Researching classroom interaction and talk
David Wray and Kristiina Kumpulainen
Introduction
The social and contextual nature of human learning has received great emphasis in research
on learning and instruction (Anderson, et al., 1997; Greeno, 1997). Attention has been paid
to the practices, processes and conditions leading to the social construction of knowledge in
different learning situations (Fisher, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Palincsar, 1986; Tuyay, Jennings, &
Dixon, 1995). The focus of analysis has been extended from external factors influencing
learning processes and achievements to the student’s participation in and evolving
interpretations of the learning activity (Grossen, 1994; Perret-Clermont, Perret, & Bell, 1991).
In the midst of these changes in emphasis, new methodological questions concerning the
analysis of classroom interaction and learning have arisen. Questions to which researchers
have been trying to find answers are, for example:

What qualitative differences can be found within and between interactive activities across
a variety of learning contexts?

What typically happens during classroom interaction?

How can practitioners and researchers develop and strengthen their understandings
about optimal learning within inherently social settings (e.g. classrooms)?
This chapter will review and critique some approaches to studying and analyzing classroom
interaction, and especially the discourse which characterizes this. It is based on an account
of a programme of research into classroom interaction and social learning, and uses the
1
methodological decisions made during that programme as a set of pegs on which to hang
discussion of methodological issues in this field.
By the end of this chapter, you should have:

Gained an understanding of the complexity of investigating socially shared learning
practices;

Considered some methodological issues emerging from researching classroom
interaction and talk;

Become aware of the need to move from an analysis of classroom talk to a more
holistic analysis of classroom interaction;

