[Group Talk in Science - Research Summary]]. Use a highlighter pen and mark those reasons for the promotion of effective group talk which are the most important for you in your lessons.}} | Read [[Group Talk in Science - Research Summary]]. Use a highlighter pen and mark those reasons for the promotion of effective group talk which are the most important for you in your lessons.}} | ||
= What Do Pupils Think of Group Talk? = | |||
{{adaptedfrom|Group Talk in Science - Research Summary|PupilAttitudes|'''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.}} | |||
---- | |||
=References= | =References= | ||
Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. | Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. | ||
<references/> | |||
