Teacher–pupil dialogue with pupils

with special educational needs in the

National Literacy Strategy

Frank Hardman*, Fay Smith and Kate WallUniversity of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

This paper reports on an investigation into the interactive and discourse styles of a nationally

representative sample of primary teachers (n 5 70) as they work with pupils who experience

difficulties in literacy development during whole class and group-based sections of the literacy

hour. Using a computerized observation schedule and discourse analysis system, the paper

explores the impact of the official endorsement of ‘interactive whole-class teaching’ on the teaching

of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in the literacy hour to see whether the National

Literacy Strategy (NLS) is promoting their active involvement. The findings suggest that while the

NLS is encouraging teachers to involve pupils with SEN in the literacy hour, the discourse is

dominated by teacher explanation and question/answer sequences that provide little opportunity

for pupils of all abilities to initiate, explore and elaborate on their ideas. The implications of the

findings are considered in the light of their impact on classroom pedagogy and the professional

development of teachers who are charged with implementing the national policy-led initiatives like

the NLS.

Introduction

Since it came to power in 1997, a major thrust of the Labour Government has been

to address standards of literacy in English primary schools. In a bid to achieve this

end, the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) was introduced (DfEE, 1998a). The

NLS was intended to have a major role in raising standards in literacy and reducing

the alleged tail of low achievement that was said to characterize the English

education system (see, for example, Brooks et al., 1996). The framework set out the

teaching objectives for pupils from Reception to Year 6 and gave guidance on the

structure of the ‘literacy hour’ in which teaching should take place. The prescription

consisted of 30 minutes whole-class text, sentence and word level teaching, 20

minutes independent work and a 10 minute plenary. As a result, pupils are expected

to spend approximately 60% of their time being directly taught and 40% working

independently. With regard to pupils with special educational needs (SEN), the

Framework for Teaching stated that many pupils with difficulties may need some extra

*Corresponding author. School of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle

upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. Email: F.C.Hardman@newcastle.ac.uk

Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, August 2005

ISSN 0013-1911 (print)/ISSN 1465-3397 (online)/05/030299-18

# Educational Review

DOI: 10.1080/00131910500149051

support to enable them to play a full part in the literacy hour (DfEE, 1998a). But it

also maintained that all children should be included in the literacy hour, keeping

withdrawn groups to a minimum.

It was claimed that the NLS was firmly based on national and international

evidence and the Department for Education and Skills took the extraordinary step of

commissioning an academic to discover what that evidence might be after the

strategy had been implemented (Beard, 1999). In his review of the evidence, Beard

argues the NLS draws on several programmes specifically targeted at underachieving

pupils. The work of Slavin (1996) in the US and Crevola and Hill (1998) in

Australia feature prominently in the review and the NLS was said to share many

features including a fast-paced, structured curriculum, direct interactive teaching,

systematic phonics and whole-class and group-based reading and writing activities.

A major feature of the strategy, therefore, has been an emphasis on direct,

‘interactive whole-class teaching’ on which a large part of the success of the NLS is

claimed to rest, drawing mainly on the school effectiveness and school improvement

literature (e.g. Reynolds & Farrell, 1996). The research drew attention to the way

teaching in many Asian and Continental countries respect individuality, yet

structure learning tasks on the basis of what children have in common and tries,

as far as possible, to bring all children in a class along together to reduce the wide

range of attainment. It is therefore suggested that more interactive forms of whole-

class teaching will play a vital role in raising literacy standards for all children by

promoting high quality dialogue and discussion and raising inclusion, understanding

and learning performance. In the NLS framework, successful teaching is described

as ‘discursive, characterised by high quality oral work’ and ‘interactive, encouraging,

expecting and extending pupils’ contributions’ (DfEE, 1998a, p. 8). Interactive

whole-class teaching, therefore, is not seen as a return to a traditional ‘lecturing and

drill’ approach in which pupils remain passive, but as an ‘active teaching’ model

encouraging a two-way process.

Following publication of the framework, criticisms were raised that there was no

clear definition and little practical advice on what interactive whole-class teaching

was and how it should be used in the classroom. Galton et al. (1999), for example,

argued little evidence had been presented to show it differs from traditional whole-

class teaching as reported in earlier studies of the primary English classroom (e.g.

Mortimore et al., 1988; Pollard et al., 1994; Alexander et al., 1996). Studies of

classroom discourse had failed to identify patterns of teaching which went beyond

what Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) identified as the ‘initiation–response–feedback’,

or ‘IRF’, teacher–pupil exchange pattern, and little evidence existed as to how

interactive whole-class teaching differed from this traditional pattern. Criticism was

also raised about whether the needs of all children across the primary age range

could be met by a national strategy; in other words, whether the literacy hour, with

its emphasis on whole-class teaching and inclusion of pupils with SEN, was flexible

enough for use across a year or class (Byers, 1999; Knight, 1999; Dehaney, 2000;

Fisher, 2000semi; Wearmouth & Soler, 2001; Miller et al., 2003). Corden (2000)

argues, however, that the advantage of whole-class teaching of pupils with SEN is

300 F. Hardman et al.

that it helps these children feel part of the class and to participate on a more level

plane with their peers.

