British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30, No.

3
June 2004

Interactive whole class teaching in the

National Literacy and Numercy
Strategies
Fay Smith*, Frank Hardman, Kate Wall and Maria Mroz
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

(Received 4 March 2003; conditionally accepted 23 June 2003; accepted 8 July 2003)

The study set out to investigate the impact of the official endorsement of ‘interactive whole class
teaching’ on the interaction and discourse styles of primary teachers while teaching the National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. In both strategies, interactive whole class teaching is seen as
an ‘active teaching’ model promoting high quality dialogue and discussion between teachers and
pupils. Pupils are expected to play an active part in discussion by asking questions, contributing
ideas and explaining and demonstrating their thinking to the class. Using computerized systematic
classroom observation, discourse analysis of transcripts and a questionnaire, the project looked
specifically at the discourse strategies currently used by a national sample of primary teachers
when teaching the literacy and numeracy strategies and their perceptions of current practices. The
findings suggest that traditional patterns of whole class interaction have not been dramatically
transformed by the strategies. The implications of the findings for classroom pedagogy, teachers’
professional development and future research priorities are considered.

Introduction
Since 1997, a major thrust of the new government has been to address standards of
literacy and numeracy in English primary schools. In a bid to achieve this end, the
National Literacy Strategy (NLS) was launched in 1998 (Department for Education
and Employment [DfEE], 1998) and the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS) in
1999 (DfEE, 1999a). It is claimed that these policy-led initiatives have had a major
impact on many aspects of primary education, including teaching styles, and there
is much rhetoric about their efficacy from politicians, government agencies, the
media, teachers and teachers’ representatives.
A major feature of the strategies has been an emphasis on direct, ‘interactive
whole class teaching’, drawing mainly on the school effectiveness and school
improvement literature (e.g. Reynolds & Farrell, 1996; Reynolds 1998; Reynolds &
Muijs, 1999). It is suggested that more interactive forms of whole class teaching will
play a vital role in raising literacy and numeracy standards by promoting high quality

*Corresponding author: School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences,

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Joseph Cowen House, St Thomas Street, Newcastle upon
Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. Email: fay.smith@ncl.ac.uk
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/04/030395-17
 2004 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/01411920410001689706
396 F. Smith et al.

dialogue and discussion and raising inclusion, understanding and learning perform-
ance. 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, 1998, p. 8). Similarly, the NNS Framework
states: ‘high-quality direct teaching is oral, interactive and lively … in which pupils
are expected to play an active part by answering questions, contributing points to
discussion, and explaining and demonstrating their methods to the class’ (DfEE,
1999a, p. 11). In both strategies, interactive whole class teaching 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.
However, critics argue there is no clear definition and little practical advice for
teachers on what interactive whole class teaching is and how it should be used in the
classroom. For example, Galton et al. (1999) argue that little evidence has 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 from North
America and the UK (e.g. Mehan, 1979; Edwards & Westgate, 1994) show that
whole class teaching across all stages of schooling is dominated by what Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) call the ‘recitation script’. In its prototypical form teacher-led
recitation consists of three moves: an initiation, usually in the form of a teacher
question, a response in which a student attempts to answer the question, and a
follow-up move, in which the teacher provides some form of feedback (very often in
the form of an evaluation) to the pupil’s response. This three-part exchange
structure, as revealed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), is therefore particularly
prevalent in directive forms of teaching and consists of a series of unrelated teacher
questions that require convergent factual answers and pupil display of (presumably)
known information. Recitation questioning therefore seeks predictable correct an-
swers and only rarely are teachers’ questions used to assist pupils to more complete
or elaborated ideas.
Brown et al. (1998, pp. 370–371) suggest that despite the claims for whole class
teaching, the evidence that it is associated with higher attainment in mathematics is
‘not unambiguous’. Brown and her colleagues point out that while some studies
show correlations between whole class teaching and attainment, there is also
evidence that whole class teaching can be associated with particularly poor results.
They go on to suggest that the quality of teacher–pupil interaction is a much more
important factor than class organization, concluding that ‘a whole class format may
make better use of high quality teaching, but may equally increase the negative effect
of lower quality interaction’.
Given the lack of empirical evidence showing that whole class teaching in the
literacy and numeracy strategies is more interactive and promotes quality dialogue
and discussion, this study set out to investigate patterns of whole class interaction in
the NLS and NNS. We also explored whether there are differences in the discourse
strategies used by effective teachers of literacy and numeracy and whether teachers
varied their discourse strategies when teaching the two subjects and across the key
stages (KS).
 Interactive whole class teaching 397

