Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
1

Young Children’s Perspectives on Whole Class Discussions
Dr Laura Black
University of Manchester
Abstract
Whole class discussions are a key feature of daily life in many classrooms yet evidence suggests there is much variation in the quality of talk which takes place in terms of facilitating children’s learning . This paper examines children’s understanding of the role and purpose of whole class discussions in supporting learning and also considers children’s perceptions of their own participation in such discussions based on the premise that effective learning requires children to see themselves as full participants with the right to make active contributions to classroom activities. Data drawn from group interviews with children aged 9-10 years indicate that children take on various identities in relation to classroom talk which engenders different perceptions of its pedagogic function.
Introduction:
Classroom talk is widely viewed as an essential ‘tool’ for learning in the primary school classroom (e.g. Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif and Sams 2004; DfEE 1999, 2001, Barnes
1976). In Vygotskian terms, children’s learning is a social affair; they acquire knowledge, social perspectives and an understanding of the world through their engagement in activities with others. Language is a key tool since it is used to construct meaning and facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge. This view has recently reemerged within UK policy on primary education (aged 5-11) - both the National
Numeracy and Literacy Strategies have emphasised the importance of ‘interactive whole class teaching’ where “pupils are expected to play an active part by answering questions, contributing points to discussions, and explaining and demonstrating their methods and solutions to others in the class” (DfEE 2001, p.26).
However, current research suggests this may be an ‘idealistic’ vision for teacher-pupil talk in UK classrooms where, despite the introduction of ‘interactive whole class teaching’, pupils are still positioned into passive, mono-syllabic roles through highly controlled question and answer sessions (English et al 2002). Furthermore, the evidence suggests that pupil participation in strongly didactic forms of classroom discussion may have a detrimental effect on the development of pupil ‘learner’ identities (Black 2004a).
2

Indeed, Boaler & Greeno (2000) noted that students who experienced didactic teaching were more likely to take up an identity of ‘received knower’ (accepting the procedures and rules of an authoritative discipline) whereas those who experienced ‘discussion based’ pedagogy took up positions as active learners. Pupils, who consistently experience strongly controlled interactions with the teacher, where mono-syllabic responses to questions are the dominant mode of pupil input, have fewer opportunities to talk themselves into understanding (Barnes 1976), and consequently become active learners of the discipline.
Therefore, this paper has two key objectives:
1.
To investigate pupil perceptions of the role, function and purpose of teacher-pupil talk and compare them with those of the teacher.
2.
To investigate pupil understanding of their identity with reference to their position and status in classroom discussions.
In light of these aims, the paper addresses the following questions:
 How do pupils perceive the role/function/purpose of talk in whole class discussions and is this influenced by the teacher’s pedagogic style?
 In what ways do pupils conceptualise their participation and status in whole class discussions and how is this influenced by their level of attainment?
Theoretical Framework
This paper adopts a socio-cultural approach to learning as a process of participation and engagement in social action and interaction, mediated by the use of semiotic tools such as speech and language (Vygostky, 1962).
Teacher-pupil talk is one such semiotic tool which, if enacted in an effective manner, enables pupils to negotiate the concepts, representations and methods of a specific knowledge domain and thus ‘become’ a learner of the relevant discipline. Therefore, the paper also views learning as a process of identity
(re-) construction through participation in social practice (Wenger 1998); a process of ontological transformation rather than epistemological effect. It is argued that classroom interactions are a key site for the transformation of pupils into ‘successful’ learners of the relevant knowledge domain with which they are engaging.
However, whilst there has been some attempt within this field of research to explore pupil understanding of self in relation to the goals of specific subject disciplines (Boaler
3

& Greeno 2000, Lerman 2001) there has been little exploration of how pupils perceive teacher-pupil talk and understand their own participation in whole class discussions.
This is important given the significance of teacher-pupil talk as a semiotic tool (referred to above) and its role in constructing a multiple number of possible identities in relation to practice (Black 2004b).
Additionally, children’s perspectives are increasingly being seen as an important focus of educational research (McCallum., Hargreaves & Gipps 2000; Christensen & James
2000). Nutbrown and Hannon (2003) argue that children should be afforded the right to be involved in research as participants rather than research subjects to ensure their voices and viewpoints are taken into consideration in the development of policy and practices which involve them. This represents a move away from viewing children as passive recipients of adult socialization towards recognizing that children are active participants with their own sense of agency. Casting pupils as “unrivalled experts in their own fields”
(Cooper 1993) is not only good practice methodologically but is essential to understanding learning as a process of identity construction. Therefore, the proposed paper will probe pupil perspectives in order to incorporate the pupil’s voice in our understanding of the learning process.
Methods
The findings to be discussed in the paper come from an exploratory pilot project which used a multiple case study design in order to situate pupil perceptions within the social context of the classroom, school and local communities in which they live. The project piloted a design and methods which aimed to capture and interpret student perceptions using detailed descriptions of practice. The intention has been to develop ways of representing students’ voices in ways which are ‘experientially real for them’ (Stake,
1995).
The use of multiple case study methodology has enabled the examination of diversity in student perceptions across a number of localities. Here, the aim has been to avoid making generalisations about children’s experiences of school but to understand how social context mediates student perceptions within the classroom micro-environment. This requires in depth discussions with students and detailed observations of their experiences in whole class discussions and also involves probing issues which students may or may
4