There was also concern about the lack of advice for teaching pupils with SEN in

the NLS framework, apart from a suggestion that groups of pupils should be

differentiated by ability during the literacy hour, and that individuals should be

‘well-trained’ not to interrupt during the activities. It was not until 6 months after

implementation that additional guidance was provided (DfEE, 1998b). At six pages,

Byers (1999) suggests that it left too many questions unanswered and many schools

were left to make their own sense of the requirements. This was followed by further

guidance for supporting pupils with SEN in the literacy hour (DfEE, 2000a) which

offered advice about interactive techniques with pupils with SEN building on earlier

training materials (DfEE, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). Teachers were advised to stay

open to unexpected ideas, to build on pupil answers, to ask for clarification, and to

encourage pupils to elaborate on their answers so as to ensure a better teacher–pupil

balance. The training materials also promoted games and drama activities as a way

of encouraging active learning and these were included in subsequent materials on

the teaching of grammar (DfEE, 2000b), early writing (DfEE, 2001a) and phonics

(DfES, 2001b). The guided reading and writing sessions were also seen as providing

a shared context to encourage greater pupil participation and decision-making.

English et al.’s (2002) research, however, suggests many teachers were facing

pedagogical confusion because of the need for lessons to be ‘well-paced with a sense

of urgency’ and at the same time ‘ensuring pupils’ contributions are encouraged,

expected and extended’ (DfEE, 1998a, p. 8).

It was in light of this earlier debate about whether pupils with SEN were being

accommodated within the prescribed structure of the literacy hour that we set about

investigating the national strategy’s impact on the teaching of pupils with SEN. The

main question we set out to answer was: what interactive and discourse strategies are

teachers using to actively engage pupils with SEN in whole-class and group-based

sections of the literacy hour?

The study

In order to study the interaction and discourse styles of the 70 teachers teaching the

literacy hour between January and May 2001, we used quantitative and qualitative

methods: a computer assisted systematic observation schedule and discourse

analysis of transcripts from video recorded lessons. The two approaches allowed

for methodological triangulation to give greater confidence in the findings.

Computer assisted observation

Observations were carried out using a computerized observation system developed

by the research team known as the Classroom Interaction System (CIS) (Smith &

Hardman, 2003). A sampling method known as focal sampling with multiple actors

was used. This meant that we could focus upon the teacher and other ‘focal subjects’

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 301

(e.g. the SEN pupils). Our coding scheme enabled us to focus on the following

participants: the teacher, four pupils identified by the teacher as having the most

special need in literacy, ‘other’ pupils (their peers) and the whole class.

The coding scheme uses ‘The Observer’ software (Noldus Information

Technology, 1995) to log the number of different types of discourse moves made

by teachers and pupils. This was done using a handheld device about the size of a

calculator. This computerized system enabled us to observe the lesson in real-time

and was quicker than traditional paper and pencil methods because the data were

instantly stored, and therefore available for immediate analysis. We obtained good

measures of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (correlations of 0.86 and 0.78

respectively).

The computerized system logged (for each teaching exchange): the actor, the

discourse move and who the receiver was. It therefore primarily focused on the

three-part, IRF structure and gathered data on teachers’ questions, whether

questions were answered (and by whom), and the types of evaluation given in

response to answers. It also recorded pupil initiations in the form of questions and

statements. The system recorded whether teacher questions were open (i.e. defined

in terms of the teacher’s reaction to the pupils’ answer: only if the teacher accepted

more than one answer to the question would it be judged as open) or closed (i.e.

calling for a single response or offering facts). Responses were coded according to

whether a pupil with SEN responded or ‘other’ pupil, or whether there was a choral

reply. Teacher feedback to a pupil’s answer was coded according to whether it was

praised, criticized, or accepted. The system also captured two alternative strategies

in the feedback move: probes (where the teacher stayed with the same child to ask

further questions) and uptake questions (where the teacher incorporated a pupil’s

answer into a subsequent question). Research suggests such feedback moves can

help the traditional IRF structure take on a variety of forms and functions leading to

different levels of pupil participation and engagement (Nassaji & Wells, 2000).