Method
Sample
A national sample of 72 primary school teachers working in a range of socio-econ-
omic settings across the regions of England was selected (35 literacy, 37 numeracy).
Within each subject area (literacy and numeracy) half the teachers were selected
because they were highly effective: the other half made average progress with their
pupils. The effectiveness of each teacher was established using value-added data
(residual measures) based on Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS)
data provided by the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM) Centre at
Durham University (Tymms, 1999). Structuring the sample in this way allowed for
an investigation into whether effective teachers are employing a different range of
discourse strategies in comparison with the ‘average’ teachers (i.e. those whose
value-added scores are broadly zero). Systematic sampling (a form of probability
sampling) was used to select teachers from within our larger sample of effective and
average teachers (i.e. selecting every nth case).

Computer assisted systematic observation

Observations were carried out using a computerized observation schedule developed
by the research team known as the Classroom Interaction System (Smith & Hard-
man, 2003). A continuous sampling method was used. 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 hand-held 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): an in-depth discussion of the
Classroom Interaction System can be found in Smith and Hardmah (2003).
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, Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF), structure first identified by Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975) and gathers 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 will accept 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 boy
or girl answered 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).
398 F. Smith et al.

Transcript analysis
Video recording of a sub-sample of 14 effective teachers identified by the value-
added data were collected. The sample was made up of 8 Reception/KS1 teachers
(4 literacy/4 numeracy) and 6 KS2 teachers (3 literacy/3 numeracy). The video
recordings were transcribed and coded using an intensive system of discourse
analysis adapted from the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). The teaching
exchanges were quantified and turned into percentage scores to compare the
patterning of the teacher/pupil interactions across all 14 lessons. By focusing on the
three-part, IRF structure, the findings of the discourse analysis could be triangulated
with the computerized observation data. Teachers’ questions were also analysed
according to whether they were open or closed and for the use of probe and uptake
questions by the teacher. The average length of pupil utterances was also calculated.
Comparisons across subjects and key stages were made to see if there was any
variation in the type of questions asked by teachers and the length of pupil
utterances.

Teacher questionnaire
A self-completion questionnaire was designed to explore teachers’ understanding of
the concept of ‘interactive whole class’ teaching and their perceptions of the range
of discourse strategies they currently use when teaching the literacy or numeracy
strategies. The questionnaire also explored their views on the quality of the training
in whole class teaching they had received. Although mainly quantitative in design,
the questionnaire included questions allowing for more open responses. The results
of this questionnaire are reported elsewhere (Hardman et al., 2003a), but are
referred to later.

Findings
Computer-assisted observations
Sample characteristics. Seventy-two lessons from across England were observed: 35
literacy and 37 numeracy. Roughly one-third of the lessons fell into each of
Reception, KS1 and KS2. Some 60% of the lessons were taught by highly effective
teachers (as classified by the value-added data). Those teachers with a value-added
score above 2 were classified as being highly effective; 40% of the teachers were
average—their value-added scores fell between ⫺ 0.5 and ⫹ 0.5.
Table 1 shows the school and class (data in italics) statistics for the sample.
The average roll call for the schools in our sample was 315, with 20% of the pupils
being eligible for free school meals. On average a fifth of the pupils were on the
special needs register and 10% had English as an additional language. The average
class size we observed was 26—we also noted the number of males and females
present in each class.
 Interactive whole class teaching 399

