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

This digest found in

How was the study designed?

This action research study involved six PGCE Secondary English students at five schools in Sussex who received training in ways of managing group talk and promoting higher-order thinking in pupils from three experienced English mentors. During their 10-week final block school placement, the trainee teachers taught a Y7 English class (11-12 year olds) the genre of ‘exploratory’ talk – using explicit ground rules created by the pupils (e.g. ‘include everyone’, ‘give reasons’, ‘ask for explanations’). The trainee teachers were active participants in the research. They evaluated the classroom talk regularly with their mentor, who gave feedback on observations, planning and reflection. The pupils were involved in a similar process of reflection in plenaries.

Three groups of three to four pupils from each class were audio taped at the start and end of the study. The groups were mixed-sex ability groups (high, middle and low). The evaluation was based on:

field notes of the 30 observations made by the mentors;
28 semi-structured interviews with the trainees, mentors and groups of pupils at the start and end of the project;
a selection of lesson evaluations written by the trainee teachers; and
transcripts of the first 15 minutes of the tapes.

The researchers used four indicators to compare the level of higher-order thinking in the first and second tapes: analysis, evaluation, synthesis and hypothesis:

the main indicator of analytical thinking was exploration of language, image or form, including implied meanings and using textual evidence. For example, ‘There the poet is suggesting’;
the indicators of evaluative thinking included phrases such as ‘I think’, using textual evidence from the text and giving reasons;
synthesis was shown by pupils extrapolating from their knowledge of the whole text or other texts to assess the extract they were studying; and
hypothetical thinking was shown by words such as ‘if’ and ‘may’ and by longer utterances associated with more complex clauses and elaborated ideas.

The researchers assessed quality of talk by identifying and comparing passages of exploratory talk that were not necessarily evidence of higher-order thinking, such as participation by all of the group, attempts at reaching a group consensus, sustained focus and use of questioning.

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 was the study designed?
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 was the study designed? This action research study involved six PGCE Secondary English students at five schools in Sussex who received training in ways of managing group talk and promoting higher-order thinking in pupils from three experienced English mentors. During their 10-week final block school placement, the trainee teachers taught a Y7 English class (11-12 year olds) the genre of ‘exploratory’ talk – using explicit ground rules created by the pupils (e.g. ‘include everyone’, ‘give reasons’, ‘ask for explanations’). The trainee teachers were active participants in the research. They evaluated the classroom talk regularly with their mentor, who gave feedback on observations, planning and reflection. The pupils were involved in a similar process of reflection in plenaries. Three groups of three to four pupils from each class were audio taped at the start and end of the study. The groups were mixed-sex ability groups (high, middle and low). The evaluation was based on: field notes of the 30 observations made by the mentors; 28 semi-structured interviews with the trainees, mentors and groups of pupils at the start and end of the project; a selection of lesson evaluations written by the trainee teachers; and transcripts of the first 15 minutes of the tapes. The researchers used four indicators to compare the level of higher-order thinking in the first and second tapes: analysis, evaluation, synthesis and hypothesis: the main indicator of analytical thinking was exploration of language, image or form, including implied meanings and using textual evidence. For example, ‘There the poet is suggesting’; the indicators of evaluative thinking included phrases such as ‘I think’, using textual evidence from the text and giving reasons; synthesis was shown by pupils extrapolating from their knowledge of the whole text or other texts to assess the extract they were studying; and hypothetical thinking was shown by words such as ‘if’ and ‘may’ and by longer utterances associated with more complex clauses and elaborated ideas. The researchers assessed quality of talk by identifying and comparing passages of exploratory talk that were not necessarily evidence of higher-order thinking, such as participation by all of the group, attempts at reaching a group consensus, sustained focus and use of questioning.