Transcript analysis

In order to triangulate the systematic observation using the CIS schedule, a sub-

sample of 10 ‘effective’ teachers as measured by value added data, and whose

discourse patterns appeared more varied on the computer analysis, were video

recorded. They were recorded while teaching the whole class and a group of pupils

with SEN for transcription and coding using discourse analysis. The whole-class and

group-based transcripts were then analysed using a framework adapted from Sinclair

and Coulthard’s (1975) system of discourse analysis focusing on teaching

exchanges.

Sample characteristics

The national sample of 70 primary school teachers was identified using Performance

Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) data provided by the Curriculum, Evaluation

302 F. Hardman et al.

and Management Centre at Durham University (Tymms, 1999). These tests assess

attainment in maths, reading and science, vocabulary, non-verbal ability and home

background of pupils, and attitude and self-esteem. Using PIPS data ensured the

sample included teachers working in a range of socio-economic and geographical

settings from Reception through to Year 6. It also allowed us to identify ‘effective’

teachers whose value-added scores had been above average in the previous year. The

sample was drawn from the north-east, north-west and south-east of England.

Only six of the 70 teachers were male. Forty-six per cent of the teachers taught

Key Stage 1 (KS1) and 54% taught Key Stage 2 (KS2). A quarter of the sample

taught Reception, while the rest were evenly distributed between Years 1 to 6. Forty

of the teachers (57%) were classed as being ‘effective’ in their teaching of literacy

(according to the value-added data—above ‘+2’) and 30 were ‘average’ (their value

added scores lay between ¡0.5). Most of the teachers taught a mixed ability group

(74%), 14% taught a lower set, 6% taught a middle set and 6% an upper set. Most

of the observations took place first thing in the morning (53% before the morning

break), 41% took place just before lunch, and the remaining observations (only 6%)

were just after lunch.

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of each class. The classes ranged in size

from 10 to 33 with an average of 25 pupils. The average number of pupils with SEN

per class was seven (the average percentage of pupils with SEN in a class was 29%),

and the standard deviation was quite high. In order to identify pupils with SEN we

asked teachers to select four pupils who were having the most problems with literacy.

Most pupils, over 93%, fell within stages 1–3 of the Code of Practice (DfE, 1994).

The remaining 7% of pupils had statements for language-related or behavioural

difficulties and none of the pupils had severe hearing impairment or other physical

disabilities. Like Croll and Moses (2000), we perceived teachers were making

judgements about pupils with SEN partly, but not entirely, with reference to the

overall attainment in their school. This suggested, because of the varying socio-

economic status of the schools, that in a high attaining school a child would be on

the register when a child with the same attainment level in a lower attaining school

would not, making the judgements, at times, seem a little idiosyncratic. The classes

were roughly half-and-half male/female, with 53% male pupils in class being the

average.

Table 1. Class characteristics for the observation sample

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation

(SD)

No. of pupil in class 10 33 25.15 5.83

No. of pupils with SEN 0 29 6.90 5.20

Pupils with SEN in class (%) 0 100 29.10 22.89

No. of females in class 2 20 11.90 3.95

No. of males in class 4 21 13.36 3.72

Male pupils in class (%) 31 83 53.25 10.97

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 303

The average length of the 70 literacy hours we observed was 57 minutes; however,

lessons varied in length from 31 minutes to 1 hour 19 minutes. Forty-five of the 70

teachers (64%) followed the traditional format of the literacy hour by having one

whole-class section, one group work section and then a plenary section. Some of the

other teachers broke up the literacy hour more by, for example, having two group

sessions and two whole-class sessions. Of our sample, 19 teachers did not hold a

plenary session (27%). We found that teachers are spending slightly more time on

group work and less time on the plenary session (only 5 minutes on average). Many

teachers also identified the main learning objectives for the lesson at text, sentence or

word level.

Findings

The following section reports on the findings of the CIS schedule and transcripts

analysing the patterns of teacher–pupil interaction with pupils with SEN compared

to that of their peers, together with an analysis of teacher-led group-based activities

pupils with SEN. A more detailed discussion of the whole-class findings can be

found in Hardman et al. (2003).

Teacher initiated discourse

In the following analysis of the whole-class interaction, we present the data as

averages per hour: thus taking into account the length of each teacher’s lesson.

Figure 1 shows the typical teacher-initiated discourse profile for a literacy hour (we

are not, at this stage, looking at any pupil discourse).

Figure 1 shows that closed questions were the most frequent form of discourse

behaviour (on average 52 closed questions were asked per literacy hour). The

teachers in our sample directed the pupils 29 times per lesson and explained 28

Figure 1. Discourse profile for a typical literacy hour

304 F. Hardman et al.

times. It is clear that directive behaviour is the dominant form of discourse in the

literacy hour.