not have reflected upon previously. As a result, we have chosen to focus our attention on unpacking the perceptions of a relatively small number of participants.
The data has been collated in two phases:
Phase 1
Participant observation of two literacy and numeracy lessons and interviews with the class teacher which provided information about the school culture and the classroom.
This information includes:

School ethos (e.g. competitive, emphasis on attainment)
 The teacher’s pedagogic style in whole class discussions

The teacher’s perceptions of the purpose of classroom talk

The kinds of resources used (e.g. textbook, computer based)

Pupil assessment data (e.g. SATS scores)
During this phase, video recordings were made of a literacy and numeracy lesson.
Phase 2
In each school, eight pupils were selected for interviews in two groups of four – ‘high fliers’ and ‘low attainers’ as identified by the teacher. Each group was interviewed using a video prompting technique. Excerpts of the videos recorded during Phase 1 were played to pupils as a memory prompt regarding their behaviour and that of the teachers and as a stimulus for discussion into previously untapped processes. Additionally, pupils were interviewed individually to build on topics raised in the group interviews and to enable pupils to voice their own thoughts without peer influence.
The Schools
All three schools were situated in a small industrial town in the North West of England and served a community which was predominantly white working class. The three schools can be described as follows:
St Charles - a small school located in an old Victorian Building in an area close to the town centre. On meeting the head teacher, we were informed that the children who came to the school were from very poor backgrounds and had low English language skills on entry. As a result, the school implemented several Early Intervention Programmes to improve language skills in Year 1 (aged5-6). A brief analysis of the statistical
5

information available on the local area supports the head teacher’s comments concerning the economic status of the area. It ranked in the top 15% of poorest wards in England
(Office of National Statistics 2006) and 26.6% of pupils at the school qualified for Free
School Meals.
The classroom involved was a large, spacious open plan environment with a library in one corner. The children sat in groups round tables (approx 6 per table) and there was an interactive whiteboard which the teacher used regularly in whole class discussions. The
Year 5 teacher (whose class was involved in the study), Mrs Hughes, was keen on trying out non-traditional teaching methods and had recently implemented Philosophy classes with the Year 5 group (1 hour a week) with the intention of getting pupils to ‘think about life issues in a creative way and encourage them to ask questions’. The implementation of these classes was not easy given the timetable constraints placed on teachers by recent policy developments in the UK (National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies) but Mrs
Hughes stated that she felt the Philosophy classes had been beneficial in helping children to reflect on their own learning strategies.
St Luke’s – this school was located in a modern building and was slightly bigger than St
Charles with 250 pupils on the roll. The local area was marginally better being outside of the top 20% poorest wards in England (Office of National Statistics 2006) and with less than 20% of children qualifying for Free School Meals. All three schools were attached to the local church (Church of England) but St Luke’s was the only one which visibly emphasised Christian values inside the school. This is perhaps, attributable to the head teacher who was an ordained vicar. The year 5 class was located in a fairly cramped classroom and children were seated at desks in rows facing a whiteboard at the front.
During whole class discussions, they moved to sit on the carpeted area directly in front of the whiteboard. The teacher, Mrs Jones, used standard, traditional question and answer techniques throughout the lessons we observed. However, she did aim to vary her approach with the use of hand puppets to capture the children’s attention. For example, in the numeracy lesson she used a puppet called baby bear who acted as a 2nd voice of authority in the discussion – e.g. the teacher would say ‘baby bear wants us to do this fraction’.
St Margaret’s – the third school in the study, St Margaret’s, was in by far the poorest area of the three despite being located within a mile of St Luke’s. The area was ranked in the top 8% of poorest wards in England (Office of National Statistics 2006) and 51% of children at the school were entitled to Free School Meals (one of the highest rates in
6

