Both older and newer empirical studies of communication in the classroom have noticed some phenomena which seem to be constant through time and location (Galton et al., 1999; Alexander, 2001; Burns & Myhil, 2004; Pratt, 2006; Parker & Hurry, 2007). This applies mostly to the so called two-thirds rule. According to this rule, two thirds of a lesson are taken up by verbal communication, two thirds of this time are then constituted by the teacher’s talk, and, last but not least, two thirds of the teacher’s discourse comprise eliciting and questioning (Flanders, 1970). This is also related to yet another presumably constant phenomenon: the IRF structure, a three move structure of an exchange in a teacher-led discourse. This communication sequence includes the teacher’s asking a question, the pupil’s reaction or response to the question, and the teacher’s commentary on the pupil’s reaction (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Thanks to their persistence, these two phenomena have become targets for criticism, and it is now believed that communication conceived in such a way is too rigid and narrows down the pupil’s potential to learn.

        The objective of this paper is to summarise some results of a qualitative study, which is focused on communication in the classroom, whose goal is to describe basic parameters of the classroom dialogue in Czech lower secondary schools, such as the degree of activity of particular participants, the direction of communication, types of questions raised by the teacher, and various forms of feedback.               

        We intend to demonstrate that the IRF structure is a form whose standards can be met in diverse ways, and that it is hence important to adhere to much more accurate criteria if one wants to measure the quality of the classroom dialogue properly.

        The actual analysis comprises the following phenomena:

A) Input:           

        personal qualities of the teacher: such as the style of interacting, teacher’s beliefs and theories, and education competences.
        personal qualities of the pupils: such as willingness to communicate and communication barriers.
B) Process of communication in the classroom: (activity of the participants, the direction of communication, questions raised by the teacher, feedback, genders of interaction, nonverbal communication).
C) Perception of Communication:
        by the pupils: clarity, proximity, credibility
        by the teacher: discipline, activity, understanding
        the teacher’s self-reflection: self-efficacy, contentment
D) Output indicators of learning: cognitive teaching, affective teaching, and motivation.

ALEXANDER, R. Culture and Pedagogy. International Comparisons in Primary Education. London: Blackwell, 2001. BURNS, Ch., MYHIL, D. Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Yournal of Education 1/2004. pp. 35 – 50. FLANDERS, N. Analysing Teacher Behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970. GALTON, M., SIMON, B., CROLL, P. Inside the Primary Classroom. London, Routledge, 1980. GALTON, M., HARGREAVES, L., CONNER, C., WALL, D., PELL, A. Inside the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On. London: Routledge, 1999. PARKER, M., HURRY, J. Teachers´use of questioning and modeling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review 3/2007, pp. 299 – 314. PRATT, N. „Interactive“ teaching in numeracy lessons: what do children have to say? Cambridge Yournal of Education 2/2006, pp. 221 - 235. SINCLAIR, J. M., COULTHARD, R. M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. SEDOVA, K., SVARICEK, R. Foreign inspiration in educational communication research. XVII. Annual conference of Czech Educational Research Association, Ostrava, 9. – 10. 9. 2009. SEDOVA, K. What do we know about educational dialogue? Studia paedagogica 2009, n. 2. ISSN 1803-7437.