Teacher-initiated behaviours that were less common included uptake questions

(three per lesson), writing—where the teacher would be writing on a board—(three

per lesson), and answering a pupil’s questions (four per lesson). Teachers classed as

being ‘average’ by the value added data asked more closed questions and fewer open

questions than the ‘effective’ teachers. While the difference between these two

groups was not significant for closed questions (t 5 21.19, ns), it was for open

questions (t 5 2.54, p,0.05). We also compared the two groups of teachers for the

whole-class and group-based teaching and found similar results. Differences across

key stages also proved significant: KS1 teachers asked twice the number of closed

questions compared to KS2 teachers (t 5 4.85, p,0.001), they also directed more

(t 5 2.80, p,0.01). KS2 teachers asked significantly more uptake questions

(t 5 23.08, p,0.01) and open questions (t 5 22.79, p,0.01), and they answered

more questions (t 5 22.17, p,0.05). We performed this analysis (comparing the

two key stages) for the whole-class section of the literacy hour and found similar

results, with the addition that KS1 teachers spent more time on reading than the

KS2 teachers during the whole-class part (t 5 2.05, p,0.05).

In Figure 2, it is interesting to compare the analysis of the whole-class part of the

lesson (ignoring the plenary part) with the group-based section when teachers are

working with a group of pupils with SEN.

A t-test found significant differences between the discourse in the group part with

pupils with SEN and the whole-class section of the literacy hour. The biggest

differences (all significant at p,0.001) were as follows:

N More explaining, reading, repeat, open and uptake questions during the whole-

class part;

N More direction and more teacher answers during the group part.

Figure 2. Comparison of discourse profiles for whole-class and group parts of the literacy hour

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 305

Our findings, therefore, suggest teachers exercised a more directing influence over

the talk when working with a group of pupils with SEN. It was assumed that by

working with a smaller number of pupils, teachers would relax their directing

influence over the talk, thereby providing more opportunities for pupils to initiate

ideas, ask questions and to elaborate on their answers. In fact, we found teachers

tended to use lower cognitive interactions, with fewer challenging questions and

sustained interactions with pupils.

We also investigated the impact of setting upon the discourse in the classroom as

26% of the schools had adopted it as a strategy for teaching pupils with SEN within

the literacy hour. We grouped classes into whether they were mixed, lower set,

middle set or upper set. Looking first at the entire literacy hour (not just the whole-

class part), we found that setting affected the amount of uptake questions asked and

the amount of writing by the teacher (see Figure 3).

A one-way ANOVA test was used, followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test.

Teachers teaching an upper set were significantly more likely to ask uptake questions

than those teaching a lower set or a mixed set (nine uptake questions to an upper set

compared to 2.2 to a lower set or 2.6 to a mixed class). The amount of writing by the

teacher was also higher with the upper sets.

Figure 4 shows the discourse profile for only the whole-class part of the literacy

hour. The same pattern remains for the uptake questions. In addition, open

Figure 3. Comparison of discourse profiles across class setting—entire literacy hour (LH)

Figure 4. Comparison of discourse profiles across class setting—whole-class part only

306 F. Hardman et al.

questions were more common in the upper set classrooms compared to the lower

sets and mixed ability classes. Refocusing was significantly higher in the lower set,

and infrequent in the upper set.

The class percentage of pupils with SEN and the percentage of boys in a class had

no effect upon the discourse that took place in whole-class teaching.

Pupil discourse

Table 2 shows the most common forms of discourse used by the pupils across all 70

lessons. When pupils spoke it was to answer a question (86% of the time). Reading

was the next most common activity (10%). Pupils therefore rarely asked questions or

offered information.

As discussed earlier, for the purposes of our observation we focussed upon the

four pupils identified by the teacher as having the greatest problems in literacy in

order to compare their interactions with the teacher to that of the rest of the class.

We can see from Figure 5 that our four pupils with SEN (the focal pupils)

contributed 20% of the time to the lesson. Considering these four pupils constitute

only a small part of the class (typical size 25), this is a higher proportion than

Table 2. Discourse profile for all pupils during whole class teaching

Behaviour Frequency Percentage (%)

Open question 17 0.3

Closed question 53 1.0

Explain 75 1.4

Answer 4468 85.7

Read 534 10.2

Write 65 1.2

Total 5212 100

Figure 5. Contributions to the lesson by type of pupil (SEN, other or whole class)

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 307

expected. Although the contributions were mainly made up of responses to teacher

questions like that of their peers, it was also found that pupils with SEN asked three

times as many questions as the other pupils. However, the results could have been

affected by fact that the teachers knew we were focusing on the pupils with SEN,

what Labov (1994) calls the observer’s paradox. It should also be remembered that

the pupils with SEN would have contributed via the whole-class route.