England). The school also had a small number of pupils on the roll (100 in total) and as a result is being closed and amalgamated with another school in the area in September
2006. One reason for such dwindling roll numbers was the school’s location at second from bottom in the Key Stage 2 assessment league tables for the wider borough.
Due to the size of the school, the classroom observed contained pupils in both year 4 and year 5. This caused the teacher (Mrs Ashton) considerable problems in terms of covering two areas of the curriculum simultaneously and careful planning was undertaken to manage this issue. For example, the numeracy lesson we observed covered two topics -
‘number sequences’ for Year 5 and ‘subtraction’ for Year 4 - and the teacher handled the constant change in topics with the use of brain gym to mediate the switch. As at St
Luke’s, the children were sat at desks in rows and Mrs Ashton also used traditional teaching methods (question and answer techniques) in whole class discussions.
Data sources/evidence
The data in the paper is derived from transcripts of 6 group interviews and 24 individual interviews with children at the three schools. These have been analysed using a thematic analysis which has identified comments relevant or connected to the following themes:
 the purpose/function of teacher-pupil talk in numeracy and literacy lessons
 the ground rules of teacher-pupil and whole class discussions
 understanding of the relationship between teacher-pupil talk and learning
 awareness of own style/mode/type of participation in whole class discussions
 awareness of others’ style/mode/type of participation in whole class discussions
 understanding of self as a pupil/learner
The information gathered at Phase 1 was used to contextualize the analysis of pupils comments gathered in Phase 2 hence the significance of using detailed case studies.
Analysis of the interview data shows variations in pupil perceptions of the function and purpose of whole class discussions between the different schools and classrooms.
Pedagogic Style
One of the main aims of this study was to explore how pupil understanding of classroom talk differs in accordance with the pedagogic style they experience in the classroom micro-environment. Although, all classrooms have their own unique micro-cultures, one
7

teacher in particular, Mrs Hughes at St Charles used a slightly non-traditional pedagogic approach which appeared to be informed by an ‘enquiry’ based ideology (associated with the Children’s Philosophy Movement). During the lessons we observed, she used a low controlled approach which gave students the space to formulate their opinions and evaluate each others ideas. E.g. ‘Would it surprise you if my answer was 45?’ and ‘Who thinks David’s prediction is correct?’ Additionally, she encouraged and praised discussion throughout – e.g. ‘well done those people who explained how they arrived at the answers’ – and frequently asked pupils to discuss topics with their partners (pair and share) and then report back to the rest of the class. This approach was distinct from the teaching methods used at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s which focused on a more traditional question and answer technique. This occasionally resulted in ‘cued elicitation’ where the children had to provide answers which the teacher already had in mind
(Edwards and Mercer 1987). For example, on one occasion, when the children did not provide an appropriate answer the teacher instructed them to ‘Listen to my question carefully’ on the assumption that this would give clues as to the answer she wanted. On another occasion, a pupil shouted out a correct answer to one of the teacher’s questions but was made to put his hand up and say it again because he had not obeyed the ‘hand up’ rule. In light of this distinction, we therefore, set out to investigate how the teacher’s pedagogic style impacted students’ perceptions concerning whole class discussions. The rationale for this was based on aforementioned findings by Boaler & Greeno (2000) which indicate that pedagogic style impacted pupil ‘learner’ identities in secondary maths classrooms. We will now compare the comments made by the children at St Charles with those at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s.
St Charles:
When asked about how whole class discussions help with the learning process, many of the pupils at St Charles made comments which reflected some awareness of the purpose of an inquiry based pedagogy. For example, when asked about the purpose of whole class discussions, they stated that they helped them to understand a given topic:
“So as you can understand it properly and you don’t go away wondering what she means and it helps you to understand it.” [Naomi, St Charles]
The children also tapped into the trial and error nature of learning which suggests they felt it was ok to make mistakes:
8

