Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The term classroom discourse refers to the language that teachers and students use to
communicate with each other in the classroom. Talking, or conversation, is the medium through
which most teaching takes place, so the study of classroom discourse is the study of the process of
face-to-face classroom teaching.
The earliest systematic study of classroom discourse was reported in 1910 and used stenographers
to make a continuous record of teacher and student talk in high school classrooms. The first use of
audiotape recorders in classrooms was reported in the 1930s, and during the 1960s there was a
rapid growth in the number of studies based on analysis of transcripts of classroom discourse. In
1973, Barak Rosenshine and Norma Furst described seventy-six different published systems for
analysing classroom discourse.
It soon became clear from these early studies that the verbal interaction between teachers and
students had an underlying structure that was much the same in all classrooms, and at all grade
levels, in English-speaking countries. Essentially, a teacher asks a question, one or two students
answer, the teacher comments on the students' answers (sometimes summarizing what has been
said), and then asks a further question. This cyclic pattern repeats itself, with interesting
variations, throughout the course of a lesson.
The following excerpt from a whole-class discussion in a fifth-grade science class illustrates the
nature of this typical participation structure. The teacher was reviewing what the students learned
earlier in the day during a science activity on light.
Teacher. What's transparent? Something is transparent. What does that mean? We did that this
morning, didn't we? What does transparent mean?
Valerie. Ah, it doesn't … It goes through.
Teacher. Can you explain that a little more? What goes through?
Valerie. Well it goes through like, um … You can, like, you shine a torch on and you can see.
Teacher. What goes through?
Valerie. The light.
Teacher. The light. Light can pass through something if it's transparent. What's the next one?
Translucent. What does it mean? Jordan?
Jordan. Um, just some light can get through.
Teacher. Absolutely. Some light can get through. Can you look around the room and see an
example of something that might be translucent? Well, you all can tell me something in here that's
translucent because you discovered something this morning that would let some light through.
What was it?
Clarice. Paper.
Teacher. Right. Some paper is translucent. It will allow some light to pass through it. Think of
something else that's translucent.
Morgan. Oh, um, the curtains over there, you can see right through them.
Teacher. OK. Yes that's interesting. They do let some light through don't they. Another example?
Think about light bulbs. Do you think some light bulbs would be translucent?
Pupils. Yes.
Teacher. They would allow some light through?
Pupil. No. Transparent.
Teacher. You think they're transparent. They let all the light through. I'm not too sure about that
one either. So we might investigate that one.
This excerpt contains two episodes, each initiated by a question ("What does transparent mean?"
and "Translucent. What does it mean?"). Within each episode the teacher directed the discussion
by commenting on student answers and asking further questions. Each question set off a question-
answer-comment cycle. At the beginning of the first episode, the teacher set the context by
repeating the question several times and reminding the students that they had learned the answer
during the morning's activity. This focused the students' attention and let them know (from their
previous experiences with this teacher) that they were expected to know the answer.
The first answer (from Valerie) was not in the appropriate language of a definition. Through two
further questions the teacher elicited the missing information and, through a summary, modelled
the form of a scientific definition ("Light can pass through something if it's transparent.").
In the next episode, after Jordon copied this model to define translucent, the teacher asked a
question to find out if the students understood the term well enough to identify an example ("Can
you look around the room and see an example?"). After two answers (paper, curtains) the teacher
provided additional help by suggesting an example (light bulb) and asking if the students agreed.
This excerpt illustrates how teachers use questions and student answers to progressively create the
curriculum, to engage the students' minds, and to evaluate what the students know and can do.
Underlying this exchange are the implicit rules and expectations that determine what, and how,
teachers and students communicate. Each statement depends for its meaning on the context in
which it occurs and, in turn, adds to the context that determines the meaning of subsequent
statements.
Analysis of the patterns of interaction characteristic of most classrooms has shown that, on
average, teachers talk for more than two-thirds of the time, a few students contribute most of the
answers, boys talk more than girls, and those sitting in the front and center of the class are more
likely to contribute than those sitting at the back and sides. Bracha Alpert has identified three
different patterns of classroom discourse: (1) silent (the teacher talks almost all the time and asks
only an occasional question),(2) controlled (as in the excerpt above), and (3) active (the teacher
facilitates while the students talk primarily to each other). Recent attempts to reform teaching
based on constructivist views of learning have called for teachers to ask fewer questions and for
students to learn to state and justify their beliefs and argue constructively about reasons and
evidence.
Earlier research on classroom discourse tended to focus on specific teacher or student behaviors,
and, because of the key role that they play, teacher questions have been most frequently studied.
Questions that challenge students to think deeply about the curriculum are more likely to develop
students' knowledge and intellectual skills than questions that require recall of facts. In the excerpt
above, the first question required simple recall ("what does transparent mean?) while the last
question ("do you think some light bulbs would be transparent?") required the students to apply
their understanding of transparent to their own experience.
The results of this early research were often equivocal, and researchers have argued more recently
that specific utterances cannot be separated from the context in which they occur. Greater
attention is now being paid to the ways in which meanings evolve as teachers and students
mutually construct the unique discourse (with its roles, rules, and expectations) that characterizes
each classroom.
An entirely different form of classroom discourse occurs when students are working together in
small groups. The following excerpt is from a sixth-grade class studying Antarctica. The teacher
organized the students to work in groups of two or three and instructed the students to "write
down all the different types of jobs that you think people might do down in Antarctica." Ben, Paul,
and Jim worked together, and Ben wrote down the list that they created. A nearby group consisted
of Tilly, Koa, and Nell.
Ben. Most of the people there are scientists. In fact, just about all of them are.
Jim. Even the cooks would be scientists?
Ben. Not necessarily. OK.
Jim. Some of them?
Ben. Pilots.
