Teacher Elicitations And Follow-up Moves In Classroom Dialogues: A Study Of Teacher-Student Interaction In Two Special Education Classes

Author(s):

Nina Klang(presenting / submitting)Goransson Kerstin

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 05 B, Inclusive Communication and Interaction

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

13:30-15:00

Room:

OB-H0.12

Chair:

Stefan Müller-Mathis

Contribution

Classroom dialogue constitutes a large part of classroom work and providing possibilities for pupils’ active participation in classroom dialogues has shown to be important for pupils’ learning (Gillies, 2014; Ruiz-Primo, 2011). However, pupils in special education classes are seldom provided with opportunities for active participation in classroom discussions (Bunning, Smith, Kennedy et al., 2013). Besides, instruction in special education classrooms is less conceptually oriented than instruction in general education classrooms (Jackson & Neel, 2006). There is a dearth of studies concerning classroom dialogue in special education. In a recent review of studies, only six studies including pupils with disabilities were identified (Howe & Aberdin, 2013). This study aims to contribute to the research on classroom dialogue in special education classes by studying patterns of teacher’s discourse in two special education classes.

The study draws on a sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning, viewing dialogue as an important context for pupil learning (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Classroom dialogue has often been described in terms of initiation-response-evaluation sequence (IRE) or initiation-response-feedback sequence (IRF) (Cazden, 2001; Edwards & Westgate, 1994). This sequence has been used to criticize the dominance of teacher talk in the classroom and the teachers’ use of questions to get predetermined answers. During recent years, this sequence has been questioned and alternatives to the sequence emerged, indicating that the pupils’ answers do not have to followed by a teacher’ evaluation, but rather by teacher’s questions or other communicative moves to develop pupils’ thinking (Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Ruiz-Primo et al., 2011). Thus, the third move in the IRE/IRF sequence is emphasized.

In research on classroom discourse, the importance of teacher questions in eliciting students’ responses is underscored (Chin, 2007; Franke, Webb, Chan, Ing, Freund, & Battey, 2009). Reflecting the cognitive level and content of teacher questions, the questions have been described as display or referential (Wu, 2003), general or specific questions (Franke et al., 2009), convergent or divergent questions (Jiang, 2014). It is assumed that questions that promote pupils’ thinking and conceptual understanding are beneficial in classroom dialogue. Teachers’ actions upon students’ responses are important in stimulating classroom dialogue. Teachers may use questions to draw on pupils’ ideas to develop conceptual understanding through classroom talk (Chin, 2007). However, the teachers’ contributions are not only limited to questions, and include repeating or rephrasing pupils’ answers to promote classroom discussion (Gibbons, 2003; Haneda, 2009; Louca et al., 2012). Although rephrasing pupils’ answers in classroom dialogue is a strategy, often used by teachers, it can reduce pupils’ possibilities to participate in the dialogue (Gibbons, 2003). With regard to the complexities of classroom dialogue, described above, this study aims to explore patterns of teacher classroom discourse in two special education classes. The aim is specified in three research questions: (a) What types of questions are used by the teachers to elicit students responses? (b) What actions do teachers undertake upon receiving pupils’ responses to promote discussion in the classroom? (c) What actions do teachers undertake upon receiving pupils’ incorrect responses to develop pupils’ understanding?

Method

Two teachers in compulsory schools for pupils with intellectual disability participated in the study. All teachers’ lessons, except Arts lessons, during 5 days were video recorded. A total amount of 500 minutes of lessons was recorded. Besides, interviews with the help of stimulated recall were conducted with the teachers. Classroom settings Teacher 1 is a primary school teacher working in grade 6. There are seven pupils in the class. The class is equipped with a smartboard and pupils sit in pairs at the desks. Teacher 2 is a primary school teacher working in grade 4-6. There are three pupils in the class. The class is equipped with a whiteboard and a round table at which the pupils are seated together. Data analyses The video materials were transcribed and divided into interaction sequences, defined as a number communicative turns between teachers and pupils focusing on the same theme (Wells, 1999). Teachers’ utterances starting each interaction sequence were analyzed as well as teachers’ follow-up moves upon receiving pupils’ responses in each sequence. A typology of teacher questions (Wu, 2003) was used to code the teacher questions. A separate framework based on studies of several authors (Franke et al., 2009; Gibbons, 2003; Haneda, 2009) has been used to code teachers’ follow-up moves upon receiving pupils’ answers. The two teachers’ discourse patterns were then exemplified based on the data from classroom discourse and interviews with the teachers.

Expected Outcomes

The pattern of discourse of teacher A is characterized by the use of display and referential questions to elicit pupils’ responses. The actions upon receiving pupils’ responses include reformulations of questions, using probing questions, explaining the right answer or asking pupils to reformulate answers. The pattern of discourse of teacher B is characterized by use of display questions and unfinished utterances. The teacher’s actions upon pupils’ responses include rephrasing the questions, asking probing questions with two answer alternatives, providing explanations or rephrasing pupils’ answers. It can be concluded that the patterns of discourse of the two teachers in the study differ in how the teachers allow for pupils’ contributions in the dialogues. This may be partly due to contextual factors, as pupils in the two classes have varying degree of support in communication. In the interviews, both teachers emphasize the importance of allocating space for pupils’ talk in classroom dialogues, but also point to the challenges in providing all the students with equal opportunities to participate. Referential questions and questions focusing on higher order thinking are essential for supporting pupils’ thinking and conceptual understanding (Chin, 2007; Franke, Webb, Chan, Ing, Freund, & Battey, 2009; Wu, 1993). In the reported study, the teachers used display questions and to a lesser degree referential questions. Teachers may need support in formulating referential questions in classroom dialogues. The complexity of teachers’ role in classroom dialogue may be reflected in teachers’ actions upon receiving pupils’ answers. In the ambition to relate pupils’ answers to the pedagogical goals of the lesson, the teachers tend to rephrase the pupils’ answers (Gibbons, 2003; Haneda, 2009). This was a strategy often used by the teachers in the study. Teachers’ rephrasing of pupils answers may be an important communicative strategy, but it may also reduce pupils’ possibilities to actively participate in classroom dialogues (Gibbons, 2003).

References

Bunning, K., Smith, C., Kennedy, P. & Greenham, C. (2013). Examination of the communication interface between students with severe to profound and multiple intelletual disability and educational staff during structured teaching sessions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57 (1): 39-52. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2.th ed.). Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk (2., revis and extend ed.). London;Washington D. C;: Falmer Press. Gibbons, P. G. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. Howe, C. & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3): 325-356. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392. Gillies, R.M. (2014). Developments in classroom-based talk. International Journal of Educational Research, 63:63-68. Haneda, M. (2009). Learning about the past and preparing for the future: A longitudinal investigation of a grade 7 'sheltered' social studies class. Language and Education, 23(4), 335-352. Jackson, H., & Neel, R. (2006). Observing mathematics: Do students with EBD have access to stan- dard-based mathematics instruction? Education & Treatment of Children, 29(4), 593–614. Jiang, Y. (2014). Exploring teacher questioning as a formative assessment strategy. RELC Journal, 45(3), 287-304. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012). Identification, interpretation-evaluation, response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15-24. Wells, G. (1999). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. (pp. 231-266) Cambridge Books Online. Wu, K. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal, 24(2), 49-68.

Author Information

Nina Klang (presenting / submitting)

Uppsala University, Sweden

Goransson Kerstin

Karlstad University, Sweden

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.