Table 1. School and class statistics

Minimum Maximum Mean SD

School roll call (n) 99 501 315.71 119

Percentage eligible for free school meals 2 62 20.15 17.32
Percentage on special needs register 2 49 21.01 9.73
Percentage with English as an additional 0 99 9.79 26.92
language
Males (n) 7 20 13.19 3.02
Females (n) 6 20 12.42 3.23
Class size (n) 16 33 25.58 4.19

Lesson duration. On average the lessons lasted 53 minutes, and the whole class
section lasted 32 minutes (60% of the lesson). Some lessons were entirely made up
of whole class teaching. Our observations focused upon the whole class section only.
The percentage of each lesson consisting of whole class teaching varied from teacher
to teacher, as shown in Figure 1.
There was no significant difference in the amount of whole class teaching taking

Figure 1. Variation in amount of whole class teaching

400 F. Smith et al.

Figure 2. Number of lessons in which the different discourse moves were observed

place in literacy and numeracy lessons. The KS2 lessons were usually about 4
minutes longer than the KS1 lessons, which were in turn 5 minutes longer than
Reception lessons.

Discourse strategies of the whole sample. Figure 2 shows the number of lessons in which
we observed certain types of discourse. The maximum height for each bar is 72 (the
number of lessons observed). Some 43% of the teachers did not use an uptake
question at any time during the whole class section of the lesson. Spontaneous
contributions from pupils occurred in 59 of the lessons (82%). Interruptions to the
lesson occurred 42% of the time (normally other staff collecting details about dinner
money and packed lunches). Also of interest is that 15% of the teachers did not ask
any open questions during the whole class section (all 72 teachers asked closed
questions).
Figure 3 shows the rate (number per hour) for each discourse move. Rate is
calculated as frequency per hour to make this data comparable to similar studies:
therefore, if a teacher used 23 closed questions over a 30-minute long whole class
section, this would be reported as 46 closed questions per hour. Clearly, the most
frequent include closed questions (69 per hr), evaluation (65 per hr), explaining (50
per hr) and direction (39 per hr).
Throughout the observations our focus was upon the teacher, but we also
analysed responses and initiations from pupils during the whole class sections of the
lessons. The pupils in our sample did not use any of the discourse moves in Figure
 Interactive whole class teaching 401

Figure 3. Rate of teacher discourse moves

3. When pupils spoke, the most dominant discourse was to answer a question—the
moves are listed as follows:

• Answering a question (118 moves per hour);

• Choral response (13 moves per hour);
• Presentation (13 moves per hour); and
• Spontaneous contribution (9 moves per hour).

Rather than looking at rate per hour (which takes no account of the length of a
discourse move), it is also possible to report the mean duration for each discourse
move (average length in seconds) and the percentage duration for each discourse
move (each discourse move’s total contribution to the entire whole class section, e.g.
if explaining took up 5 minutes of a 20 minute whole class section the percentage
duration would be 25%). Mean durations (in seconds) and percentage durations for
each discourse move are shown in Table 2. The pupil discourse moves are italicized
in the table.
Explaining and directing were quite frequent discourse moves—as mentioned
earlier. The data in Table 2 also show that these moves lasted the longest.
402 F. Smith et al.

Table 2. Mean duration and percentage duration for each discourse move

Discourse move Mean duration (secs) Percentage duration

Direct 17.1 15.3

Explain 20.3 27.9
Open question 7.6 2.5
Closed question 4.9 9.0
Repeat question 7.6 3.0
Uptake question 5.2 0.7
Probe (question) 4.1 2.0
Evaluate 5.4 8.8
Refocus 8.4 3.7
General talk 7.3 1.4
Pupil answers 5.0 15.1
Choral response 14.6 4.3
Spontaneous contribution 7.0 1.7
Presents 14.2 4.2
Interruption 19.9 0.5
Total 100