Setting and teacher effectivesness had no impact upon the number of answers

offered by the pupils with SEN, other pupils and whole class. However, key stage did

make a difference. Figure 6 shows the differences in rate of answers offered per hour

by key stage. In KS1, pupils with SEN offered significantly more answers per hour

than KS2 pupils with SEN (t 5 2.19, p,0.05). Also in KS1, whole-class answers

were more frequent than in KS2 (t 5 2.91, p,0.01).

Evaluations of pupils’ answers

In the three-part, IRF structure, when a pupil has given an answer to a question, the

teacher can then evaluate this answer with praise, acceptance, criticism or a further

probe. Our analysis showed that the majority of evaluations of answers were

acceptances (57%). The teachers offered praise 21% of the time, probed for another

answer (from the same pupil) 14% of the time and rarely criticized an answer (7%).

(see Table 3). It can be seen that the amount of criticism and probing during the

literacy hour varied considerably between teachers. Teacher effectiveness, setting

arrangements, class percentage of pupils with SEN, class male percentage and time

of day had no effects upon answer evaluations. However, key stage did: KS1 teachers

significantly praised more than KS2 teachers (t 5 4.60, p,0.001). Where as KS1

teachers praised 26% of all answers, this dropped to 17% for KS2 teachers.

Figure 6. Differences across key stage in terms of number of answers offered by different pupils

308 F. Hardman et al.

We investigated answer evaluations further to see if teachers used different kinds

of evaluations depending upon who the answer came from: a pupil with SEN, an

‘other’ pupil, or the whole class (Figure 7). We found a large significant difference

between the amount of acceptances according to the receiver: the figure of 57%

increases to 87% if the answer originates from the whole class. It seems that the

higher impact evaluations are reserved for individual pupils: a whole-class answer

receives praise only 6%, probes 6% and criticism 1% of the time. A GLM repeated

measures test was used to investigate this (F 5 95.12, p,0.001).

Teachers also used more probes with pupils with SEN than with ‘other’ pupils

(F 5 19.19, p,0.001). With pupils with SEN teachers probed 16.9% of the time,

compared to 12.6% of the time with ‘other’ pupils. Teacher effectiveness had no

impact upon the type of answer evaluations given by teachers to pupils with SEN,

other pupils or the whole class. Similarly, key stage and setting had no effect.

Discourse analysis

A sub-sample of 10 lessons (five KS1/five KS2) was analysed using discourse

analysis. The discourse analysis framework provided a clear and systematic basis for

Figure 7. Amount of acceptances according to type of pupil

Table 3. Amount of evaluations offered per hour

Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Praise 3 65 21.66 13.83

Accept 20 142 56.92 25.61

Criticise 0 28 6.91 5.89

Probe 0 101 15.96 16.17

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 309

analysing the classroom discourse in all 10 lessons and for triangulating the results

with the computerized systematic observation data. Analysing the patterning of the

teaching exchanges in whole-class and group-based activities provided a useful

means of further exploring the discourse strategies used by the teachers. In addition

to analysing the teaching exchanges, we also explored and quantified the teachers’

use of open and closed questions, uptakes and probes in response to pupils’ answers,

and the length of pupil utterances.

The transcript analysis shows there was little overall variation in the patterning of

the teacher exchanges used by the 10 teachers as they taught the whole class and

while working with a group of pupils with SEN. Teacher explanation and teacher-

directed question-and-answer make up the majority of discourse moves in all 10

lessons accounting for 80% of the total teaching exchanges. The discourse analysis

revealed the rapid pace of teachers’ questioning and the predictable sequence of

teacher-led recitation in which the parts are nearly always being played out as

teacher–pupil–teacher. Pupils’ responses were often evaluated and commented on

by the teacher who maintained the right to determine what was relevant within his/

her pedagogic agenda. Teacher-directed interrogation of pupil knowledge and

understanding was therefore the most common form of teacher–pupil interaction,

with teacher questioning rarely going beyond the recall and clarification of

information.

The following example, shown in Table 4, taken from a Year 2 (6/7 years of age)

lesson exploring spelling patterns, is typical of the patterning of teaching exchanges

used by all 14 teachers.

Table 4 illustrates clearly the teacher’s pervasive use of the three-part exchange

and the elaborate nature of many of her sequences of elicits which are chained

together to form a lengthy transaction. The extract in Table 4 illustrates how the

teacher uses starter acts (Turns 1 and 11) as a matter of routine in opening moves.

These are similar in function to what Edwards and Mercer (1987) call ‘cued

elicitations’ and French and MacLure (1981) term ‘preformulations’ where she

provides advance warning that a question is imminent and provides some clues as to

how to answer it. Pupil responses are often brief and evaluated and commented on

by the teacher who has the right to determine what is relevant within her pedagogic

agenda. The sequence also shows the way in which teacher-directed talk of this kind

creates the impression of knowledge and understanding being elicited from the

pupils rather than being imposed by the teacher.