Jim. Yeah, they'd need pilots.
Ben. All the things that need to be done to keep you living. You know, you need to have food, you
need to have shelter.
Jim. I know, a driver. But you could have a scientist to be a driver.
Ben. What else would they do? A-ah, what are they called? I don't know.
Jim. Maintenance man. Maintenance man.
Tilly (overhearing). Thank you. Maintenance person!
Jim. Or lady. Maintenance person.
Paul. I'll tell you what. Um, explorer.
Jim. Um, expedition leader.
Ben (aware that the next group is listening). Just whisper, will you?
(to next group) Stop copying, you lot. Can't you use your own brain?
Jim. Yeah, they haven't got any brain to use.
Ben. Exactly.
Tilly. How many have you got [on your list]?
Jim. Twenty-eight thousand.
Ben. You'll have a job to beat that.
Jim (whispering to Ben). Mm. Builder?
Ben (to teacher passing group). They're copying.
Tilly and Nell. We are not.
Jim. Yeah, they are too.
Teacher. Oh, you don't need that sort of carry on.
Jim. Let's see, um … um … a guide.
Ben. Isn't that kind of like a leader?
Jim. No, 'cause the expedition leader is a leader. He just, the guide knows where everything is. The
expedition leader doesn't.
Ben. An expedition leader has to know where everything is as well, or else he wouldn't be an
expedition leader 'cause he's supposed to guide them all around the place and tell 'em where to go.
He's the most experienced and therefore he should be the guide.
Jim. Yeah, but first of all they'd need a guide that's been there. While he's learning.
Ben. Well, he wouldn't be the leader while he was learning.
Jim. Yeah.
Unlike the teacher-led discussions, the structure of this excerpt is determined by the social
relationships between the students. Paul and Jim thought Ben knew a lot and encouraged him to
assume a leadership role. Mimicking the role of a teacher, he evaluated Jim's contributions ("Not
necessarily. OK."), and provided guidance about how to think about the problem ("All the things
that need to be done to keep you living."). When Jim suggested "guide," Ben questioned whether
this was different from "expedition leader." Jim tried to defend his suggestion but, in the face of
Ben's reasons and authority, he agreed with Ben. Researchers have noted that students are more
likely to have their thinking changed by their peers than by their teacher, and that resolving
differences is simultaneously about negotiating social relationships and consideration of reasons
and evidence.
In this classroom there was an underlying competitiveness, and the teacher had previously talked
with the students about the gender bias in their texts and personal experiences. These two agendas
combined in the conflict that erupted between Ben's and Tilly's groups. When Tilly overheard Jim
use a sexist title ("maintenance man"), she corrected him. This alerted Ben to the possibility that
Tilly's group was listening and copying his group's ideas. He told his own group to whisper and
told the other group they had no brains. Jim followed Ben's lead ("Yeah, they haven't got any brain
to use") and challenged Tilly's group by claiming they had a list of "twenty-eight thousand" items.
Clearly, the structure and function of this discourse reflects both the requirements of the task and
the evolving social relationships and culture (e.g., about gender and ability differences) of this
class.
Classroom Discourse and Learning
There have been two distinct approaches to explaining how classroom discourse relates to what
students learn. Since the 1960s a large number of studies have been carried out in which
frequencies of teacher and student verbal behaviors and interaction patterns (such as asking
higher-order questions, providing structuring information, praising student answers) have been
correlated with student achievement. These developed into experimental studies in which teachers
were scripted to talk in specific predetermined ways. Such studies came to be criticized for their
impersonal empiricism and lack of theory. They failed to consider the contextual nature of
classroom discourse, particularly the meanings that participants attributed to what was being said.
As interest in the constructivist nature of language developed, researchers argued that the learning
process was contained in the process of participating in classroom discourse. As students engage in
the discourse they acquire ways of talking and thinking that characterize a particular curriculum
area. For example, to learn science is to become an increasingly expert participant in classroom
discourse about the procedures, concepts, and use of evidence and argument that constitutes
science. This approach is supported by the theories of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky who
argued that the higher mental processes are acquired through the internalization of the structures
of social discourse. There is still a need, however, for these detailed linguistic and ethnographic
analyses of classroom discourse to include independent evidence of how students' knowledge and
beliefs are changed by their participation in the discourse.
See also: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT; CLASSROOM QUESTIONS; DISCOURSE, subentry on
COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE; LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALPERT, BRACHA R. 1987. "Active, Silent, and Controlled Discussions: Explaining Variations in
Classroom Conversation." Teaching and Teacher Education 3 (1):29–40.
BROPHY, JERE E., and GOOD, TOM. 1986. "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement." In
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edition, ed. Merle C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.
CAZDEN, COURTNEY B. 1986. "Classroom Discourse." In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd
edition, ed. Merle C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.
HICKS, DEBORAH, ed. 1996. Discourse, Learning, and Schooling. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge
University Press.
LEMKE, JAY L. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
NUTHALL, GRAHAM A., and CHURCH, R. JOHN. 1973. "Experimental Studies of Teaching
Behaviour." In Towards a Science of Teaching, ed. Gabriel Chanan. Windsor, Eng.: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
ROSENSHINE, BARAK, and FURST, NORMA 1973. "The Use of Direct Observation to Study Teaching."
In Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. Robert M. W. Travers. Chicago: Rand McNally.
VYGOTSKY, LEV S. 1987. "Thinking and Speech." In The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume
1: Problems of General Psychology, trans. Norris Minick, ed. Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S.
Carton. New York: Plenum Press.
GRAHAM NUTHALL
The field of discourse processing investigates the structures, patterns, mental representations, and
processes that underlie written and spoken discourse. It is a multidisciplinary field that includes
psychology, rhetoric, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, education, sociology, anthropology,
computational linguistics, and computer science.