‘Improving girls’ attitudes to talk: a
meta-cognitive approach’
Teacher Research Conference
Lauren Haywood
Dissertation
21/06/14
"Some may think that to affirm dialogue - the encounter
of women and men in the world in order to transform the
world - is naively and subjectively idealistic. There is
nothing, however, more real or concrete than people in
the world and with the world, than humans with other
humans.”
Freire, 1970
Topic and Rationale: Research
 Literature suggests that there are fewer opportunities for girls to talk in
a range of contexts in the classroom and that the teacher has a vital role
in providing opportunities for classroom talk (for example, Swann and
Graddol, 1989; Baxter, 2002; Boaler, 2002; Burns and Myhill, 2004;
Coultas, 2010, 2012).
 PPI girls might have the least access to classroom talk (Dunne and
Gazeley, 2008; Reay; 2006)
 Lack of research on the relationship between gender identity and talk
(Leman, 2010)
 Students benefit from a meta-cognitive approach to talk (Capel, Leask
and Turner, 2oo5), especially group work (Sutherland, 2010, 2013)
Personal Rationale
 Interest in talk since completing PGCE – Special Study
on meta-cognition and talk
 Interest in gender identity
 Personal observations - in many classes, even
confident, high achieving girls are reluctant to talk,
especially in a whole class context.
 PP students and/or those with SEND the quietest;
possible that girls’ underachievement could be
attributed partly to their silence in the classroom.
National Policy
 White Paper (2010), Teacher Standards (Dfe, 2012) and new NC
(Dfe, 2014) emphasise importance of classroom talk and oracy
across the curriculum yet many exam boards recently dropped
20% Speaking and Listening unit
 Little mention of gender equality in policy documents other
than the UNICEF’s ‘Rights Respecting Schools Award’: ‘greater
equity in terms of gender, ethnicity and special needs’ (Sebba
and Robinson, 2009, p.12)
 Where gender has been the focus of policy, it has been largely
been concerned with ‘the underachieving boy’ (Baxter, 2002)
 Increasing onus on teachers to create opportunities for
classroom talk because it is no longer formatively assessed
Context
 Newport School (anonymised) is a large, mixed comprehensive in a
relatively affluent area. It is larger than the average secondary
school: there are currently 1650 students on roll from Year 7 to 13
(11-18 years). The majority of students are White British from a wide
range of backgrounds.
 The number of SEND, EAL and PP students are all below the national
average.
 In 2013, Ofsted rated the school a 2: ‘Good’ however, a drop in GCSE
attainment triggered another visit where the school rating dropped
to a 3: ‘Requires Improvement.’
 For five consecutive years boys outperformed girls in several
subjects including English, against the national trend though this
changed last year.
Drawing back the curtain…
 ‘when the constructed status of gender is
theorized as radically independent of sex,
gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice’
(Butler, 1990, p.6).
 Starting point – link between gender as a
performance and classroom talk as a
performance
Research Questions
 What are the key factors that affect
girls’ attitudes towards speaking in
English?
 To what extent can an intervention on
talk influence quiet girls’ attitudes
towards speaking in English lessons?
Methodology
 My research questions informed my epistemological
position as an interpretivist researcher conducting Action
Research, through qualitative means
 I triangulated my data using: semi-structured group
interviews, talk diaries and my own observations recorded
in a research journal
 Pupils as researchers – the findings of the initial interview
informed my planning of the intervention (Fielding, 2001)
 Categories for analyses were derived from the data using
inductive and deductive coding (Altrichter, 2008)
Research Design
 My research questions were concerned
with understanding what girls’ attitudes
to talk are and how we can change them
as well as reflecting on my role as the
teacher to intervene in order to provide
opportunities for dialogic classroom talk
for all students.
 McNiff (2002) was a starting point but I
deviated from the focus on the self –
more of a collaborative process
 This diagram is the model suggested by
Kemmis and McTaggart though they
emphasise that in reality the process may
be much messier than this as the stages
overlap (2000).
Intervention design
 Semi-structured group interview with four girls (University of
Sussex ethical procedures followed)
 9 lesson intervention/SoW designed based on interview findings
 2 lessons – relationship/trust building, collaborative work,
ownership of talk diaries, group rules
 1 lesson – range of activities on pair work
 1 lesson – gender and identity: a meta-cognitive approach
 3 lessons – group work: writing a radio play
 1 lesson – performing radio plays
 1 lesson – reflection on project, talk and group work
 Final semi-structured group interview with four girls
The students
 Rachel -PP student who very rarely speaks in lessons and has erratic
absences; not very well integrated in the class and seems isolated.
 Catherine - SEND student with a moderate learning difficulty ; weak
literacy skills. Very anxious about coming to school so her attendance is
erratic. Has an LSA and is somewhat integrated with the others on her
table.
 Millie – not very confident and isolated in the group.
 Beth - SEND student with a moderate learning difficulty. She is starting
to become more integrated with the other students on her table.
 All students working below the national average (DCFS 2008c, 2010) for
reading, writing and S & L.
Findings…
What are the key factors that affect girls’ attitudes towards
speaking in English lessons?
