Session Information
27 SES 05 B, Power Relations and Student's Contributions in Teaching and Learning
Paper/Poster Session
Contribution
This proposal examines student contributions in whole-class teaching. Several researchers have investigated what teachers say and do when teaching in whole-class settings; however, there has been less focus on the students. Therefore, it is of interest to investigate this further. The aim of this study is to explore student contributions in whole-class teaching and to examine what the students do when talking in these classrooms.
From a sociocultural perspective, language is highly valued as a tool for learning; teaching cannot be separated from the language through which it is manifested (Vygotsky, 1962). Consequently, a number of scholars claim that the quality of classroom conversation is crucial for student learning (Cazden, 2001; Lyle, 2008; Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Prendergast, 1997). It is of great importance in learning that students feel they are able to contribute to classroom discussions (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Much research has shown the value of a dialogic classroom (Alexander, 2006; Mercer & Howe, 2012; Nystrand et al., 2003). Studies that have focused on the teachers’ contributions in whole-class teaching have often stressed the importance of open-ended questions and uptake as a way for teachers to allow the students to explore and participate in the whole-class discussion (Smith & Higgins, 2006). This drives more dialogic teaching and student engagement (Alexander, 2006; Nystrand et al., 2003; Twiner, Littleton, Coffin & Whitelock, 2014).
Several researchers (Alexander, 2006; Mortimer & Scott, 2003) describe the dialogic classroom. Mortimer and Scott (2003) distinguish between four dimensions of communicative approaches in science classrooms: interactive/dialogic, non-interactive/dialogic, interactive/authoritative and non-interactive/authoritative. In the interactive/dialogic approach, the teachers and students explore different ideas and work together. In non-interactive/dialogic communication, the teacher, as the primary agent, reviews and summarises ideas and views that have been pointed out during the lesson; however, time is also provided for disagreements and for competing perspectives and questions. In the interactive/authoritative dimension, the teacher has a set agenda for the lesson, and this often leads to a teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation/feedback (IRE/F)-structured question-answer pattern. In the non-interactive/authoritative dimension, the teacher presents a view through lecturing with limited opportunities for students to raise their voices and posit alternative viewpoints and questions. Using these dimensions, Mortimer and Scott (2003) show that any effective teaching lesson should include both dialogic and authoritative discourses achieved both interactively and non-interactively. Mortimer and Scott (2003) argue that when the teacher is teaching in an interactive/dialogic communication pattern, the chains of interaction between the teacher and students lengthen. This means that the teachers ask more open questions and give more responses; they are inspired by giving feedback rather than evaluating student answers.
In this study, this understanding of classroom discourse is built on; the aim is to expand it by closely examining how students contribute to the discussions. As there are no established classifications of student contributions in whole-class teaching, the analysis will be based on the general linguistic theory of speech acts (Austin, 1975; Searle, 1969). According to Austin (1975), certain acts, described as illocutionary acts, can be performed by saying something in a certain context. Some examples of illocutionary acts are ‘to promise’, ‘to apologise’, ‘to answer’ and ‘to command’.
There are three research questions for this study:
- What types of illocutionary acts are students performing in whole-class teaching?
- How frequently are these different types of illocutionary acts occurring?
- Are there differences in the frequency of the different types of illocutionary acts that occur in the school subjects of mathematics and language arts?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Alexander, R. (2006). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. Cambridge: Dialogos. Almeida, P., & Neri de Souza, F. (2010). Questioning profiles in secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Learning and Change 4 (3): 237-251 Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Second Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom Discourse. The Language of Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed. Pourtsmouth, NH: Heineman. Lyle, S. (2008). “Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice.” Language and Education 22 (3): 222–240. doi:10.1080/09500780802152499. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). “Explaining the Dialogic Processes of Teaching and Learning: The Value and Potential of Sociocultural Theory.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Nystrand, M., Gamoran., A. Kachur, R., & Prendergast., C. (1997). Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York, N.Y.: Teacher College Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). “Opening Classroom Interaction: The Importance of Feedback.” Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (4): 485–502. doi:10.1080/03057640601048357. Twiner, A., Littleton, K., Coffin, C., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Meaning making as an interactional accomplishment: A temporal analysis of intentionality and improvisation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research 63: 94–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.009 Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.