I think we go on the carpet to learn from our mistakes and learn new work what we don’t know. [Stephen, St Charles]
Here, Stephen identifies one of the key aspects of ‘good quality’ talk as identified in the research literature – trial and error. Barnes (1976) emphasises the value of allowing children to test out ideas (hypothesis testing) as a way of modifying ones existing understanding of the world. However, encouraging such a hypothetical mode of talk requires a willingness to allow pupils to take their own direction rather than keeping to a strictly pre-determined agenda (Barnes 1976, Norman 1992). Such willingness was apparent in the lessons observed at St Charles. For example, at the end of the numeracy lesson Mrs Hughes asked ‘Has anyone got any comments on that work we’ve just done?’
– this rather open ended question suggests the teacher was happy to let pupils offer suggestions without imposing control over the direction of the discussion. Therefore, it appears that Stephen’s comments may in some way reflect the low controlled nature of the teacher’s communicative behaviour.
The students at St Charles also believed that the purpose of whole class discussions was to share ideas and help each other understand.
“Mrs Hughes asks us questions because .. . so we know that people could help us. . . it could help other people that’s stuck somewhere.” [Leah, St Charles]
“I think that it helps you cause if you don’t know anything . . . other people from other groups who are cleverer than you can help you.” [James, St Charles]
This theme of peer collaboration was also evident in comments the pupils made about the rules of classroom talk:
When other people are talking you have to listen to them before you can speak.
[James, St Charles]
I think … we all need to hear what people think so we can say if that’s a good idea or not.
[Nicola, St Charles]
Thus, the students stated they believed listening to each other was an important rule as it enabled you to evaluate each others ideas. This notion of peer support and evaluation is reflected in the literature as good quality talk because it encourages shared engagement in
9

investigating a topic and leads children to justify their opinions, therefore, unpacking the reasons why they believe something to be the case (Barnes 1976, Mercer 1995, Mercer et al 1999). As mentioned previously, peer support was also a mode of behaviour which was encouraged by the teacher during whole class discussions - ‘Well done Chelsea and
Rachel for working together’.
Additionally, during the interviews the children at St Charles adopted the linguistic terminology used by Mrs Hughes to encourage inquiry within whole class discussions.
They made several references to agreeing with each others’ comments (e.g. ‘I agree with
Nicola’) which corresponded to the teacher’s use of ‘Do you agree ?’ during class discussions and they also referred to ‘explanation’ as a key feature of good talk:
“ they use dead good words and explain it properly . .. They say short sentences but with
. . . lots of expression . . . dead dead dead good words what describes all of the things but only takes about five or six words.” [Rachel, St Charles]
This comment not only reveals Rachel’s modelling of the teacher’s dialogic discourse
(‘well done those people who explained how they arrived at the answers’) but she also recognises that such explanations should include clarity. Similarly, Sarah recognised the importance of dialogue in helping you understand a given concept:
I: How do you think whole class discussions help you learn?
E: Cause you know when you don’t know stuff, and then just discuss it, like, you find you get it. You don’t know, then it just pops into your head. [Sarah, St Charles]
Again, Sarah’s comments model the discourse of the teacher who regularly used the word discussion in class – e.g. ‘have a two minute discussion with the person sitting next to you’. However, on this occasion, Sarah, a low achiever, does not articulate how discussion helps you learn but believes it happens almost by osmosis – i.e. it just pops into your head. This may be related to her position as a low achiever in the class and her passive view of learning as ‘something which is done to you’ (see further discussion on this below).
The other two classrooms
10

As mentioned previously, the teachers at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s used more a traditional style of teacher talk in whole class discussions. This largely involved heavy bouts of questioning with student replies limited to mono-syllabic responses. In both classrooms, the teacher dominated the discussion giving students limited opportunities to talk to their partners. When asked about the rules of classroom talk, students gave the usual replies – putting up your hand to speak, not shouting out – however, they also mentioned listening to the teacher as being particularly important:
When you keep your eyes on her and your listening to what she says and then she knows that you’re not messing about or daydreaming or anything. [Liam, St Luke’s]
If she knows that you’ve got eye contact, she knows that you’re listening and you’re not pretending to listen.” [Chloe, St Luke’s]
Furthermore, the pupils also believed that the passive activity of listening would be beneficial in terms of learning:
So if you listen to her you can learn more. [Liam, St Luke’s]
Whilst some listening is clearly an important part of the communication process, Barnes
(1976) suggests that children need to play an active role in teacher-pupil discussions in order to ‘talk themselves into understanding’. This is based on a Neo-Vygostkian view of language as a psychological tool for thinking - what is experienced first in interaction with others gradually becomes the means for self directed mental activity. Thus it is important to offer children opportunities to be active in dialogue in order that they take control and ownership of their own learning (Wells 1999). Some of the comments made by pupils at St Charles (above) indicate that they are, on some level, aware that learning is a more agentive process (e.g. it involves explanation and dialogue, helping each other and evaluating ideas). However, this was not the case for the children in the other two classrooms. Furthermore, Liam’s comment above indicates that he perceives learning to be a passive exercise where one must merely absorb information presented by the teacher.
Additionally, talking to one’s neighbour was actively discouraged, particularly at St
Luke’s. For example, in the literacy lesson we observed, the children were asked ‘what’s the best way to work’ and one child suggested ‘silently’ which was confirmed as correct.
This rule of working in silence was represented in the students’ comments:
11