 ‘Getting it wrong’
 Relationships with other pupils
 Working in groups/pairs rather than
whole class
 Boys
‘Getting it wrong’
 Beth - : ‘I don’t feel confident because…if I get it wrong I think that I’m
in trouble and people will say ha ha ha you got it wrong and then you
get the mick taken out of you which I’m used to’ (Interview 1)
 Millie: ‘I do like talking but I don’t like talking in class because when
people put me on the spot…I don’t know what to say and I panic a
lot…maybe like they let me think about it before they pick on me …just
let me think about it and then I’ll say it’ (Interview 1 and talk diary)
 Catherine: ‘I don’t feel confident at all because if I got a question wrong
then everyone would laugh at me’ (Interview 1)
 Rachel – stated in both interview and talk diary that she did not feel
confident but was not sure why
Relationships with other pupils
 When asked what encourage them to talk more Beth said:
“either if my friends were there or if maybe like us and a
group of boys getting into a group and being able to talk about
something then we’ll get to know each other better and then
we will be really confident speaking with them.”
 Two lessons at start of intervention on trust/relationship
building based on Beth’s comments in the initial interview
Pair/Group work
 Millie: ‘because it’s just easy to talk to everyone instead of
like you on the spot talking to everyone in the class like in a
group you can say it together and then all figure it out and
then I would put my hand up and say that’ (Interview 1)
 Rachel: ‘I like it because you don’t really have to um like
say it to the like whole class you can like put your ideas
together first…you feel more confident’ (Interview 1)
 Catherine: ‘I feel more safe because there isn’t [sic] as many
people to talk to and it’s less embarrassing.’ (Talk diary)
Boys
 Millie: ‘they’ve got bigger voices and deeper voices and
we’ve got higher voices so we like yeah get embarrassed’
 Rachel: ‘cos they like talk a lot when they’re out of class
and that means they can talk more in class maybe’
 Catherine: ‘I just think they are in bigger groups and they
just mess about and they just think that like they don’t
have to do anything because they think they’re better.
They don’t care if they get it wrong.’
 Beth: ‘girls are really scared of talking …and boys just
aren’t, they think their ideas are better than girls’
 (Interview 1)
To what extent can an intervention on talk influence
quiet girls’ attitudes towards speaking in English
lessons?
 Clear from all data that all girls value talk and like talking but talk
can be problematic for them in the classroom, especially whole-class
talk
 Being part of the intervention and having their ideas implemented
boosted their confidence
 Millie, Beth and Catherine all spoke more in class during the
intervention, especially in group and pair work, though they also
volunteered during whole-class talk. Rachel spoke a little bit more in
all contexts through not as much as the others.
 Supports research that girls respond to collaborative, dialogic talk in
a safe environment that has been set up for them
 Also supports findings that PP girls could have the least
opportunities/need the most intervention
 Meta-cognitive aspect generated most interest
 Millie: ‘it made me want to talk more’
Their comments – Final interview
 Catherine: ‘the group work really helped because I’ve been
a more confident since we did that’
 Millie: ‘I speak quite a lot more in my lessons in front of the
class because I’m not really frightened now…if we work in
pairs and groups I especially like it’
 Beth: ‘I think that working in groups with other people
made me feel more confident about talking because no
one laughed at me or made fun of me so now I feel more
relaxed about saying what I think…especially in front of
boys’
 Rachel: ‘A bit but I’m not really sure’
How do you feel now when you speak in front
of the whole class in English?
 Catherine: ‘Glad that I had a go’
 Millie: ‘Proud of myself that I did it and people
listened to me’
 Beth: ‘Really good ‘cos I used to feel really worried all
the time but I felt like I could just have a try and
nothing bad happened’
 Rachel: ‘I’m not sure’
Limitations
 Rachel found the group interview challenging –
individual interviews may have produced more valid
data
 Attendance – Rachel missed the important
relationship/trust building lessons
 I was unable to evaluate any longer term impact; final
interview took place shortly after end of intervention
Recommendations…
 Take a meta-cognitive approach to group work and carefully
choose groups
 Share findings about talk behaviour of girls and boys with the
class and initiate discussions about stereotypes – encourage
critical debates and reflection
 Give students clear roles for group work
 Encourage them to make rules in their groups
 Consult pupils where possible
 Try to create a dialogic classroom, where you ‘constructively
intervene’ (Alexander, 2006)
 Provide students with the meta-language they will need to talk
about talk
Recommendations…
 Give students, especially girls, very clear warnings and
thinking time if you are going to ask them to volunteer an
idea
 Wherever possible, allow students to discuss ideas in pairs
or groups before asking individuals questions so that they
can ‘practise’ their ideas
 Encourage more creative, divergent thinking, rather than
factual recall or ‘correct’ answers, emphasising the
importance of personal opinion and of exploring ideas
Bibliography – key texts





Alexander, R. (2006) Towards Dialogic Teaching. (Second Edition) London: Dialogos UK Ltd
Baxter, J. (2002) ‘A Juggling Act: a feminist post-structuralist analysis of girls’ and boys’ talk
in the secondary classroom’, Gender and Education, 14:1, 5-19
Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble. London: Routledge
Dunne, M. and Gazeley, L. (2008): Teachers, social class and underachievement, British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 29:5, 451-463

Fielding, M. (2001) ‘Students as Radical Agents of Change’, Journal of Educational Change, 2: 123-141
 Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
 Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000) "Participatory action research", in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln
(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage, CA, pp. 567–605.
 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
 Reay, D. (2006) The Zombie Stalking English Schools: Social Class and Educational
 Sutherland, J. (2010) Developing exploratory talk and thinking in secondary English lessons:
theoretical and pedagogical implications, Unpublished EdD thesis, Sussex School of Education, University of
Sussex.
 Swann, J. (1992) Girls, Boys and Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Thank you!