Understood the use of analytical maps that involve functional, cognitive processing
and social processing analyses of classroom interaction and talk.
The framework of analysis
The analysis framework described here emerged as a result of a number of studies of
primary-aged learners’ interactions whilst working in peer groups on various educational
tasks in Finland, Greece and the United Kingdom (Fourlas & Wray, 1990; Kumpulainen &
Wray, 2002). The main goal of these studies was to investigate the nature of students’ social
activity, particularly verbal interaction, in different small group work learning situations. The
initial development of the method concentrated on the functions of students’ verbal
interaction as a basis for investigation of students’ roles as communicators and learners in
teacher-centred and peer-group centred classrooms (Fourlas & Wray, 1990). This functional
analysis method was later piloted, modified and applied by Kumpulainen (1994, 1996) in a
study that investigated students’ social interaction during the process of collaborative writing
with a word processor. Due to its fine-grained categorisations, the functional analysis method
2
was felt to give a structured overview of the nature and quality of students’ verbal interaction
in this learning context.
Despite the potential of the analysis method, in more recent studies of peer group learning
this functional analysis of verbal interaction was found to be inadequate as a means of
unravelling the complexities of socially shared learning processes. Firstly, there seemed to
be a need to develop a descriptive system of analysis, which took a more holistic and
multidimensional perspective on interaction. Consequently, the analysis of verbal interaction
alone seemed not to be sufficient for this. Secondly, it seemed important that more attention
be paid to the moment-by-moment nature of interaction in order to highlight the situated
processes of meaning-making and knowledge construction within peer groups. Thirdly, it
seemed important to take the individual and the group as units of analysis in order to
investigate the types and forms of participation within peer groups.
In the analysis method subsequently developed, the dynamics of peer group interaction were
approached from three analytic dimensions.
1. The first dimension of the analysis, termed functional analysis, focussed on the character
and purpose of student utterances in peer group interaction. It characterised the
communicative strategies used by participants in social interaction.
2. The second dimension, cognitive processing, examined the ways in which students
approached and processed learning tasks in their social interaction. It aimed at
highlighting students’ working strategies and situated positions towards learning,
knowledge and themselves as problem solvers.
3
3. The third dimension of the analysis, social processing, focused on the nature of the social
relationships that were developed during students’ social activity. This included
examining the types and forms of student participation in social interaction.
Before discussing the theoretical and methodological background of these methods and
highlighting the analytical framework with some empirical examples, we will firstly review
some of the other analysis methods used to study peer interaction that have contributed to
the present analytical approach.
Investigating collaborative interaction in peer groups
Peer group interaction has been studied quite extensively in different contexts in and out of
school. The research objectives and methodological solutions have been diverse, being
linked with the research goals and theoretical perspectives adopted by the researchers.
One large group of studies focusing on peer interaction from the educational perspective is
located in the systematic tradition, often referred to as process-product studies of peer
interaction (e.g. Joiner, Messer, Light, & Littleton, 1995; Light, et al, 1994; King, 1989;
Teasley, 1995; Tudge, 1992; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). In these studies, peer interaction
is analysed with coding schemes, which categorise interaction into pre-defined categories.
Variables such as student achievement and performance are statistically linked to the
frequency of categories as identified in the data. Usually, the development of the actual
interaction process or meaning making in interaction is not the prime interest, but the focus is
rather on some specific features of the interaction and their relationship to student learning
or achievement. Consequently, the process of interaction over a period of time is not
highlighted by such studies. The situated nature of interaction, as represented by the
4
contextual features impinging upon it, also often receives only cursory inspection. One
advantage of process-product studies is that they enable the analysis of large amounts of
data and use publicly verifiable criteria to make their categorisations.
Probably the best known of such category systems is the Flanders Interaction Analysis
(Flanders, 1970). This system has been used extensively in classroom observation studies
(Wragg, 1999; Newman, 2004). It has two main uses. Firstly, it was intended to provide
evidence of the differences in teaching patterns that distinguish one teaching style from
another and, secondly, it has been used to try to explain differences in learning outcomes
associated with different styles of teaching.
The Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) consist of 10 categories of
communication, seven used when the teacher is talking and two when a pupil is talking (and
one when there is silence or confusion). An observer using the system makes timed
observations, usually every three seconds, and categorises the behaviour which he/she
observes at each point into one of ten categories. These categories are shown below in
Table 1.
5
Table 1: Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)
Indirect
Influence
Teacher
Talk
Direct
Influence
Student
Talk
Accepts feeling: accepts and clarifies the feelings of the students
in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or
negative. Predicting and recalling feelings are included.
Praises or encourages: praises or encourages student action or
behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of
another individual, nodding head or saying 'uh huh?' or 'go on'
are included.
Accepts or uses ideas of student: clarifying, building, or
developing ideas or suggestions by a student. As teacher brings
more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five.
Asks questions: asking a question about content or procedure
with the intent that a student may answer.
Lectures: giving facts or opinions about content or procedures;
expressing his own ideas; asking rhetorical questions.
Gives directions: directions, commands, or orders with which a
student is expected to comply.
Criticises or justifies authority: statements, intended to change
student behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern,
bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he
is doing, extreme self-reference.
Student talk - responses: talk by students in response to
teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student
statement.
Student talk - initiation: talk by students which they initiate. If
'calling on' student is only to indicate who may talk next,
observer must decide whether student wanted to talk. If he did,
use this category.
Silence or confusion: pauses, short periods of silence and
periods of confusion in which communication cannot be
understood by the observer.
A very useful website explaining and exemplifying the Flanders system can be found at Nova
South Eastern University Centre for Teaching and Learning
(http://www.nova.edu/hpdtesting/ctl/fia.html).
Other research traditions have produced quite different approaches to the analysis of peer
group talk and learning. Barnes and Todd (1977, 1995), for example, developed an analytic
system for studying peer group talk which was “grounded” in the data, as opposed to being
derived from a pre-existing network of categories. Consequently, their system did try to take
6
account of the context in which peer talk was occurring. In their analysis Barnes and Todd
were interested in the actual processes of interaction and the ways students developed and
constructed knowledge without direct teacher presence. In analysing the dialogue amongst
the groups of students, they considered types of talk and their impact upon the construction
of meaning during group interactions. This demanded an analysis of both the social and
cognitive functions of conversation. They developed a system describing speech acts, which
was based on two levels.
Level one consisted of:

discourse moves (such as initiating, eliciting, extending and responding);

logical processes (such as proposing a cause, advancing evidence, negating,
suggesting a method, evaluating).
Level two comprised:

social skills (such as competition and conflict, supportive behaviour);

cognitive strategies (such as setting up hypotheses, constructing new questions);

