Study

last updated:September 2006

What did teachers believe about using talk as a tool for learning?
Throughout the project, teachers held reflective discussions after watching themselves on video. The researchers analysed the content of these discussions to find out what beliefs teachers held about classroom talk and its uses. They found that teachers often discussed the use of:

• questioning, which they felt to be a crucial element in whole class talk
• talk to make connections between previous learning and the objectives for the current lesson
• interactive talk (by which they meant questions and answers) to encourage the ‘active participation’ of every child
• talk to develop vocabulary; and
• non-verbal communication to reinforce verbal messages and keep children interested.

One teacher mentioned that offering pupils opportunities to talk helped them to develop socially and another said that talk could be used to establish expectations of social behaviour.  A couple of teachers explicitly recognised their use of talk as a tool to inform and instruct pupils. One said:

“My main use of talk is to pass information and instructions on and to check children’s understanding.”

Teachers believed that questions were a vital part of classroom discourse and used them for a range of purposes.  They mentioned using questions for:

• assessing pupils’ existing knowledge
• reviewing what had been learned in a previous lesson
• improving pupil participation in the lesson
• asking children to articulate their reasoning
• generating ideas
• promoting thinking and problem-solving; and
• differentiating by directing specific questions to certain children.

One teacher explained how she aimed to use questioning to fulfil several goals:

“I spend several minutes questioning the children about what has gone on before and what they remember about it.  I then make a link between that and the proposed work for the current session. I feel it is important for the children to see that link.”

Project teacher
The project teachers all believed in the importance of achieving a high level of pupil participation during whole class teaching and wanted to include as many pupils as possible in an active way in their classroom interactions. This was hard to achieve in a class of about thirty pupils, who varied in their eagerness and ability to contribute.  

“I am continuously aware of the ‘fringe’ children – the children who sit around the edges and appear to be listening and doing the right things but who actually have little or no input unless questioned.”

What did teachers notice from the early project findings?
At the end of the first year of study, all the teachers involved in the project met to discuss the findings that had accumulated from watching and reflecting on video evidence of their own classroom practice during the year. They identified aspects that they wanted to change and used these to plan the next stage of work. They produced guideline materials to encourage further reflection and changes in practice within each area of concern.

Teachers were especially concerned about:

• generating greater pupil participation in classroom talk
• how to use classroom talk to improve pupils’ understanding.

The next sections discuss what teachers did about these areas.

How did teachers decide to improve pupil participation in classroom talk?
Teachers wanted to improve the quantity of pupil talk, to extend pupil participation to the full range of pupils and to improve the quality of pupil contributions. They aimed to do this by:

• making greater use of paired talk
• using more effective questioning techniques.

Many teachers decided to experiment with paired talk within whole-class teaching episodes. They tried to create an expectation that everyone would respond to a question by suggesting that pupils ‘Write down two things that...’ or ’Tell the person next to you what you think about…’ after which anyone might be asked to share their response with the class. One teacher said:

“I’d like to develop the idea of exchanging views or write ups with each other and saying whether they are clear or need further work done. The negotiations between pairs are very productive.”

Practitioners might wish to read a case study from the RfT ‘Effective literacy teaching in the first years of school’, in which a teacher promoted pupil discussion of imaginative writing.

Teachers noted that not all the pupils participated, and wanted to improve this.

“I’d like to have much more impact on the whole class”

“Talk in the classroom is very much directed towards those children with the confidence to put their hand up.”

Some teachers decided to operate a ‘no hands up’ policy, in which they chose a pupil to answer from the whole class, rather than choosing from a self-selected, smaller group.  Teachers were concerned not to put undue pressure on shy pupils, so pupils had a right to pass if they did not wish to answer. Deciding what is an appropriate response to shy pupils is a difficult issue and practitioners might wish to read a case study on the subject.

Teachers thought that giving children more time to think about their answers might help a wider range of pupils to take part and increase the quality of the answers they gave.  They decided to leave longer pauses after asking questions. They also wanted to improve and clarify their own responses to pupils’ answers.

“I need to follow up children’s ideas and be definite with yes or no responses.”