Explaining was of the longest duration (20 secs), followed by direction (17 secs).
Closed questions and evaluation were frequent (as found earlier), but these moves
lasted about the same amount of time as the other moves. The average length of a
pupil answer was 5 seconds. Choral responses took much longer—14.6 seconds.
In Table 2, the total contribution of each discourse move adds up to 100%
(representing the entire whole class section of the lesson). Figure 4 shows this
information more clearly.
Here we can see that explaining (which was both frequent and long) took up 28%
of the whole class section. Some 15% of the whole class section consisted of
direction from the teacher, and another 15% of individual pupil answers. After that,
closed questions and evaluation contributed the most to the whole class section.
By adding up the teacher discourse moves (top 10 in the table), it is clear that the
teacher dominated the whole class section for 74% of time. The 24% pupil
contribution was mainly made up of answering questions individually or in choral
response. Interruptions to lessons accounted for the small remaining percentage
(0.5%).

Literacy and numeracy lessons compared. There are clear differences in the rate
(number per hour) for each discourse move between subject areas. An individual
t-test found that significantly more direction took place in numeracy lessons com-
pared to literacy lessons (t ⫽ 5.05, p ⬍ .001). On average there were 24 more
direction moves in a numeracy lesson. Closed questions and choral responses were
also more common in numeracy than in literacy lessons (p ⬍ .01). Uptake questions
were rare in both subject areas, but more likely to happen in literacy lessons
(t ⫽ 3.22, p ⬍ .01).
 Interactive whole class teaching 403

Figure 4. Contribution of each discourse move to the whole class section

Although no difference was found in the number of explanations per hour in

literacy compared to numeracy, explanations were found to last 5.3 seconds longer
in literacy compared to numeracy lessons (t ⫽ 3.59, p ⬍ .01). This was the only
significant difference found when analysing mean duration.
The percentage duration of each discourse move (split by subject) is shown in
Figure 5. Direction (p ⬍ .001), closed questions and choral responses (p ⬍ .01) all
contributed more (in terms of percentage of the whole class section) in numeracy
lessons compared to literacy lessons. Direction contributed to 12% of literacy
lessons compared to 18% in numeracy lessons.
Explaining, uptake questions (p ⬍ .001) and open questions (p ⬍ .05) took up more
time in literacy lessons compared to numeracy. Some 33% of a literacy lesson
consisted of explaining compared to 23% of a numeracy lesson.

Key stage comparison. This analysis then focused upon differences in discourse across
the key stages (Reception, KS1 and KS2). Figure 6 shows the differences in rate (n
per hr) across the key stages. Choral responses were more frequent in Reception (24
per hr) compared to KS1 (13 per hr) and KS2 (only 3 per hr). A one-way ANOVA
found this to be significant at p ⬍ .001. Uptake questions were rare in Reception year
and closed questions were more common in Reception/KS1 compared to KS2
404 F. Smith et al.

Figure 5. Contribution of each discourse move to the whole class section—literacy/numeracy

comparison

(p ⬍ .01). Other differences were significant at p ⬍ .05—direction, probes, refocus

and general talk.
Only one significant difference was found for mean duration—pupils presented for
longer in KS2 than the younger year groups (F ⫽ 7.28, p ⬍ .01). A pupil presentation
would normally last 21 seconds in KS2, but only 10–11 seconds in Reception and
KS1.
The percentage durations for each discourse move (across key stage) are shown in
Figure 7. Choral responses contributed less in KS2 than the younger year groups
(p ⬍ .001). General talk was more prominent in Reception year (p ⬍ .05) and
refocusing also took up more time in the younger year groups (p ⬍ .05).