reflexivity (such as monitoring one's own speech, evaluating one's own and others'
performance).
They identified ‘exploratory’ speech characteristics such as hesitation and changes of
direction, tentativeness in voice intonation, assertions and questions made as hypotheses
rather than direct assertions, invitations to modify or surmise, and self-monitoring and
reflexivity. They went on to propose conditions for collaborative work amongst groups in
classrooms, based on this empirical evidence. Further analysis (Barnes and Todd, 1995)
provided descriptive examples of the “... four categories of collaborative moves: initiating,
eliciting, extending and qualifying”.
7
Despite some limitations in the analytical system and the tools used for data collection (tape
recorders only, thus losing any information from non-verbal elements of communication),
Barnes and Todd’s work made an important contribution to the analysis of peer talk since it
integrated ideas from discourse and conversational analysis with research on learning and
instruction. Several studies have used the Barnes and Todd frameworks to enquire into
classroom interaction (e.g. Edwards, 2005).
Many other methods of analysis of peer group interaction, either with distinct categories or
more interpretative “modes”, have been developed in the past twenty years and to review all
of them here would be impossible. One important analytic approach which needs to be
discussed, however, since it has contributed greatly to our understanding of children’s talk
during small group learning is that developed by Fisher (1993), Mercer (1994, 1996, 2000),
and Mercer & Littleton (2007). What is interesting in this approach is that it tries to
investigate how children use talk to think together, thus, it uses a group as a unit of analysis,
not individual children. By taking a sociocultural approach to children’s talk, it tries to show
that particular ways of talking permit certain social modes of thinking. The analytic framework
was derived from analyses of children’s talk during collaborative peer group learning and it
includes three distinct modes of talk which characterise different ways of thinking together.
These are:

disputational mode, characterised by disagreement and individualised decision making;

cumulative mode, consisting of positive but uncritical decision making;