As well as being used to extend pupil participation in the lesson, questioning played an important part in the use of classroom talk to improve understanding.

How did teachers decide to improve pupils’ understanding?   
Teachers decided to use several strategies to improve pupils’ understanding. These included using:

• more open questioning to discover and build on pupils’ current levels of knowledge and understanding; and
• clearer, more succinct explanations.

Teachers wanted to develop questions that could help them to assess individual children’s understanding more precisely. They reflected that they sometimes asked an apparently open question but still anticipated a specific response that effectively closed the question. Teachers commented that it might be better to give a clear, concise statement instead of asking a leading question.

Improving explanations
Teachers recognised that they needed to say less.

“Introductions need to be short, sharp and to the point!”
“Lessons develop into listening marathons for the children.”

They realised that their explanations needed to be precise, carefully planned and structured, and to use well-chosen examples, with visual materials for support. New technical terms often needed careful explanation.

“I have recognised that I need to explain things really basically and start from the beginning … before introducing new ideas.”

“I must try not to give the children too many new concepts, words and ideas at once.”

Teachers recognised that, although one pupil might demonstrate understanding in an exchange, others still might not understand.  

“This talk just found out whether one child could remember how to find the range.  The lesson progressed, possibly without every child understanding how to find the range.”

They decided that it was helpful to use physical resources, such as individual white boards, coloured cards for signalling agreement/disagreement, or happy/ sad faces to signal understanding or confusion, so as to gain a clearer view of the extent of children’s understanding across the class.

What challenges arose in relation to changing classroom talk?
The researchers observed a major change in the pattern of classroom talk during whole class teaching in the second year of the project. When they watched and discussed the videos from the first year, teachers became aware of a common teacher-pupil-teacher-pupil pattern of talk, in which they inadvertently took half of all the available turns in the conversation. They deliberately changed this, following the example of one teacher who broke the pattern when she responded to pupil interest in a discussion of capital punishment. She asked them to talk in pairs for one minute. This had the effect of getting everyone actively involved in the lesson.

As a result, although in the first year of the project only one minute of the 810 minutes recorded a deviation from the teacher-pupil-teacher-pupil pattern of interaction; in the second year, there were 14 examples (and 34 minutes out of 270 minutes recorded) of teachers deliberately breaking this pattern.
 
Many teachers used short bursts of paired work within whole class teaching episodes to give all pupils the chance to interact with one another and become more actively involved in classroom talk. In a Year 1 lesson, children used cardboard microphones as a prop to interview each other about their families in the middle of a whole class episode exploring belonging and identity.

“I was very pleased with the interviewing activity and would like to develop strategies to encourage less confident children to participate.”

In the second year of the project, pupils spent more time interacting directly with each other than before. Practitioners may wish to explore a case study linked to this research on how teachers set up paired work so that it operated smoothly.

Teachers also broke the teacher-pupil-teacher-pupil pattern of discourse by:

• inviting other pupils to respond to something one of them had said
• allowing pupils to answer one another directly
• leaving silence and allowing more time for pupils to think about an answer
• encouraging one pupil to make several responses to a question
• avoiding the habit of repeating each child’s contribution.

Nevertheless, some aspects of classroom practice changed little in the second phase of the research. For example, the ratio of statements to questions remained similar.  This could have been because the teachers came to believe that making a short, clear statement might be a preferable alternative to asking several closed, leading questions. Improving questioning seemed especially difficult: the research found no increase in the proportion of speculative or process questions used in the second year, despite teachers making explicit efforts to improve their questioning techniques.

Why might it be difficult to make fundamental changes to the pattern of discourse in whole class situations?  Teachers’ preoccupations with the need to cover the curriculum and get good test results were important factors. The researchers also pointed out that most teacher talk in the classroom is spontaneous and unrehearsed, even when the content has been planned. They suggested that the structure of this unrehearsed talk may be ingrained by habit and reinforced by expectations of what is appropriate in class, so that it can only be changed slowly and gradually.

Practitioners may wish to look at a case study that shows how a science teacher completely changed his approach to questioning students so as to explore their ideas and support their learning better. This case study is part of the RfT on 'Assessment for Learning: putting it into practice.'