In comprehension we only do a bit of it then, then we do like all of our work in complete silence and not a single . . . our teacher says that she should be able to hear a pin drop.
[Chloe, St Luke’s]
In the playground you’re allowed, like, to talk to each other, in class you’re not allowed to talk to each other when you’re doing your work cause it distracts you. [Sarah, St
Luke’s]
Such comments were not made by the children at St Charles where the children were told to talk to their partners when doing independent work (e.g. during independent work with worksheets in numeracy) and were praised for such behaviour – ‘some really good discussion going on there’. Thus, it appears that the children at St Luke’s were modelling the teacher’s discourse regarding the rules of classroom talk – rules which determine when you should and shouldn’t talk.
Additionally, unlike those at St Charles, the students at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s did not appear to recognise the value of talk in developing their own understanding. When asked why the teacher asks questions, Rhianne replied:
So she knows if we know lots . . . [Rhianne, St Luke’s]
Liam also articulated a similar belief when asked why they used whiteboards (small writing boards which they each wrote on) in whole class discussions:
… so she knows what we’re capable of so when we lift our boards up she knows what we’re doing and if it’s right or wrong and then she knows what we’re capable of.
[Liam, St Luke’s]
Thus there was evidence that these pupils believed teacher-pupil talk to be about teacher evaluation and assessment of ability rather than constructing new understandings.
Another distinct theme evident in the interviews with children at St Luke’s and St
Margaret’s (and not at St Charles) was the notion of risk. Several students commented on the consequences of getting an answer wrong:
Other people might tease them and say, you’ve got the wrong answer, and they might try and tell you . [Laura, St Luke’s]
If they put their hand up and they get the question wrong, people might turn round and say, ha ha, they’ve got it wrong and stuff like that. [Sarah, St Luke’s]
12

. . . . your reputation can be spoiled if you done it wrong. [Natalie, St Luke’s]
This perception of risk can be contrasted with Stephen’s [St Charles] belief that you can learn from your mistakes in whole class discussions. For him, making a mistake was an opportunity to learn whereas at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s it was something which brought about adverse consequences from one’s peers. As such, they believed this risk was a potential cause of non-participation for some pupils. It is unclear why these pupils perceived such a risk when those at St Charles made no comments like this. However, it can be speculated that the more strongly controlled discussions at the other two schools meant that the pupils perceived that ‘getting the right answer’ (i.e. the teacher’s predetmined answer) was highly valued.
In summary, the differences in pupil perceptions reported here appear to suggest that pedagogic style had an impact on pupil understanding of both learning and the function/purpose of classroom talk. The children at St Charles responded to the teacher’s less controlling pedagogic approach by recognising whole class discussions as a tool for developing understanding within a communal space which was both supportive and challenging. This sense of community is evident in the following comment from Rachel:
When we’re all talking together, it feels a bit like, it feels nice, because you’re all together and it feels like you’re a family or something. …because like in literacy some people go out to work with Mrs Barrow and we stay in and we’re not like all together, and it feels funny, because there’s more room on the carpet. [Rachel, St Charles]
However, the children in the other two schools believed that whole class discussions involved listening to the teacher, being assessed and evaluated and negotiating the risk of not getting the answer right. Such findings are significant in that such differences in perceptions are likely to vary the children’s approach to learning in the classroom.
In addition to the impact of pedagogic style, one’s position as a high or low achiever in the class appeared to influence the children’s perceptions of classroom talk and learning.
A comparison of the interviews with low achievers and high achievers (as identified by the teacher) revealed some differences in understanding the purpose of whole class discussions.
13

Benefits of Classroom Talk:
One of the most noticeable distinctions was their understanding of the benefits of whole class discussions in terms of learning. Low achievers did not perceive the benefit of whole class discussions to be immediate but placed a certain amount of distance between the activity and its outcome. When asked how teacher-pupil talk helps you, they stated:
“It helps you get more in your brain for when you get older and you get a good job.”
[Liam, St Luke’s]
Because if you don’t get good grades you have to go back to college for to do all your school work again, then you can get a decent job. [Chloe, St Luke’s]
“You can get a good job when you pass your tests in college.” [Bryan, St Luke’s]
This sense of distance between classroom activities and their outcome provides an insight into the low achievers understanding of how education works. The comments above suggest that for these children, classroom discussions are activities which enable one’s educational trajectory to take its course (i.e. you can go to college or get a good job).
Thus, the low achievers did not recognise education as something which you have control over but viewed it as something which is done to you – i.e. it moves you along a predetermined life trajectory. In summary, it appears that although the low achievers did view classroom talk as beneficial to their learning, they did not view it as an activity which they should actively engage with as a tool for learning.
Understanding the Ground Rules of Whole Class Discussions
The children were acutely aware of the rule governed nature of classroom discourse.
Such rules included:

Putting your hand up to speak

Listening to the teacher

Not shouting out

Not getting out of your seat

Showing each other respect
14

Similarly, there was a general consensus that breaking the rules was problematic in terms of learning. For example, in the extract below, Nicola relates shouting out in class to doing your work wrong:
“then they say, miss, miss, I know the answer, now let me talk .. so then they just shout,
…and then in the end the they find out they’ve done something completely wrong, cause they’re shouting out, not putting their hand up.” [Nicola, St Charles]
However, the high achieving children indicated awareness of some of the more implicit features of classroom discourse. For example, Natalie recognised the importance of keeping to the topic and not going off on a tangent:
“The people who don’t listen in class … if we’re talking about something they normally put up their hand and then they start talking about a totally different thing, don’t really keep to that subject.” [Natalie, St Luke’s]
In their studies of classroom talk, both Edwards and Mercer (1987) and Barnes (1976) note that ‘good talk’ in the teacher’s eyes means keeping to his/her pre-determined agenda and giving the answer s/he wants. Here, Natalie recognises that even if someone puts their hand up, if they do not keep to the topic then they are effectively breaking this implicit rule concerning who sets the agenda. Furthermore, Edwards and Mercer (1987) also note how some teachers engage in extended bouts of ‘cued elicitation’ where clues or easier questions are provided when an initial question does not result in the pupil response they want to hear. This feature of classroom talk was noted by David, when asked why his teacher asked questions:
“So we can . . . she gives us time to think about it and if nobody gets the answers she just goes on to an easier question for us.” [David, St Luke’s]
Both Natalie and David articulate an understanding of how classroom discourse works – i.e. the teacher decides the topic of discussion and then asks questions which she already knows the answer to. Edwards and Mercer (1987) note that this is an understanding which is rarely made explicit to pupils but is required in order to participate effectively in teacher-pupil interactions.
Understanding Ability & Participation
15

Ability was a common theme which ran throughout regardless of the students’ school or achievement status. Most pupils appeared to perceive a relationship between level of ability and both the quantity and quality of participation in whole class discussions. For example, when explaining why some pupils join in more than others, Sarah states:
“Because they're in a higher group and they get stuff better than people, they can answer quicker than others because they already know the answers.”
[Sarah, St Charles]
Additionally, Chantelle notes that being clever means you can put your hand up quicker – a ‘first in gets the floor’ type pattern:
“If you don’t know the question, you’ll never be able to put your hand up if you don't learn. If you’re clever you can put your hand up straight away.” [Chantelle, St
Margaret’s]
In the follow up individual interviews, pupils were explicitly asked to articulate their understanding of the relationship between ability and participation. This led to the following observations:
“Sometimes the more clever people answer questions when it’s like vocabulary and stuff like that, other people don’t understand. ” [Ruby, St Luke’s]
“if you’re clever you know you’re going to get it right, or you think you know you’re going to get it right but when you’re like, not so clever, you think, like, I’m not going to answer this, because I’m going to get it wrong and everything, so . . .” [Laura, St Luke’s]
The data here indicates that children realise that ability is important in determining who gets to participate, how often and in what way. Such comments are perhaps, unsurprising, given the heavy emphasis on performance and attainment in the UK primary sector and they certainly correspond with the findings of classroom observation data on ability and participation. For example, Myhill’s (2002) study found that underachieving pupils are least likely to participate and are more often found talking to neighbours and engaging in off task talk. High achievers are most likely to join in positive forms of interaction such as making voluntary contributions and joining in collective responses (Myhill 2004, 2002).
16