exploratory mode, which is seen as the most effective mode of speaking in fostering
critical thinking and cognitive development (Mercer, 1996). This is characterised by
constructive and critical engagements, including argumentation and hypothesis testing.
8
Theoretically, this analytical framework makes an important contribution to our increasing
understanding of the different modes of talk and social thinking in peer group situations. One
of the limitations of the method, though, can be found in the fact that the unit of analysis is
the group - the method does not take into account individual students’ participation in the
“social modes of thinking”. Consequently, the method does not highlight how the different
types of social thinking are actually constructed within peer groups. Moreover, by
concentrating mainly on students’ talk, the analysis may not always give a complete picture
of the nature of knowledge construction in peer groups. Instead, a more dynamic approach
to peer interaction is necessary, which focuses on the whole interactive context and its
development, including non-verbal communication and the use of different tools, before we
can unravel the processes and conditions for learning in peer group activity.
Towards a new analytic method
In the remainder of this chapter we will outline and discuss a descriptive system of analysis
for investigating the situated dynamics of peer group interaction. Of particular importance are
the mechanisms through which the social and cognitive features of peer group activity
operate. The theoretical grounding of the analysis framework was informed by sociocultural
and sociocognitive perspectives on interaction and learning (Cole, 1996; Resnick, Levine &
Teasley, 1991; Wertsch, 1985, 1991), whereas the methodological solutions were greatly
influenced by the work of Barnes and Todd (1977, 1995), Mercer (1994, 1996) as well as by
interactional ethnographers (Green & Wallat, 1981; Green & Mayer, 1991; Tuyay, et al,
1995).
In this method, learning is seen to take place as a result of individuals’ active participation in
the social practices of their environments. Learning is viewed as an interactional process that
9
requires an understanding of language, and other semiotic tools, as both personal and social
resources (Cole, 1996; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Peer
interaction is treated as a dynamic process in which language and other semiotic tools are
used as instruments of communication and learning. Interaction is seen as a complex social
phenomenon composed of non-verbal and social properties in addition to its verbal
characteristics. Peer discourse itself is not treated as representing a person’s inner cognitive
world, nor even as descriptive of an outer reality, but rather as a tool-in-action shaped by
participants’ culturally-based definitions of the situation (Edwards, 1993; Edwards & Potter,
1992).
The application of the method involves a microanalysis of evolving peer interactions by
focusing on three analytic dimensions, namely the functions of verbal interaction, cognitive
processing and social processing. Whereas the functional analysis concentrates on students’
verbal language, the analyses of students’ cognitive and social processing focus on
interactive dynamics as they occur across the participants. Consequently, a group is taken
as a unit of analysis. The three dimensions are treated separately for analytic purposes,
although it is recognised that they are closely linked together in a complex way. In actuality
the dimensions cannot be separated since each element gives meaning to all others and
simultaneously obtains meaning from them.
Dimension 1: Functional analysis of verbal interaction
The functional analysis of students’ verbal interaction focuses on the purposes for which
verbal language is used in a given context. It investigates and highlights the communicative
strategies applied by individual students whilst taking part in interaction (Halliday & Hasan,
1989). Analysis of this nature often concentrates on the illocutionary force of an utterance,
10
that is, on its functional meaning (Austin, 1962; Edwards & Westgate, 1994). The functions
for which students use their oral language are closely linked to the topic of discussion as well
as to the individuals’ expectations and evolving interpretations of the situation shaped by the
sociocultural context of the activity. The functions of language used in the course of
interaction serve both intra- and interpersonal purposes. On the one hand, the purposes and
intentions carried by means of verbal language serve an ideational, i.e. cognitive function.
On the other hand, they serve an interpersonal function relating to the personal and social
relationships between the interactors (Halliday & Hasan, 1989).
The identification of language functions in peer interaction takes place on the basis of
implication, that is, what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean may be different to what the
speaker literally says. Consequently, the functions are not identified on the basis of specific
linguistic forms. Rather, they are identified in context in terms of their retrospective and
prospective effects on the actual discourse both in terms of content and form. An
understanding of the functions for which students use their verbal language in interaction is
greatly assisted by data gathered from direct observation, video recording and student
interviews. The functions of peer interaction are the minimum units analysed in the system.
They are identified on an utterance basis and defined in terms of source, purpose and
situated conversational meaning. An utterance is viewed as a meaningful unit of speech, that
is, a message unit. The boundary between each utterance is linguistically marked by
contextual cues. Given that an utterance may serve multiple functions, more than one
function can be recorded for each utterance.