How do interaction and reflection come together in whole-class teaching?
The style of teacher/pupil interaction commonly found in this study of whole class teaching was quite tightly controlled by the teacher.  It was characterised by quick-fire question and answer work. Most teacher questions elicited brief, factual answers from pupils and relatively few questions inspired higher order thinking. This pattern of brisk questions and answers was similar to that presented to teachers as part of their training for the introduction of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. The National Literacy Strategy (NLS) states (p112) that whole class teaching is most effective when “it is interactive, delivered at a good pace”. However, the NLS also states (p8) that, in whole class teaching, “…pupils’ contributions are encouraged, expected and extended”.  Research evidence from elsewhere suggests that pupils benefit from a more reflective style of discussion that promotes and extends their responses. The researchers in this study pointed out that use of the term ‘interactive teaching’ was problematic, as it encompassed a number of different meanings and could be interpreted in a variety of ways.

The teachers in this study wanted to include as many pupils as possible in their whole class teaching. They did this by asking a large number of questions to which pupils could give brief, factual answers. This also enabled teachers to remind pupils of what they had previously studied in class and to control the subject matter under discussion so that everyone seemed to move as efficiently as possible towards achieving the planned learning objectives for the lesson. Teachers gave instructions, explained concepts and offered factual information to pupils as part of this process. Despite teachers’ efforts, not all children actively participated during the whole class sessions.

It was unusual for teachers to explore pupils’ prior knowledge of a topic fully.  Teachers assumed that pupils’ prior knowledge was based on what they had already been exposed to in class. About eight per cent of questions recapped knowledge that teachers expected their pupils to have, but teachers rarely asked questions to discover and build on knowledge that the pupils might have gleaned from personal experience outside the classroom. Practitioners might wish to read a case study linked to the main study about building on pupils’ prior knowledge.

As the teacher-researchers watched videos of their whole class teaching, they became aware of a need to consider what their pupils’ answers told them about their actual levels of understanding. The next pages discuss what teachers noticed about how they responded to pupils and how the nature of the dialogue between teachers and pupils affected learning.   

How did teachers respond to their pupils?   
Teachers’ actions during the first year showed that they were anxious to stick closely to their prepared lesson plans and objectives for the lesson. Their discussions highlighted a dilemma they faced. Teachers wanted to be more flexible and responsive to individual children’s needs. Nevertheless, they were acutely aware of the need to make sure their pupils performed well in national tests and that the school did well in league tables and Ofsted inspections. They were sure that their teaching needed to be focused and purposeful with clear objectives for learning, in line with the national strategies. Teachers had to balance their wish to respond to individuals with their need to cover a considerable amount of curriculum content. This meant that teachers responded to pupils in ways that did not always connect with their thinking.

The study explored ‘critical moments’ when pupils gave an unexpected answer that indicated a gap in their understanding. Teachers’ responses to these determined the course of subsequent discussion. Videos showed it was rare for teachers to use these occasions to explore the pupils’ thinking. They more often responded in ways that made sure that the class continued to follow the teachers’ pre-planned teaching objectives. These are some of the ways in which teachers kept the focus of classroom talk on their own lesson plans and stated learning objectives, rather than following up an unexpected response:

• ignoring answers they felt were inappropriate or unhelpful
• giving clear, strong cues to steer pupils towards a hoped-for answer
• overtly redirecting pupils back to the aspect of the topic they wanted to consider
• re-phrasing a pupil’s answer so that it fitted more closely the answer they wanted to hear.  

Sometimes, teachers accidentally misheard or misinterpreted what pupils said.  Nevertheless, the outcomes of such exchanges were missed opportunities to discover the learning implications of what the pupils had said. Watching the videos made teachers more aware of what was happening and they determined to do something about it.

The videos also showed that it was rare for teachers to extend a conversation with any individual. They usually praised each responding pupil and then moved on to ask another question of a different pupil. Teachers’ tendency to spread questions widely amongst the class, rather than exploring any one pupil’s understanding in greater depth, probably stemmed from their concern (highlighted in teachers’ reflections on watching the videos) to ensure participation by as many pupils as possible.
Working on different wavelengths

Sometimes, it seemed that teachers found it hard to spot connections between individual pupil’s responses and their own plans. In the example below, during a discussion of similes, the teacher expected a particular answer and missed her pupils’ different interpretation of the word ‘light’.