However, there were some fundamental differences in the way high achievers and low achievers expressed this relationship between ability and participation.
For example, compare the comment made by Sarah earlier with that of James below:
I think she asks you because if you don’t know what you’re doing over . . . . some people could just sit and do what they want and if it comes to marking and if it’s a test you can just get it completely wrong then you drop down a level and you go down groups instead of being in top group. [James, St Charles]
In talking about why some people join in whole class discussions more than others, Sarah refers to those that do as ‘they’ rather than ‘we’ and ‘us’ – i.e. ‘because they’re in a higher group’. Thus, she implicitly identifies herself as not being in the higher group and therefore, disassociates herself from someone who can answer quickly. However, in the statement directly above, James uses the projective ‘you’ to refer to what might happen if one didn’t participate – i.e. ‘you’d go down groups instead of being in top group’. As such, his subjective point of reference is as someone who is in the top group and must participate in order to sustain that position.
Take another example - despite being a high achiever herself, Nicola recognised that if you were a low achiever, you could use collaboration with your high achieving peers to raise your status in the hierarchy of attainment:
If you’ve got it completely wrong you can check with the big group …to make sure that you can give it a good go and try to get in the middle. [Nicola, St Charles]
To Nicola, movement up the classroom hierarchy of ability is a possibility as a high achieving pupil, so again she uses the projective ‘you’ to suggest a possible trajectory.
But such a trajectory is not suggested by the low achieving pupils who talk about participation and being clever in terms of ‘they’ – the other people who are not like them.
What is significant here is that the high achieving students, like Nicola, appeared to recognise whole class discussions as a tool for raising or lowering one’s status – it was a possibility open to them. This, coupled with their recognition of the immediate benefits of participating in class and the implicit ground rules of whole class discussions, suggests an agentive awareness of the learning process which enables them to use teacher-pupil talk to their own benefit. However, the low achievers distanced themselves from both full-on participation (e.g. answering quickly, answering when it’s a hard question) and from the immediate benefits of joining in whole class discussions which suggests a
17

potentially passive disposition in terms of using talk to learn. We will now discuss the ways in which the high and low achievers talked about their own identity in terms of how they participated and whether they were good at talking in class.
Negative and Positive Identities in Whole Class Discussions
As might be expected, the low achievers made fairly negative comments about their own typical participation in classroom discussions. For example, when asked if he was a good talker, Bryan answered:
Sometimes, don’t know. I never talk in class. [Bryan, St Luke’s]
Similarly, Adam and Anna were fairly negative when asked who does and does not participate:
I: Is there anybody who doesn’t answer questions?
Adam: Me.
Anna: I don’t either. I don’t answer any questions. [Adam and Anna, St Margaret’s]
Additionally, Rhianne did not think she was a ‘good talker’:
I: Do you think you’re a good talker in class discussions?
Rhianne: No
I: No? Why not?
Rhianne: Because I normally get - like I do it wrong or something. [Rhianne, St Luke’s]
By contrast, the high achieving pupils were far more positive when talking about their own participation:
I: Do all clever people join in?
Naomi: Sometimes, if they know the answer, they've got their hand up and they shout, miss, so they can get miss's attention, but miss'll ask someone like me or Nicola
[Naomi, St Charles]
I: So when Mrs Ashton asks questions, and children put up their hands to answer, does everybody in the class join in or do some people do so more than others?
Jason: Some people do it more than others.
I: Who does it more?
Jason: Probably Chantelle, and me. I always talk loud and clear.
[Jason, St Margaret’s]
18

I: Do you think you’re a good talker in classroom discussions?
Natalie: Well, most people are pretty good at it and last year Mrs G said I was good at it
I: So why did they say you were good?
Natalie: Because I always helped everybody on the questions, and I could spell really good and Mrs G called me the best in the class.
[Natalie, St Luke’s]
However, it is important to avoid the assumption that children can be classified as either positive or negative in terms of their learner identities. There are many ways in which such identities can be played out and such variation was certainly observed in the way the pupils in this study described their participation. For example, see the comments made by
Stephen (St Charles) below:
You know when you’re on the carpet and somebody asks you a question, and you say, oh no, I don’t’ know that, like, so when they go past you and then it’s finished, then you go, oh, it’s popped into my head now … I always do that.
Sometimes when we’re all talking together and she says one at a time so we go round the class talking and then like you wanted a really go and you’ve been waiting your turn for ages then somebody else buts in [interrupts], and then teacher moves on to that turn and you don’t get your answer, somebody else tells your answer.
Sometimes like they get done and the answer’s missed something and like the lessons over, and you go, oh no, I should have said something, because you couldn’t say it, but at the end, you’re thinking, no, I should have said it. Then it goes back to the lesson.
[Stephen, St Charles]
Here, Stephen states that although he does want to join in whole class discussions he often misses his chance because he does not manage to think of an appropriate response in time or because somebody else takes the floor when it’s his turn. Stephen’s comments here concord with the findings of Denvir and Askew (2001) who report that the fast pace of whole class discussions is particularly problematic for low achievers who find it hard to keep up. In terms of making a statement about his own identity, Stephen does not articulate a straightforward negative view of himself as a non-participant (like the pupils above). He is partially positive – suggesting he would like to participate - but does not do so because his ability prevents him or because other circumstances stop him from taking the floor. Consequently, we argue that pupil perceptions of their own participation in classroom discussions are multifaceted in nature and can lead to very different conceptualisations of the relationship between talk and learning. This is significant since such understandings are likely to determine the perceived value of joining in and the communicative functions pupils choose to use in a given interaction.
19