Examples of language functions identified in peer group interaction across learning situations
are the Informative, Expositional, Reasoning, Evaluative, Interrogative, Responsive,
11
Organisational, Judgmental (agrees/disagrees), Argumentational, Compositional, Revision,
Dictation, Reading aloud, Repetition, Experiential, and Affective functions.
Some of these functions describe the nature of interaction more from the activity point of
view (e.g. dictation, reading aloud), whereas others take a more interpretative / cognitive
(e.g. informative, reasoning, evaluative) or social perspective (e.g. affective, responsive,
judgmental) on the analysis of verbal interaction. However, none of the functions should be
seen as reflecting only one of these dimensions. Conversely, each function in the framework
is regarded as reflecting the social-cognitive-discursive actions of the participants as they
verbally interact in their social activity. The language functions used in the course of joint
problem solving often differ across situations and contexts, thus these functions presented in
the analytic framework should not be understood as fixed, pre-defined categories. Instead,
the functions must be situationally defined for each interaction situation on a post hoc basis.
An example of the use of this system to analyse peer interaction is given below (for more
information see Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002, p. 61). As can be seen in this example, more
than one function can occur within the same language utterance.
Example: Functional analysis of verbal interaction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Context: Two girls, Elise and Madeleine, are making an imaginative story for a school
magazine. They are writing collaboratively with the computer.
Oral interaction
Language
functions
Elise:
Let's write that one day the boys decided to go to the grave.
(OR, CRE, IM)
Madeleine:
Yeah. And that they took a torch and some food with them.
(J, CRE, IM)
12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the children were involved in creating writing and hence using their talk in the
Compositional function. In addition, since this was not a true story they seemed to be
imagining the situation and hence using the Imaginative function. Elise was also using her
oral language for the Organisational function when suggesting "Let's write....". Madeleine, on
the other hand, when agreeing to Elise's suggestion was using the Judgemental function. In
summary, Elise used her speech for the Organisational (OR), Compositional (CRE) and
Imaginative functions (IM). Madeleine, on the other hand, used her speech for the
Judgemental (J), Compositional (CRE) and Imaginative functions (IM).
In addition to the qualitative analysis permitted by this system, it can also be used to produce
quantitative data. An example of this is the study originally carried out by Fourlas and Wray
(1990) and reported in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002, p. 43-56). The aims of this study were to
investigate the influence of two styles of classroom organisation, teacher-centred (a teacher
directing the discussion of a whole class of students) and peer-group-centred (students
organised into several peer groups to discuss materials and problems), on the ways in which
students used their oral language in classroom interaction. The study was carried out in
three Greek primary schools, using children aged from 7½ to 9½ years old. The research
sample was eight lessons, four organised on a teacher-centred basis and four organised on
a peer group basis. The data were collected and processed by means of observation, tape
recordings, and written transcripts. After careful examination of the data, the functional
analysis system was used to investigate the nature of children’s oral language in these two
classroom organisational systems. Table 2 below show the frequency of occurrence of each
language function in the talk of students in both types of lesson.
13
Table 2: Frequency (%) of occurrence of language functions in the talk of students in
teacher-centred and peer group-centred lessons
Language Function
Teacher-centred lessons
Peer group-centred
(%)
lessons (%)
Intentional
25.1
1.5
Responsive
28.6
2.3
Reproductional
7.6
2.8
Interrogative
7.6
3.6
Experiential
3.0
1.5
Informative
10.5
19.3
Judgemental
9.4
18.2
Hypothetical
1.1
3.1
Argumentational
2.4
7.0
Affective
1.3
4.5
Organisational
2.5
16.2
Compositional
0.6
6.1
Heuristic
0.3
4.2
Imaginative
0.2
4.0
Expositional
0.0
1.1
External Thinking
0.0
4.5
Functions such as the Intentional, the Responsive, the Reproductional, the Interrogative, and
the Experiential were observed to occur in higher frequencies in the teacher-centred lessons.
All the other functions were found in higher frequencies in the lessons that were peer groupcentred. Of further interest was the fact that children in the peer group lessons used oral
14
language over the entire range of functions in respectable proportions. In contrast, in the
teacher-centred lessons, children did not use the External Thinking or Expositional functions
at all, and they used the Imaginative, Heuristic and Compositional functions quite rarely.
These findings suggest that the language experiences of students in either of these two
classroom organisational systems were quite different, in quality and in quantity.
Dimension 2: Analysis of cognitive processing
The analysis of cognitive processing examines the ways in which students approach and
process learning tasks in their social activity. It aims at highlighting students’ working
strategies and situated positions towards knowledge, learning and themselves as problem
solvers. In the method, cognitive processes are seen as dynamic and contextual in nature,
being socially constructed in students’ evolving interactions in the sociocultural context of
activity.
In the analytical framework we distinguished three broad modes to characterise the nature of
students’ cognitive processing in peer group activity:

Procedural processing refers to the routine execution of tasks without thorough planning
or thinking. Ideas are not developed, rather they are cumulated or disputed without
constructive judgements or criticism. The students’ activity is often product-oriented and
concentrates on procedural handling of information.

Interpretative or exploratory processing, on the other hand, refers to a situation during
which thinking is made visible through language or other tools and the whole activity is
focused on strategies, planning, and hypothesis testing. The students’ activity reflects
their deep engagement and interest in the problem-solving task.
15

Off-task activity refers to a situation during which the students’ activity does not focus on
the task, e.g. playing around, discussing break time activities, “absent minded” activity.
It is important to recognise that these three broad analytical modes are used as heuristic
devices rather than distinct categories into which students’ cognitive processing can be
easily coded. Rather, the modes are reflected in different ways in different contexts and
situations and, hence, require situational definitions.
Example: Cognitive processing analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Context: Two students, Alex and Maria, were asked to construct three-dimensional objects
pictorially represented, by the use of two-dimensional shapes.
Oral interaction
Cognitive
processing
Alex
Bottom ... how come
speculating
Maria
no ... but that’s the bottom ... that’s that sort of a triangle
explaining
and the lid is that sort of a triangle ... they are connected ...
it shows there how they are connected
Alex
no ... look ... this is
Maria
yeah ... its connected
Alex
wait
Maria
that could be created by side triangles in a way
speculating
Alex
triangle comes here ... triangle comes here ... triangle
explaining
comes here and here comes a rectangle
Maria
yeah ... exactly and here to the roof as well
16
Alex
could it go here
speculating
Maria
this one ... this one yeah ... wait a minute ... yeah this is the
testing
rectangle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimension 3: Analysis of social processing
The analysis of social processing aims at characterising the social relationships and types of
participation in peer groups. The different modes in which social processing is often
constructed in peer group interaction are collaborative, tutoring, argumentative,
individualistic, dominative, conflict, and confusion modes. The latter characterises interaction
during which there is an obvious misunderstanding or lack of shared understanding between
the children. The conflict mode reflects disagreement, usually at a social level. The
dominative mode reflects the distribution of power and status in the peer group. The
individualistic and dominative modes are contrasts to collaborative interaction. The
individualistic mode implies that students are not developing their ideas together but rather
working individually in the group. The dominative reflects an imbalance in students’ social
status and power. The argumentative and tutoring modes of interaction characterise the
nature of collaboration between the participants. In this sense they can be regarded as submodes of collaborative activity. The argumentative mode implies constructive interaction in
which students negotiate their differing understandings in a rational way by giving
judgements and justifications. This often leads to a shared understanding of the situation.
The tutoring mode shows students helping and explaining for the purpose of assisting
another to understand the matter at hand. In addition, collaboration includes interaction in
which participants attempt to achieve a mutual understanding of the situation, ideas are
17
jointly negotiated, and discourse is coherent. In collaborative interaction participants often
create bi-directional zones of proximal development assisting one another (Forman, 1989).
It must be noted that, apart from the functional analysis of peer group interaction, the unit of
analysis for the different modes of cognitive and social processing is not defined by distinct
rules, such as an utterance basis. Instead the units of analysis for the modes of cognitive
and social processing are based on their development in peer interaction on a moment-bymoment basis. In other respects the three dimensions on which the analytical framework
concentrates all emerge from the data as the result of the researchers’ and, when possible,
also the interactors’ interpretations of the situation.
Example: Social processing analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Context: Two students, Jon and Tim, were asked to construct three-dimensional objects
pictorially represented, by the use of two-dimensional shapes.
Jon
Oral interaction
Social processing
where is the large triangle?
slight domination
from Jon
Tim
oh, yeah…
Joni
take those away
Tim
hahah…what are you looking for?
Tim tries to initiate
collaboration
Joni
a kind of a triangle to the center…these tasks are a bit too
difficult..
Tim
how about this one then?
Joni
it might be…perharps two of these there…
18
Tim
basically no
Joni
show me …hmm…let’s turn to the next exercise..let’s solve
slight domination
that one since it is easier…it is what one sees…hey, could
from Jon
it be these..
Tim
do you mean these small ones?
Tim tries to initiate
collaboration
Joni
these
Tim
what about these big ones, I think they look big..like this.
Joni
I think…(indistinct)
Tim
I don’t know...
signs of conflict
starting to appear
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full categories of the analysis method are summarised in Table 3 below.
19
Table 3: Analytical framework of peer group interaction
DIMENSION
COGNITIVE
PROCESSING
SOCIAL
PROCESSING
DISCOURSE
FUNCTIONS
ANALYTICAL CATEGORIZATION
DESCRIPTION
exploratory/interpretative
EXPO
procedural/routine
PROC
off-task
Collaborative
OFF
COLL
Tutoring
Argumentative
TUTO
ARGU
Individualistic
INDI
Domination
DOMI
Conflict
FLCI
Confusion
FUSI
Informative
Reasoning
Evaluative
Interrogative
Responsive
Organisational
Judgmental
 Agrees
 Disagrees
Argumentational
Compositional
Revision
Dictation
reading aloud
Repetition
Experiential
Affectional
I
RE
EV
Q
A
OR
critical and exploratory activity which includes
planning, hypothesis testing, evaluation, and
experimenting
procedural on-task activity which focuses on