Teacher:  What is snow lighter than?  Snow is falling through the air very lightly.  What does that make you think of? [She indicates with her hands that she means weight.]
Sarah: Stars.
Teacher: Stars?  Would stars be light?  What made you think of stars?  Interesting.  Any others? ‘As light as…’?
Alex: Sun.
Teacher: Oh, so you’re thinking of light, too.  What do you think I mean when I say lighter than here? [She uses a balancing motion with her hands.]  What do you think I mean?
Carl: Weight.
Teacher: I was imagining the weight of the snow.  What could be lighter than snow?
 
The teacher initially missed the connections her pupils were making between the whiteness of snowflakes and stars and the double meaning of the word ‘light’.  If she had allowed time for a response to her question, ‘What made you think of stars?’, the pupils could have produced similes about brightness, which would have fulfilled the lesson’s learning objectives about similes equally well.  This teacher later reflected on the importance of remaining aware of alternative meanings for words so as to be able to respond flexibly to pupils.

How did patterns of classroom talk affect teaching and learning?
Watching the video recordings allowed the teacher-researchers more time to think about possible alternative responses that might have helped them to explore their pupils’ thinking and extend their understanding.

As in all classrooms, pupils in the study gave unexpected answers to questions and teachers had to make a split-second decision as to how to respond.  These unexpected answers could indicate that:

• a pupil had interpreted a question differently
• a pupil had misunderstood something
• a pupil had a deeper than anticipated understanding of the question
• a pupil was preoccupied with something else.  

During the cut and thrust of a lesson, teachers rarely caught these critical moments and did not pursue whatever lay behind unanticipated answers. However, there were instances, especially in mathematics lessons, when teachers encouraged pupils to think out loud, listened carefully to the implications of what pupils were saying or thinking and responded more flexibly. These instances helped to promote learning.  Practitioners may wish to read a case study from the RfT on ‘Effective teachers of numeracy’ that explores how secondary mathematics teachers encouraged more reflective dialogue during whole class teaching.

Even following reflection on the video evidence, there was room for debate about whether flexibly pursuing the learning of an individual child was the best response in a whole class context.  During a whole-class interaction, teachers had to consider and balance the needs of many learners with the needs of each individual. The teachers in the study taught Year 2 and Year 6 classes, the year groups in which pupils take national tests. As we explained above, the teachers were conscious of pressure to ensure that their pupils did well in these tests. It was not surprising that they were keen to focus the content of each lesson strongly on areas that they thought would improve their pupils’ performance, to avoid distractions and to stick closely to their prepared plans. 

Controlling pace
The national strategies emphasised the importance of maintaining a brisk pace in whole class teaching and the teachers in this study used questioning to control the pace of the lesson. They picked up the pace of the lesson (and tried to include as many pupils as possible) by asking several short, factually based questions, each requiring only a brief answer.  If a pupil did not respond quickly, the question passed to another pupil until it was answered correctly.  Teachers sometimes answered their own questions to prevent the lesson pace from flagging.

Teachers occasionally slowed the lesson pace.  In one lesson, a pupil offered an unexpected “right” answer at the very beginning of a carefully pre-structured series of questions.  His correct answer was ignored and the teacher continued at the pace she had planned. In the example below, the teacher’s focus on her own agenda (which was on sharing whole numbers and did not include teaching about fractions) prompted her to dismiss an answer that showed a deeper than expected understanding of the problem set.

Teacher: Can we share 9 equally into two?
Child: No...we could chop the spare one in half.
Teacher: We could, but if we have whole numbers, how about if we give them one more?

Practitioners may wish to look at a case study about how a primary school improved classroom dialogue so that it supported learning.  Teachers in this case study found that their biggest challenge was to relinquish sole control of classroom talk.

