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 students 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)

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
Indirect another individual, nodding head or saying 'uh huh?' or 'go on'
Influence are included.
Accepts or uses ideas of student: clarifying, building, or
developing ideas or suggestions by a student. As teacher brings
Teacher more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five.
Talk 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
Direct student is expected to comply.
Influence 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 Student talk - initiation: talk by students which they initiate. If
Talk '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

account of the context in which peer talk was occurring. In their analysis Barnes and Todd
6
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 Todds 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 childrens 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 childrens talk, it tries to show

that particular ways of talking permit certain social modes of thinking. The analytic framework

was derived from analyses of childrens 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 persons 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 7 to 9 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 childrens 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 group-

centred. Of further interest was the fact that children in the peer group lessons used oral

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

14
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.

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.

15
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 thats the bottom ... thats 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

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

16
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 sub-

modes 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

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-by-

moment 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

17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Context: Two students, Jon and Tim, were asked to construct three-dimensional objects
pictorially represented, by the use of two-dimensional shapes.

Oral interaction Social processing

Jon where is the large triangle? slight domination

from Jon
Tim oh, yeah

Joni take those away

Tim hahahwhat are you looking for? Tim tries to initiate

collaboration
Joni a kind of a triangle to the centerthese tasks are a bit too
difficult..
Tim how about this one then?
Joni it might beperharps two of these there
Tim basically no
Joni show me hmmlets turn to the next exercise..lets solve slight domination
that one since it is easierit is what one seeshey, 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 dont know... signs of conflict
starting to appear

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The full categories of the analysis method are summarised in Table 3 below.

18
Table 3: Analytical framework of peer group interaction

DIMENSION ANALYTICAL CATEGORIZATION DESCRIPTION

COGNITIVE exploratory/interpretative EXPO critical and exploratory activity which includes

PROCESSING planning, hypothesis testing, evaluation, and
experimenting
procedural/routine PROC procedural on-task activity which focuses on
handling, organising, and executing the task
without reflective analysis
off-task OFF activity not related to the task
SOCIAL Collaborative COLL joint activity characterized by equal participation
PROCESSING and meaning making
Tutoring TUTO student helping and assisting another student
Argumentative ARGU students are faced with cognitive/social conflicts
which are resolved and justified in a rational way
Individualistic INDI student(s) working on individual tasks with no
sharing or joint meaning making
Domination DOMI student dominating the work, unequal
participation
Conflict FLCI social or academic conflicts which are often left
unresolved
Confusion FUSI lack of shared understanding, student(s) do not
understand the task or each other, often includes
silent episodes
DISCOURSE Informative I providing information
FUNCTIONS Reasoning RE reasoning in language
Evaluative EV evaluating work or action
Interrogative Q asking questions
Responsive A answering questions
Organisational OR organising or/and controlling behavior
Judgmental
Agrees Ja expressing agreement or
Disagrees Jd disagreement
Argumentational AR justifying information, opinions or actions
Compositional CR creating text
Revision RV revising text
Dictation DI dictating
reading aloud RE reading text
Repetition RP repeating spoken language
Experiential E expressing personal experiences
Affectional AF expressing feelings

19
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 others 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 PARTICIPATION TRANSCRIBED PEER LANGUAGE COGNITIVE SOCIAL CONTEXTUAL

INTERACTION FUNCTIONS PROCESSING PROCESSING NOTES

11:16 147 JON where is the large asking for looking for a slight domination students are

triangle? information Q(I) face from Jons 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 hahahwhat are you affectional Gary initiates

looking for? utterance (AF) collaboration

and asking for

information Q(I)
151 JON a kind of a triangle to answering A(I) explaining

the centerthese tasks and evaluating

are a bit too difficult.. the task (EV)

152 GARY how about this one reasoning in a speculating

then? question form

Q(RS)
153 JON it might beperharps reasoning (RS)

two of these there

154 GARY basically no reasoning (RS)
11:17 155 JON show me hmmlets organising (OR), organising slight domination

turn to the next evaluating (EV), working, from Jons side

exercise..lets solve that and reasoning speculating

one since it is easierit (RS)

is what one seeshey,

could it be these..
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.

40
 159 JON I think(indistinct) -
160 GARY I dont know... informing (I) signs of a free

rider effect

starting to

appear
161 JON thats a bit too thick that reasoning (RS) comparing cards

one there..thats there

rather small....
162 GARY thats not it..heheheh reasoning (RS)
163 JON its all the same really reasoning (RS)
164 GARY lets try both organising (OR)
165 JON lets takethis is there organising (OR), organising

below, isnt it?..bigger reasoning (RS), working

one..hold it and organising

(OR)
166 GARY no, I dont 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

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

41
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

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

42
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.

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.

43
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 Guxols, Spain. Spain, ESRME,

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.

44
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.

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.

45
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.

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.

46
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.

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.

47
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 Durn, 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.

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.

48
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