handling, organising, and executing the task
without reflective analysis
activity not related to the task
joint activity characterized by equal participation
and meaning making
student helping and assisting another student
students are faced with cognitive/social conflicts
which are resolved and justified in a rational way
student(s) working on individual tasks with no
sharing or joint meaning making
student dominating the work, unequal
participation
social or academic conflicts which are often left
unresolved
lack of shared understanding, student(s) do not
understand the task or each other, often includes
silent episodes
providing information
reasoning in language
evaluating work or action
asking questions
answering questions
organising or/and controlling behavior
Ja
Jd
AR
CR
RV
DI
RE
RP
E
AF
expressing agreement or
disagreement
justifying information, opinions or actions
creating text
revising text
dictating
reading text
repeating spoken language
expressing personal experiences
expressing feelings
20
Analytical maps
In our analysis, the dynamics of peer group interaction are illustrated with the help of
analytical maps, which have been created for each peer group under investigation.
The product of the analysis is a series of situation-specific analytical maps that
describe the sequential evolution of peer group interactions as they are constructed
by students interacting with and acting upon each other’s messages. In addition to
highlighting the dynamics of peer interaction, these maps show the element of time
in the students’ activity as well as some contextual information necessary for the
interpretation of the social activity in question. Although a structural map is always a
simplification, it gives a coherent and temporal picture of a complex situation making
comparisons across educational contexts, peer groups and students possible.
Moreover, the structural maps help one return easily to the original data to check the
validity of interpretation. In addition, when presenting extracts from the data, one is
able to investigate the co-text, that is, the data context to which the extract belongs.
39
Example: Interactive dynamics between Joni and Gary
SESSION: 1.1.2 Mathematics
STUDENTS: Gary and Jon
WORKING TIME: 11:05 – 11:30
TIME
11:16
PARTICIPATION
147
JON
TRANSCRIBED PEER
LANGUAGE
COGNITIVE
SOCIAL
CONTEXTUAL
INTERACTION
FUNCTIONS
PROCESSING
PROCESSING
NOTES
where is the large
asking for
looking for a
slight domination students are
triangle?
information Q(I)
face
from Jon’s side
trying to find
correct faces to
148
GARY
oh, yeah…
affectional
Gary is holding
construct the
utterance (AF)
the construction
geometrical
students have
object
149
JON
take those away
organising (OR)
already made
150
GARY
hahah…what are you
affectional
Gary initiates
looking for?
utterance (AF)
collaboration
and asking for
information Q(I)
151
152
JON
GARY
a kind of a triangle to
answering A(I)
the center…these tasks
and evaluating
are a bit too difficult..
the task (EV)
how about this one
reasoning in a
then?
question form
explaining
speculating
Q(RS)
153
JON
it might be…perharps
reasoning (RS)
two of these there…
11:17
154
GARY
basically no
reasoning (RS)
155
JON
show me …hmm…let’s
organising (OR), organising
slight domination
turn to the next
evaluating (EV),
from Jon’s side
exercise..let’s solve that and reasoning
one since it is easier…it (RS)
is what one sees…hey,
could it be these..
40
working,
speculating
156
GARY
do you mean these
reasoning in a
Gary initiates
small ones?
question form
collaboration
Q(RS)
157
JON
these
answering A(RS)
158
GARY
what about these big
reasoning (RS)
speculating
ones, I think they look
big..like this.
159
JON
I think…(indistinct)
-
160
GARY
I don’t know...
informing (I)
signs of “a free
rider effect“
starting to
appear
161
JON
that’s a bit too thick that
reasoning (RS)
comparing cards
one there..that’s
there…rather small....
162
GARY
that’s not it..heheheh…
reasoning (RS)
163
JON
its all the same really
reasoning (RS)
164
GARY
let’s try both
organising (OR)
165
JON
let’s take…this is there
organising (OR), organising
below, isn’t it?..bigger
reasoning (RS),
one..hold it
and organising
working
(OR)
166
GARY
no, I don’t want to
disagrees (Jd)
social conflict
Conclusion
In this chapter we have explored some of the methodological issues involved in a
study of classroom interaction. Our focus here has been particularly upon
interactions between learners as they engage with the material of learning. A number
of key methodological points have been aired here, and the analysis system we have
devised has been presented as one way (among many possible such ways) of
41
responding to some of the difficulties inherent in trying to understand what are
inevitably very complex processes. It should be stressed, however, that, although the
past 30 years has seen substantial growth in approaches to and study of classroom
interactions in a range of contexts, we are still inevitably in the infancy of our
understanding of what goes on inside the ‘black box’ of classrooms, or learning
situations.
Key Terms
Classroom interaction: all the ways in which participants in classrooms interact
with one another, including oral interaction, non-verbal interaction and shared
activity.
Category analyses: systems for analysing classroom interaction which approach
the phenomena to be analysed with pre-determined categories into which interactive
behaviour is assumed to fit.
Grounded analyses: attempts to interpret classroom interaction which do not use
predetermined categories but derive their analyses from the data itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What are the weaknesses of category analysis systems for exploring classroom
interaction?
A1: Systems which approach real life situations such as classrooms with
predetermined categories run into the problem of what do they do when what is
observed does not quite fit these categories. The danger is that important aspects of
42
classroom interaction are either ignored because they do not fit the categories, or
misinterpreted by being squeezed to make them fit these categories.
Q2: What are the weaknesses of grounded approaches to analysing classroom
interaction?
A2: Analysis which is ‘grounded’ in the data is, almost by definition, atheoretical in its
approach. Lacking a theoretical framework within which to interpret observed