How did pupils’ participation in classroom dialogue vary?
The study made detailed observations of the behaviour of three sets of high and low achieving girls and high and low achieving boys in both Years 2 and 6. The numbers involved were small, so the findings comparing different types of pupils need to be treated with caution, especially when a given behaviour was observed only rarely.  Nevertheless, the study reported some interesting patterns of behaviour that showed both differences between the sexes and differences between achievement groups in the extent to which they actively participated in the lesson.
Willingness to answer questions

The study examined how often different groups of pupils put their hands up to answer questions and joined in collective responses. High achieving pupils of all ages showed these behaviours more often than low achieving pupils. This level of enthusiasm and compliance might have reflected a greater confidence on the part of high achievers. Girls were generally more inclined to put their hands up or join in collective responses than boys of the same achievement level.

Teachers sometimes invited specific pupils to respond to questions. The study found that in Year 2, low achievers received more invitations to answer and in Year 6, high achievers received slightly more invitations. In Year 6, boys of different achievement levels were equally likely to answer a question after being invited to do so, each doing so on about one quarter of the observed occasions.  High achieving Year 6 girls were more likely than any other group to be invited to answer questions.  Low achieving girls in Year 6 were the least likely group to be invited to give an answer. Practitioners might wish to read a case study that focused on quiet, ‘invisible’ students (many of whom were low achieving girls), highlighted the need to address their lack of confidence and explored a way of doing so.

Shouting out and off task behaviour
Occasionally, pupils would shout out a comment or response.  In Year 2, low achieving boys did this more than other pupils and in Year 6, both high and low achieving boys shouted out more often than girls. The researchers speculated that boys might be less willing than girls to conform to classroom expectations of taking turns and putting their hands up and generally more resistant to teacher orchestration of classroom talk.

Low achievers were more likely to be off task than high achievers but, encouragingly, time on task improved for all groups between Year 2 and Year 6. Low achieving boys, who were the most likely group to be off task in Year 2, improved more than other pupils.
Initiating talk

The study wanted to examine which groups of pupils were most likely to initiate work-related conversations with their teachers or peers.  Low achieving boys were most likely to do so in Year 2, high achieving boys most likely to do so in Year 6 and low achieving girls were consistently the least likely pupils to start work-related conversations, but it was rare for any pupil to initiate work related talk.  The few questions pupils asked were mostly procedural ones, such as whether they could use particular resources.  Practitioners might wish to read a case study about encouraging and teaching pupils to ask questions.

What patterns of talk characterised whole class teaching at the start of the project?
The researchers analysed video evidence of many episodes of whole class teaching to count and classify who spoke, how often and the purpose of each utterance. The full results can be found in the study report.

Questions
Teachers believed that questions were important. They asked many questions and used them to fulfil a wide range of functions, including:

• eliciting or recalling facts or information (41% of questions)
• inviting children to think about ideas and concepts (17%)
• inviting pupils to practise skills (9%)
• gathering information about the topic or theme (10%)
• checking understanding of ideas already covered (7%)
• developing reflection (5%)
• managing the task or the pupils’ behaviour (6%)
• checking prior knowledge from outside school (3%)
• developing vocabulary (2%).

Most questions (64 per cent) were questions of fact – they tested pupils’ knowledge and recall. Some (8 per cent) were related to the organisation or management of the lesson, for example, “Can you all see?” The rest (28 per cent) were more open questions that tried to prompt deeper thinking or a more extended response from pupils. These included speculative questions (16 per cent), which invited pupils to offer ideas, opinions, or hypotheses, for example,  “If you did x, what do you think might happen next?” A second type of open question invited pupils to explain their thinking, or to articulate their understanding of learning processes, for example, “How did you work that out?” or “Can you explain why?” The researchers called these process questions (which accounted for 12 per cent of questions asked). The number of speculative and process questions teachers used varied markedly in different subjects.

Pupils in the study asked only 20 questions during the 54 sessions observed in the first phase of research. Most of these related to how they were to fulfil a task (for instance, “Can I use a highlighter?”) rather than queries about their learning.  Practitioners might wish to read a case study about teaching pupils to ask questions. (Link to case study 5 on page 19)

Statements
Teachers used statements more often than they asked questions needing a response. The ratio of statements to questions was about 3:2. Statements were used to:

• inform pupils about the subject matter and learning processes (27% of statements)
• give pupils instructions about behaviour or the learning task (26%)
• elaborate pupils’ answers by correcting or expanding them (19%)
• explain or introduce concepts or connecting ideas (16%)
• socialise and establish relationships within the class (12%).