The sequence continues (Table 5) when Jack, a pupil with SEN, offers a word

which had been covered in the previous lesson. Initially, the teacher is reluctant to

digress from her agenda (Turn 3), but Jack persists (Turn 11) and she decides to

include it as a point of revision and to involve him in the lesson (Turn 13). We also

see the teacher probing Jack’s answers (Turns 16 and 19).

Again, the extract in Table 5 illustrates the rapid pace of teacher questioning

within the IRF sequence leaving little time for reflection on the topic under

discussion. The flow of the dialogue mainly consists of elicitation sequences,

initiated and controlled by the teacher through turn-allocation procedures that

310 F. Hardman et al.

identify and regulate speakers within the classroom action, and evaluation of pupil

answers.

There was little variation in teacher discourse style when working with a group of

pupils during the 20 minute guided reading and writing activities, although there

was more teacher direction and closed questions. Teachers therefore exercised close

control over the nature, pace and direction of the knowledge pursued in the lessons,

regardless of whether it was with the whole class or group of children, thereby

supporting the computerized systematic observation data which suggests that the

teaching was mainly interrogative and directive in nature.

The length of pupil utterances was also analysed to explore to what extent pupils

were encouraged to elaborate on their answers. Overall, we found that pupils were

providing answers that were three words or fewer for 80% of the time. Pupil

Table 4. Teacher-Pupil exchanges

Exchanges Moves Acts

Turn 1 T right Fr m

I’m going to change just one letter in that word there or

I would like somebody to try and do it for me try and

change one letter in that word silly me I’m pointing to

it change it and see if you can make

another word s

would anyone like to try Amy el/n

2 P coil R rep

3 T good girl Amy F e

4 T which letter am I going to change then I el

5 P n (chorus) R rep

6 T the n for the l F e

7 T would you like to come and write it please

I’m wondering Amy if you could write it just a bit

bigger so that the other children can see good girl

I d

8 T now somebody else with another one I el

Rebecca n

9 P foil R rep

10 T foil oh right F e

so we’re going to leave the ending the same com

11 T and what are we going to do this time I s

we’re going to which letter are we going to change

this time

el

12 P the c R rep

13 T that’s right we’re going to change the beginning aren’t we I e

14 T would you like to come and write that down for me

Rebecca

I el

15 P (non verbal) R rep

16 T good girl F e

Note: the moves: Initiation, Response, Feedback, make up the three-part teaching exchange which

in turn are made up of acts: com 5 comment; d 5 direct; e 5 evaluation; el 5 elicitation; i 5 inform;

rep 5 reply; s 5 starter; m 5 marker; n 5 nominate. Frame (Fr) indicates a transition in the lesson.

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 311

contributions were therefore rarely sustained or extended to encourage higher

cognitive interactions. Comparison between whole-class and group-based teaching

showed some variation in the type of questions asked and the length of pupil

utterance. When working with a group of pupils with SEN, teachers asked fewer

open-ended questions (an average of 12% of all questions asked) compared to

whole-class teaching (an average of 18%) and only 15% of responses were more than

three words long. Therefore the transcript analysis suggests that the teachers tended

to use fewer challenging questions when working with special needs pupils, which in

turn encouraged fewer sustained responses. However, the analysis of the transcripts

showed some of the teachers encouraged higher levels of pupil participation and

engagement through open questions and different use of the follow-up move.

Through feedback which went beyond evaluation of the pupil’s answer (i.e. probing

and the use of uptake), teachers sometimes extended the answer to draw out its

Table 5. Teacher–pupil exchanges

Exchanges Moves Acts

1 T yes Jack I el

2 P Troy R rep

3 T Troy yes that was an interesting word that wasn’t it F e

4 T shush shush Georgia thank you good girl well done I d

5 T my goodness you’re getting very good at this aren’t you I s

Natasha n/el

6 P boil R rep

7 T boil right F el

8 T so which one are we going to change this time I el

9 P the f R rep

10 T the f for a b good girl F e

11 P miss can I write Troy down I el

12 T you can write Troy down in a moment Jack R rep

13 T and maybe you can tell me what we

talked about that word yesterday thank you I s

right come on Jack you can write that word down for me d

now what should it have to start with el

14 P t R rep

15 T that’s right it needs that F e

16 T but what sort of a letter are we going to use I el

17 P capital R rep

18 T you need a capital good boy F el

19 T why do we need the capital for it Jack I el

20 P because it’s a name R rep

21 T it’s a name right F e

22 T would you like to write it down for us please I el

23 P (non verbal) R rep

24 T good boy Jack well done thank you F e

Note: See footnote to Table 4.