Conclusion
To summarize, we have argued that young children’s understandings of classroom talk are influenced by level of achievement and pedagogic style. Low achievers appear to adopt a passive view of the learning process as something which is beyond their control, thus, they do not recognise classroom talk as a tool which can raise their ability status within the classroom rankings. By contrast, high achievers are far more agentive in their approach, recognising the value of participation in enhancing both their understanding and status. Furthermore, the findings presented here indicate the potential of a pedagogic approach which is orientated towards discussion and inquiry. They suggest that such an approach may bring about recognition of learning as a process of understanding, trial and error, challenge and collaboration as opposed to the passive act of listening and risk taking reported by the children at St Luke’s and St Margaret’s. Consequently, the findings also indicate how powerful teachers are in shaping pupil perceptions of the activities they engage in, hence we observed children modelling teachers’ discourse.
Despite the fact that these findings are taken from an exploratory study with a small group of children, they do indicate a need to recognise that not all children approach classroom activities (such as whole class discussions) with the same understanding of events. The evidence discussed in this paper suggests variations in pupil perceptions which are dependent on pedagogic style and level of achievement. However, there may be other factors which have not been explored here – for example, social background may play a key role in shaping pupil perceptions may be particularly significant in determining whether one recognises the implicit ground rules in operation in pedagogic discourse (i.e. that which the teacher uses) (Bernstein 2000).
The development of such insights are particularly invaluable to those involved in developing and testing pedagogic strategies and approaches designed to foster effective classroom talk and promote children’s reflexivity of their own learning (E.g. Mercer,
Dawes, Wegerif and Sams 2004). As yet, few studies have focused on pupil perceptions of classroom discussions. The findings of this study aim to address this gap and, in doing so, inform the development of teacher training programmes and policy on classroom talk.
20

References
Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum London, Penguin Books Ltd
Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (Revised Edition)
Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
Black, L. (2004a) Teacher-Pupil Talk in Whole Class Discussions and Processes of
Social Positioning within the Primary School Classroom, Language and
Education 18 (5)
Black, L. (2004b) Differential Participation in Whole Class Discussions and the
Construction of Marginalised Identities. Journal of Educational Enquiry 5 (1) p.34-54
Boaler, J & Greeno, J. (2000) Identity, Agency and Knowing in Mathematics Worlds. J.
Boaler (ed) Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning .
Westport: Ablex Publishing
Christensen, P. and James, A. (eds) (2000) Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices . London: Falmer Press.
Cooper, P. (1993) Field Relations and the Problem of Authenticity in Researching
Participants’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning in Classrooms. British
Educational Research Journal 19 (4) p. 323-338
Denvir, H. and Askew, M. (2001) Pupils’ participation in the classroom examined in relation to ‘interactive whole class teaching’. In T. Rowland (ed.) Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics: Proceedings of the
Day Conference held at Manchester Metropolitan University, 3 March, Volume
21(1). London: British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 25–30.
Department for Education and Employment (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy:
Framework for Teaching Mathematics from Reception to Year 6. London: HMSO
Department for Education and Employment (2001) The Framework for Teaching
Mathematics: Years 7,8 and 9 Nottingham: DfEE Publications
Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge: The Development of
Understanding in the Classroom. London: Routledge.
English, E.; Hargreaves, L. & Hislam, J. (2002) Pedagogical Dilemmas in the National
Literacy Strategy: primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour Cambridge Journal of Education 32 (1) 9-26.
Fisher, R. (2005) Good to Talk: Perceptions of Talk in School. Paper presented at ISCAR conference, Seville, Spain
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C. and Wall, D. (1998) Inside the Primary
21

Classroom: Twenty Years On.
London: Routledge.
Lerman, S. (2001) Cultural, discursive psychology: A socio-cultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 46, pp.87-113
McCallum, B; Hargreaves, E. & Gipps, C. (2000) Learning: The pupil’s voice
Cambridge Journal of Education 30 (2) p.275-289
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. and Dawes, L. (1999) Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal.
25 (1), 95-112
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. and Sams, C. (2004) Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research
Journal.
30 (3), 359-378.
Myhill, D. (2002) Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. British Educational Research Journal. 28 (3), 339 – 352.
Norman, K. (1992) Thinking Voices: The Work of the National Oracy Project . London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Nutbrown, C. & Hannon, P. (2003) Children’s perspectives on family literacy:
Methodological issues, findings and implications for practice Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy 3 (2) p.115-145
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society London: Harvard University Press
Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry:Ttowards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of
Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22