Improving the quality of pupils’ talk and thinking during group work

This digest found in

How did the pupil’s group talk change?

By the end of the study, the quality and cognitive level of pupils’ group talk had improved. The pupils:

were more focused;
participated more equally;
asked a greater number of questions;
used more higher-order talk; and
decreased the amount of off-task talk they engaged in.

For example, at the start of the study, the two boys in one low-ability group of four spent around a fifth of the time off-task, whilst the girls’ talk was mainly ‘cumulative’ rather than exploratory. They tended to agree with, rather than question, each other. By the end of the study, the group’s talk was sustained, with the pupils consciously applying the ground rules (asking questions and involving each other etc) to deepen their analysis of a poem (‘The Sea’ Reeves, 1994). One girl in particular encouraged other members of the group to participate in the discussion through guiding and structuring their talk, asking questions that required the other pupils to give their opinions, initiating ideas and critically encouraging a personal response, substantiated with evidence. In this way, the girls successfully triggered the boys’ interest and developed the group’s analysis of the poem.

Girl 1: Shall we pick stuff out like in the first verse?
(The boys talked off-task, distracting a nearby group).
Girl 2: Yeah my personal feelings would be that um ah he the poet’s talking about um a dog and he’s um comparing it to the sea.
Girl 1: What did you think of the poem? (Looks at the two boys).
Girl 2: What did you think of the poem?
Boy 1: What? (Loud, mock indignation).
Girl 1: Do you think it’s a happy or sad poem? Do you think it’s a happy or sad?
Boy 2: It’s a sad poem.
Girl 1: Why do you think it’s a sad poem?
Boy 2: I just think it’s a sad poem. It’s about a dog.
Girl 1: But why is it sad? Why do you think it’s a sad poem?
Girl 2: Come on Nick. Why do you think it’s sad? (Encouraging)
Boy 2: Because it’s about a dog … and he’s hungry and he can’t get any food and he’s asleep on the beach.

In another group, (a high ability group), the pupils were asked to critique each other’s poems personifying a season. As well as giving extended answers to precise higher-order questions, the pupils discussed nuances in each other’s poems, and enhanced the writer’s explanations with their personal interpretations.

For example:
Girl 1: You say ‘their eyes glisten’ how […] do you mean that?
Girl 2: because the sun’s out, the sun reflects on their eyes when they look at the sun.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > English > Improving the quality of pupils’ talk and thinking during group work > How did the pupil’s group talk change?
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction How did the teachers structure and model effective group talk? How did the pupil’s group talk change? What did the pupils feel they gained from working in structured groups? What challenges did the teachers face when promoting group talk? How was the study designed? What are the implications of the study? Where can I find out more? Send us your feedback Collated digests To find out more about collated digests click here Get Word Reader Improving the quality of pupils’ talk and thinking during group work This digest found in English Speaking and Listening Send to a friend Word doc 60KB Printer friendly Collate for later How did the pupil’s group talk change? By the end of the study, the quality and cognitive level of pupils’ group talk had improved. The pupils: were more focused; participated more equally; asked a greater number of questions; used more higher-order talk; and decreased the amount of off-task talk they engaged in. For example, at the start of the study, the two boys in one low-ability group of four spent around a fifth of the time off-task, whilst the girls’ talk was mainly ‘cumulative’ rather than exploratory. They tended to agree with, rather than question, each other. By the end of the study, the group’s talk was sustained, with the pupils consciously applying the ground rules (asking questions and involving each other etc) to deepen their analysis of a poem (‘The Sea’ Reeves, 1994). One girl in particular encouraged other members of the group to participate in the discussion through guiding and structuring their talk, asking questions that required the other pupils to give their opinions, initiating ideas and critically encouraging a personal response, substantiated with evidence. In this way, the girls successfully triggered the boys’ interest and developed the group’s analysis of the poem. Girl 1: Shall we pick stuff out like in the first verse? (The boys talked off-task, distracting a nearby group). Girl 2: Yeah my personal feelings would be that um ah he the poet’s talking about um a dog and he’s um comparing it to the sea. Girl 1: What did you think of the poem? (Looks at the two boys). Girl 2: What did you think of the poem? Boy 1: What? (Loud, mock indignation). Girl 1: Do you think it’s a happy or sad poem? Do you think it’s a happy or sad? Boy 2: It’s a sad poem. Girl 1: Why do you think it’s a sad poem? Boy 2: I just think it’s a sad poem. It’s about a dog. Girl 1: But why is it sad? Why do you think it’s a sad poem? Girl 2: Come on Nick. Why do you think it’s sad? (Encouraging) Boy 2: Because it’s about a dog … and he’s hungry and he can’t get any food and he’s asleep on the beach. In another group, (a high ability group), the pupils were asked to critique each other’s poems personifying a season. As well as giving extended answers to precise higher-order questions, the pupils discussed nuances in each other’s poems, and enhanced the writer’s explanations with their personal interpretations. For example: Girl 1: You say ‘their eyes glisten’ how […] do you mean that? Girl 2: because the sun’s out, the sun reflects on their eyes when they look at the sun.