312 F. Hardman et al.

significance, or to make connections with other contributions during the lesson topic

so as to encourage greater pupil participation.

Conclusion and implications

The paper set out to investigate teacher–pupil dialogue with pupils with SEN in the

literacy hour. While such pupils appear to actively participate in whole-class and

group-based talk, their contributions, like that of their peers, are often limited to

answering teacher questions in which recall and clarification of information

dominate. Teacher-led recitation therefore seeks predictable answers and only

rarely are teachers’ questions used to assist pupils to more complete or elaborated

ideas, to build on pupil ideas, or to provide diagnostic feedback to pupil answer.

This finding is supported by recent studies of whole-class talk in the NLS (Mroz

et al., 2000; Hardman et al., 2003; Moyles et al., 2003).

We also found that teachers were replicating their whole-class, teacher-led

recitation strategy when working with a group of pupils with SEN; however, there

was even more teacher direction and closed questions, thereby closing down

opportunities for higher pupil engagement and initiations. This finding is supported

by Skidmore et al.’s (2003) study of guided reading and writing where it was found

teachers were replicating whole-class discourse patterns: teachers did most of the

talking, asked mainly closed questions, and tightly managed the turn taking and

direction of the talk. Similarly, when pupils with SEN were placed in a lower set, the

discourse was more directional and less cognitively demanding, with fewer open and

uptake questions.

Key stage also made a difference to teacher–pupil dialogue: Reception and KS1

teachers were found to be even more directive in their teaching, asking twice the

number of closed questions compared to KS2 teachers, leading to fewer sustained

interactions and lower levels of cognitive engagement. This finding may have been

influenced by the greater emphasis on word level objectives (i.e. vocabulary,

phonics, spelling) which we observed at Reception and KS1 and is an area in need of

further investigation. It should not be assumed, however, that the teaching of word

level objectives will necessarily lead to direct instruction in which the teacher takes

an active role and pupils respond passively. As Ehri et al. (2001) discuss, phonics can

be taught using a variety of active approaches. This is a view endorsed in government

training materials where it states ‘phonics can and should be taught in interesting

and active ways that engage young children’s attention, and that are relevant to their

interests and build on their experiences’ (DfES, 2001b, p. 4).

Overall, our findings suggest that traditional patterns of whole-class interaction

have not been dramatically transformed by the NLS. Such ‘top-down’ curriculum

initiatives, while bringing about a scenario of change in such things as inclusion,

curriculum content, lesson structure, teacher planning, assessment and record

keeping, often leave deeper levels of pedagogy untouched. Traditional patterns of

teacher–pupil interaction persist, with teacher questioning only rarely being used to

assist pupils to articulate more complete or elaborated ideas as recommended by

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 313

government training materials (DfEE 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a,

2001b). The findings also raise questions about the effectiveness of the in-service

training programmes that have accompanied the NLS. As Alexander (2000) argues,

they point to the need for different approaches in order to change habitual classroom

behaviours and traditional discourse patterns. Earl et al. (2003) also suggest that

changing such pedagogic understanding and practices remains a major challenge in

securing the long-term effectiveness of the strategies.

Moyles et al. (2003) suggest that in order to bring about changes in traditional

patterns of whole-class teaching, there is a need for greater reliance upon teachers

developing, through their own experience and reflection, their own personal views

of good practice. Similarly, Joyce (1992) argues that teachers need extended

opportunities to think through new ideas and to try out new practices, ideally in a

context where they get feedback from a more expert practitioner and continue to

refine their practice in collaboration with colleagues. Monitoring and self-evaluation

therefore need to become a regular part of in-service training, thereby giving teachers

a degree of ownership of the process of school improvement. Coaching and talk-

analysis feedback may be useful tools for professional development whereby

sympathetic discussion by groups of teachers of data (recordings and transcriptions)

derived from their own classrooms could be an effective starting point for critical

reflection. Such an approach could provide supportive interactions with peers

through modelling and feedback in order to change traditional patterns of whole-

class and group-based interaction necessary for responsive teaching. Our findings

also suggest a need for further research into ways of effectively supporting teachers in

their professional development in order to promote more reciprocal forms of

teaching and to provide comprehensive evidence that more active pupil involvement

in classroom discourse can produce significant gains in learning.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Nuffield Foundation for funding the research

discussed in this article.

References

Alexander, R. (2000) Culture & pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education (Oxford,

Blackwell).

Alexander, R., Willcocks, J. & Nelson, N. (1996) Discourse, pedagogy and the National

Curriculum: change and continuity in primary schools, Research Papers in Education, 11(1),

81–120.

Beard, R. (1999) The National Literacy Strategy: review of research and other related evidence

(London, Department for Education and Employment).