Effective and average teachers compared. Discourse strategies were compared between
the two sets of teachers in our sample—those classified as highly effective and those
classified as average. Figure 8 shows the differences in rate (n per hr) between these
two sets of teachers.
Only one discourse move (general talk) was significantly different between the two
groups of teachers. It was more frequent among the highly effective teachers
(p ⬍ .05), suggesting they create opportunities for more informal talk.
Further inspection of Figure 8 reveals that there seem to be more discourse
moves, in general, among the highly effective teachers. To examine this further, a
new variable was created which essentially was the sum total of all of the discourse
moves made by a teacher and the pupils (but excluding interruption). This sum total
was then divided by the duration of the whole class section of the lesson to obtain
 Interactive whole class teaching 405

Figure 6. Rate of discourse moves compared across key stages

rate per hour. This variable can be seen as an indicator of pace in the lesson. A
independent t-test found that highly effective teachers’ lessons consist of significantly
more discourse moves than average teachers (t ⫽ 2.08, p ⬍ .05). Highly effective
lessons consist of, on average, 55 more discourse moves per hour (469 moves for
highly effective teachers and 414 moves for average teachers).
The average length of each discourse move did not differ significantly between the
two groups of teachers. Also, the percentage durations for each discourse move did
not differ between the two groups of teachers.

Results from the analysis of lesson transcripts

A sub-sample of 14 lessons was analysed using discourse analysis (as described
earlier). The discourse analysis framework provided a clear and systematic basis for
analysing the classroom discourse in all 14 lessons and for triangulating the results
with the computerized systematic observation data. The qualification and sub-
sequent patterning of the teaching exchanges provided a useful means of further
exploring the discourse strategies used by teachers: when teaching literacy and
numeracy lessons and across the key stages. 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.
406 F. Smith et al.

Figure 7. Contribution of each discourse move to the whole class section—key stage comparison

Figure 9 shows the patterning of the teaching exchanges based on the percentage
scores for the seven literacy and seven numeracy lessons.
The analysis shows there was little overall variation in the patterning of the teacher

Figure 8. Rate of discourse moves compared across teacher effectiveness

 Interactive whole class teaching 407

Figure 9. Overall analysis of teaching exchanges

Key: T. In. ⫽ teacher inform, T. Dt. ⫽ teacher direct, T. El. ⫽ teacher elicit, P. El. ⫽ pupil elict,
P. Inf. ⫽ pupil inform, Re-in. ⫽ re-initiate, List ⫽ listing, Rein. ⫽ reinforce, Rpt. ⫽ repeat.

exchanges used by the 14 teachers as they taught across the two subjects. Teacher
explanation (teacher inform) and teacher-directed question-and-answer (teacher
elicit and reinitiation) make up the majority of discourse moves in all 14 lessons,
accounting for 78% of the total teaching exchanges in literacy and 77% of the total
teaching exchanges in numeracy. The discourse analysis suggests teacher expla-
nation was more common in literacy lessons; teacher questions and teacher direction
(teacher directs) were more common in numeracy lessons.
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. Pupil’s responses were often evaluated
and commented on by the teacher, who maintained the right to determine what was
relevant within her pedagogic agenda. Teacher-directed interrogation of the pupils’
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. Teachers therefore exercised close control over the nature, pace and
direction of the knowledge pursued in the lessons. The findings therefore support
the computerized systematic observation data, which suggest that the teaching was
mainly interrogative and directive in nature.
However, the aggregation of the discourse analysis data masks some of the
individual variation found in the transcripts. 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 significance, or to make connections with other contributions
during the lesson topic so as to encourage greater pupil participation.
408 F. Smith et al.

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 which were three words or fewer for 70% of the time. Pupil
contributions were therefore rarely sustained or extended to encourage higher
cognitive interactions. Comparison of the KS1 and KS2 teachers, however, showed
some variation in the type of questions asked and the length of pupil utterance. KS1
teachers asked fewer open-ended questions (an average of 10% of all questions
asked) compared to KS2 teachers (an average of 15%) and only 75% of responses
were more than three words long. Therefore the transcript analysis suggests that
KS1 teachers tended to use fewer challenging questions, which in turn encouraged
fewer sustained responses.