More teacher statements made during whole class teaching delivered information to pupils than built on pupils’ own ideas. During the study, teachers became aware that many of their statements were too lengthy, so they aimed to make more clear, concise statements to help pupil recall and understanding.

Overall pattern
During whole class teaching, a pattern of classroom talk prevailed in which:

• teachers and pupils took turns to speak
• teachers responded to each pupil utterance and some teachers repeated or rephrased pupil contributions to make sure everyone could hear clearly
• teacher utterances were sometimes long
• pupil responses were brief – four words long, on average
• pupils rarely responded directly to one another.

Study participants realised, on watching the videos, that they inadvertently took half of the available turns in each conversation and the remaining turns had to be distributed amongst 30 or so pupils. In whole-class teaching situations, the opportunities for any individual child to speak were rare and fleeting.

How did dialogue in mathematics differ from that in other subjects?
As in most primary schools, each teacher taught a variety of subjects. Teachers changed some aspects of their classroom talk when they taught different subjects. The study examined questions and statements used in literacy, numeracy and one other subject in each class. (These other subjects included art, science and religious education.) The patterns of use of statements and questions varied across different parts of the curriculum. Numeracy, in particular, was quite distinctive.

In literacy and other subjects, teachers often used statements to inform pupils, whereas in numeracy lessons, they were more likely to use statements that had an instructive function, such as how to manage a task. In literacy and other subjects, the ratio of statements to questions was about 3:2. In numeracy, teachers used nearly as many questions as statements.
 
The types of questions asked also differed, especially the types of open questions intended to provoke more thoughtful, reflective responses from pupils. During literacy lessons, teachers asked speculative questions four times more often than in numeracy lessons and about twice as often as in other subjects. These were a type of open question that invited pupils to offer opinions, hypotheses, ideas and imaginings and they stimulated higher order thinking as a result.

In contrast, although numeracy lessons rarely featured speculative questions, they often included process questions. This type of question also prompted higher order thinking, as it invited children to explain their thinking and make their understanding explicit.  During numeracy lessons, teachers used process questions four times more often than they used them during literacy lessons. The study also found that, in numeracy lessons:

• the most common type of question invited pupils to practise a skill – almost all of this type of question observed in the study came from numeracy lessons, for example, “Will you divide this number by two?”; and
• teachers used factual questions about as often in numeracy as in other subjects.  

The use teachers made of process questions to develop reflection on learning in mathematics showed that they recognised that it was more important for pupils to understand how to tackle a mathematical problem than to arrive at the right answer.  Compared with other subjects, teachers’ questions in mathematics were focused much more on process and understanding.

For example, a teacher in a Year 6 numeracy lesson took time to ask questions that clarified her pupils’ understanding of the term ‘average’.

Mark: Doesn’t average mean normal, though?
Teacher: Pretty much, yes, so what do you think that means then, if it said it will average 42 miles per gallon?
Ivan: It will normally be.
Teacher: You’re pretty much there, Ivan. Anybody else got any ideas?
Child: You should be able to.
Child: Approximately.
Teacher: [Defines average then continues to probe the pupils’ understanding] Have you heard average used anywhere else?
Susie: Normal, if you are an average person.
Teacher: Right, “You are of average ability” you might have heard, yes?  By that, I mean that there are some people more, some people less, but generally, you are in the middle. What about in sport?
 
The conversation continued as this teacher focused on extending pupils’ understanding of the term. It also exemplified an instance of a teacher thinking on her feet and responding flexibly to a pupil’s unsolicited question.

How was the study designed?
This investigation into patterns of classroom talk in whole class teaching was funded by Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). It started in 1999, not long after the introduction in England and Wales of national strategies for both literacy and numeracy, and ran for two and a half years.

Practitioners were heavily involved in setting up and conducting the research, in partnership with the university research team. Three head teachers were key teacher-researchers. Twelve teachers were invited to be participant teacher-researchers, whose role was to discuss findings and prepare and evaluate teaching materials. Other teachers asked to be part of the study were so enthusiastic about taking an active role in the project that they also became participant teacher–researchers.