Brooks, G., Pugh, A. K. & Schagen, I. (1996) Reading performance at nine (Slough, National

Foundation for Educational Research).

Byers, R. (1999) The National Literacy Strategy and pupils with special educational needs, British

Journal of Special Educational Needs, 26(1), 8–11.

Corden, R. (2000) Literacy and learning through talk (Buckingham, Open University Press).

314 F. Hardman et al.

Crevola, C. A. & Hill, P. W. (1998) Evaluation of a whole-school approach to prevention and

intervention in early literacy, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3(2), 133–157.

Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000) Special needs in the primary school (London, Cassell).

Dehaney, R. (2000) Literacy hour and the literal thinker: the inclusion of children with

semantic-pragmatic language difficulties in the literacy hour, Support for Learning, 15(1),

36–40.

DfE (1994) Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs (London,

HMSO).

DfEE (1998a) The National Literacy Strategy: a framework for teaching (London, Department for

Education and Employment).

DfEE (1998b) The National Literacy Strategy: a framework for teaching (additional guidance); children

with special educational needs (London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (1999a) The National Literacy Strategy training modules 1: teaching and learning strategies

(London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (1999b) Talking in class (London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (1999c) Engaging all pupils (London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (2000a) The National Literacy Strategy: supporting pupils with special educational needs in the

literacy hour (London, Department for Education and Employment).

DfEE (2000b) The National Literacy Strategy: grammar for writing (London, Department for

Education and Employment).

DfEE (2001a) The National Literacy Strategy: developing early writing (London, Department for

Education and Employment).

DfES (2001b) Progression in phonics: materials for whole-class teaching (London, Department for

Education and Skills).

Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M. & Torrance, N. with Jantzi, D.,

Mascall, B. & Volante, L. (2003) Watching & learning: final report of the external evaluation of

England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies

in Education, University of Toronto).

Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S. & Willows, D. (2001) Systematic phonics instruction helps students

learn to read: evidence form the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis, Review of

Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987) Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the

classroom (London, Methuen).

English, E., Hargreaves, L. & Hislam, J. (2002) Pedagogical dilemmas in the National Literacy

Strategy: primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour, Cambridge

Journal of Education, 32(1), 9–26.

Fisher, R. (2000) Developmentally appropriate practice and a National Literacy Strategy, British

Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 58–69.

French, P. & MacLure, M. (Eds) (1981) Adult–child conversation (London, Croom Helm).

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. & Pell, A. (1999) Inside the primary classroom: 20

years on (London, Routledge).

Hardman, F., Smith, F. & Wall, K. (2003) ‘Interactive whole class teaching’ in the National

Literacy Strategy, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 197–215.

Joyce, B. (1992) Cooperative learning and staff development: teaching the method with the

method, Cooperative Learning, 12(2), 10–13.

Knight, B. A. (1999) Towards inclusion of students with special educational needs in the regular

classroom, Support for Learning, 14(1), 3–7.

Labov, W. (1994) Principles of linguistic change (Oxford, Blackwell).

Miller, C., Lacey, P. & Layton, L. (2003) Including children with special educational needs in the

literacy hour: a continuing challenge, British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 13–20.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. & Ecob, R. (1988) School matters (Wells, Open

Books).

Teaching of pupils with SENS in the NLS 315

Moyles, J., Hargreaves, L., Merry, R., Paterson, F. & Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003) Interactive teaching

in the primary school: digging deeper into meanings (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).

Mroz, M., Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2000) The discourse of the literacy hour, Cambridge Journal

of Education, 30(3), 379–390.

Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000) What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: an investigation of teacher–

student interaction, Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.

Noldus Information Technology (1995) The Observer, Base Package for Windows, Reference

manual, Version 3.0 edition (Wageningen, Noldus Information Technology).

Pollard, A., Broadfoot, P., Croll, P., Osborn, N. & Abbot, D. (1994) Changing English primary

schools? (London, Cassell).

Reynolds, D. & Farrell, S. (1996) Worlds apart?—a review of international studies of educational

achievement involving England (London, HMSO for OFSTED).

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and

pupils (London, Oxford University Press).

Skidmore, D., Perez-Parent, M. & Arnfield, S. (2003) Teacher–pupil dialogue in the guided

reading session, Reading, 37(2), 47–53.

Slavin, R. E. (1996) Education for all (Amsterdam, Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger).

Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003) Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing

classroom interaction, Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.

Tymms, P. (1999) Baseline assessment and monitoring in primary schools’ achievements, attitudes, and

value-added indicators (London, David Fulton).

Wearmouth, J. & Soler, J. (2001) How inclusive is the literacy hour? British Journal of Special

Education, 24(3), 113–119.

316 F. Hardman et al.