phenomena means that researchers are at risk of producing little more than series of
unconnected observations. Interpretation, in any research activity, relies upon a
theoretical framework.
Q3: Why can classroom interaction not be studied simply by analysing the talk that
takes place within classrooms?
A3: The problem is that talk does not in itself convey the entire range of meanings
which interaction participants bring to and take from their interactions. These
meanings are influenced by such things as context, and non-verbal interactions.
Classroom interaction research needs to have some way of taking account of such
non-verbal influences if it is to produce a full picture of the meanings being created.
References
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive
perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26 (1), 18-21.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
43
Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited, making
meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann.
Centre for Teaching and Learning (2007) Flanders Interaction Analysis Fort
Lauderdale, Florida: Nova Southeastern University
http://www.nova.edu/hpdtesting/ctl/fia.html Accessed June 19th, 2008
Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Edwards, D. & Westgate, D. (1994). Investigating classroom talk (2nd ed.).
Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Edwards, D. (1993). Concepts, memory, and the organization of pedagogic
discourse: A case study. Educational Research, 19, 205-225.
Edwards, J. (2005) “Exploratory talk in peer groups: exploring the zone of proximal
development”. In Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain. Spain, ESRME,
44
http://cerme4.crm.es/Papers%20definitius/8/JulieAnnEdwards.pdf Accessed June
19th, 2008
Fisher, E. (1993). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their
relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language
and Education, 7, 239-257.
Flanders, N. (1970) Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass.
Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer interaction in the social construction of
mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 55-70.
Fourlas, G. & Wray, D. (1990). Children's oral language: A comparison of two
classroom organisational systems. In D. Wray (Ed.), Emerging partnerships, Current
research in language and literacy (pp.76-86). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Green, J. & Mayer, L. (1991). The embeddedness of reading in classrom life:
Reading as a situated process. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Toward a critical
sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 141-160). Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Green, J. & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations - a sociolinguistic
ethnography. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in
educational settings (pp.161-228). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
45
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational
Researcher, 26, 5-17.
Grossen, M. (1994). Theoretical and methodological consequences of a change in
the unit of analysis for the study of peer interactions in a problem solving situation.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 159-173.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text. London: Oxford
University press.
Joiner, R, Messer, D., Light, P. & Littleton, K. (1995, August). Investigating the
relationship between communicative style and productive interaction. A paper
presented at the 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and
Instruction, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem-solving within computer assisted
cooperative learning groups. Educational Computing Research, 5 (1), 1-15.
Kumpulainen, K. & Wray, D. (2002) Classroom Interaction and Social Learning
London: RoutledgeFalmer
Kumpulainen, K. (1994). The nature of children's oral language interactions during
collaborative writing experience at the computer. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Exeter: University of Exeter.
46
Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created
by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6, 243-261.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Light, P., Littleton, K., Messer, D., & Joiner, R. (1994). Social and communicative
processes in computer-based problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 14(1), 93-109.
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children's
Thinking: a sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children's joint activity at the computer,
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24-32.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-377.
Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together.
London: Routledge.
Newman, M. (2004) Problem Based Learning: An exploration of the method and
evaluation of its effectiveness in a continuing nursing education programme. London:
School of Lifelong Learning & Education, Middlesex University.
47
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.
Perret-Clermont, A-N., Perret, J-F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of
meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L.B. Resnick, J.M.
Levine & S.D.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41-62).
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. & Teasley, S.D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially
shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Teasley, S. (1995). The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 207-220.
Tudge, J. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration. A Vygotskian
analysis. Child Development, 63, 1364-1379.
Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities
to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third grade
classroom. In Durán, R. (Ed.), Discourse processes (literacy among latinos: Focus
on school contexts), 19, 75-110.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J., & Fall, J.R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in
collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
48
Wells, G. & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together:
Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wragg, E.C. (1999) An introduction to classroom observation. London: Routledge.
49