The study collected evidence from a variety of perspectives, including those of the researchers, teachers and pupils. The evidence included:

• video recordings of whole class episodes that captured non-verbal interactions and pupil responses
• audio recordings of teachers’ talk
• observation of a sample of high and low achieving female and male pupils using structured observation schedules to capture their verbal and non-verbal responses
• post-observation interviews with pupils using questions aimed at establishing pupils’ level of understanding
• a narrative description of the context of each episode.

The videos were used to elicit teachers’ evaluations of the effectiveness of their own talk in the episode observed and as basis for discussion of teachers’ beliefs about the role of talk in developing learning.

Rather than using a pre-determined method of categorising questions, the researchers classified questions in terms of their form and function by repeatedly examining the video evidence of how teachers used questions in the classroom. Different researchers coded the questions independently. The emerging question categories were discussed and validated with other researchers and compared with additional evidence that appeared over time.

Implications   
Teachers wanting to improve the quality of classroom talk to promote learning may wish to consider the following questions.

The study found that teachers really wanted to extend active participation to more children and that the traditional hands-up method of responding to questions did not achieve this. Might you or your colleagues try out alternatives, such as putting children’s names into a ‘talking hat’ and choosing who is to respond by pulling out names at random?  Would it help to discuss with colleagues the best ways of responding to pupils who prove consistently reluctant to join in classroom talk?

The sheer quantity of teacher talk and the way in which they took half the conversational turns concerned the project teachers. They successfully tackled this by increasing opportunities for pupils to talk directly to one another. What do you think might be the effect in your own class of making more use of techniques like the ‘time out’ technique, in which you give pupils one minute to discuss in pairs what they think about a topic?
The study found that teachers rarely questioned or built upon knowledge that pupils had gained outside school. Which of your pupils might find it especially helpful to link new concepts to what they already know from outside school, if you could find ways of getting them to talk about or demonstrate this prior knowledge?

Leaders wanting to improve the quality of classroom talk to promote learning in their schools may wish to consider the following questions.

The study found that teachers’ questions were more concerned with teaching than with learning and that teachers’ anxiety to pursue lesson objectives that they believed would support the majority of pupils in their national tests led them to ignore real, in-depth learning opportunities for individuals. How can you support your staff to focus on developing their pupils’ long-term understanding?

The study found that process questions were most often used in mathematics lessons and that speculative questions were most often used in literacy lessons. Might the teachers in your school find it helpful to discuss in a staff development session which sort of questions are used when and why in different subjects?  Might there be any pupil benefits in trying to use process questions more often in literacy, or speculative questions more often in numeracy? How can you help staff to extend their skills when asking higher order questions?

The study participants gained a great deal from taking time to examine and reflect on their teaching and discussing this with colleagues. The ability to examine video footage of their teaching, although uncomfortable at first, gave the teachers credible and authentic evidence to help them focus on learning. Could such video evidence prove a useful form of continuing professional development for staff at your school?

Filling in the gaps   
Gaps that are uncovered in a piece of research have a useful role in making sure that future research builds cumulatively on what is known. But research also needs to inform practice, so practitioners’ interpretation of the gaps and follow-up questions are crucial.  We think the following kinds of studies would usefully supplement the findings of the study:

• research continued over a longer period of time to find out whether teachers could extend the early changes they made to patterns of classroom talk
• research into pupils’ views on their levels of interest and understanding during whole class teaching and how this compares their interest and understanding during other forms of classroom activity
• studies which explore the different types of questions used in different parts of the curriculum, the reasons teachers give for using them and pupils’ responses to them; and
• studies which explore the effect of wait time on children’s responses.

What is your experience?
Do you have any evidence regarding the nature of teacher and pupil talk during whole class teaching in your school? Are you involved in action research or enquiry based development programmes to explore pupil dialogue, which we could perhaps feature in our case study section?

Your feedback
Have you found this study to be useful? Have you used any aspect of this research in your own classroom teaching practice? We would like to hear your feedback on this study. To share your views with us please email: research@gtce.org.uk