Discussion
The article set out to investigate the impact of the official endorsement of ‘interac-
tive whole class teaching’ on the interaction and discourse styles of primary teachers
while teaching the NLS and NNS. The findings suggest that traditional patterns of
whole class interaction have not been dramatically transformed by the strategies,
supporting earlier studies of the NLS (Mroz et al., 2000; English et al., 2002;
Hardman et al., 2003b). In the whole class section of literacy and numeracy lessons,
teachers spent the majority of their time either explaining or using highly structured
question and answer sequences. Far from encouraging and extending pupil contri-
butions to promote higher levels of interaction and cognitive engagement, most of
the questions asked were of a low cognitive level designed to funnel pupils’ response
towards a required answer. Open questions made up 10% of the questioning
exchanges and 15% of the sample did not ask any such questions. Probing by the
teacher, where the teacher stayed with the same child to ask further questions to
encourage sustained and extended dialogue, occurred in just over 11% of the
questioning exchanges. Uptake questions occurred in only 4% of the teaching
exchanges and 43% of the teachers did not use any such moves. Only rarely were
teachers’ questions used to assist pupils to more complete or elaborated ideas. Most
of the pupils’ exchanges were very short, with answers lasting on average 5 seconds,
and were limited to three words or fewer for 70% of the time. It was also very rare
for pupils to initiate the questioning.
Effective teachers appeared to have a more interactive style as measured by the
overall rate of discourse moves: on average they used 13% more discourse moves
than the rest of the sample. However, the difference is a quantitative rather than a
qualitative one: the types of discourse move did not differ significantly between the
two groups of teachers. Compared to KS2 teachers, Reception and KS1 teachers
used more directives and refocusing moves in their teaching and asked more closed
questions. Choral responses were also more common among Reception and KS1
pupils and their answers tended to be shorter: three words or less for 80% of the
time. Our study therefore supports the findings of English et al. (2002; p. 24), who
found that ‘KS1 teachers tended to use higher levels of low cognitive interaction,
fewer challenging questions and had fewer sustained interactions’. Differences in the
 Interactive whole class teaching 409

teaching of literacy and numeracy also emerged: there was more teacher direction in
numeracy lessons and closed questions and choral responses were more common
than in literacy lessons. Explaining, uptake questions and open questions were also
more likely to occur in literacy lessons.
The questionnaire (see Hardman et al. [2003a] for a full discussion of the
questionnaire) revealed that teachers had no clear concept of what interactive whole
class teaching is, or shared language to discuss it, like English et al.’s study (2002).
It also suggested that teachers had been given little practical guidance on how to
implement interactive whole class teaching in the classroom. While over 70% of the
sample indicated that they had received some training in interactive whole class
teaching, less than a fifth of teachers had seen training materials published by the
DfEE (1999b, c) and no one indicated that they had incorporated the ideas into
their classroom practice. The questionnaire also revealed a mismatch between
teachers’ perceptions of how they teach literacy and numeracy and the findings of
the classroom observations. In response to questions exploring the frequency of use
of strategies designed to promote pupil involvement in classroom discourse, most
teachers reported that they valued and frequently invited pupils to elaborate on their
answers. Our analysis suggests, however, that opportunities for sustained and
extended dialogue by the pupil are rare.
Overall, our findings suggest new ‘top–down’ curriculum initiatives like the NLS
and NNS, while bringing about a scenario of change in curriculum design, often
leave deeper levels of pedagogy untouched. Traditional patterns of whole class
interaction persist, with teacher questioning only rarely being used to assist pupils to
articulate more complete or elaborated ideas as recommended by the strategies. The
findings also raise questions about the effectiveness of the in-service training pro-
grammes which have accompanied the national strategies. As Alexander (2000)
argues, they point to the need for different approaches in order to change habitual
classroom behaviours and traditional discourse patterns. The final evaluation of the
NLS and NNS (Earl et al., 2003) suggests that changing such pedagogic under-
standing and practices remains a major challenge in securing the long-term effective-
ness of the strategies.
In order to bring about changes in the way teachers interact with their pupils, the
findings suggest monitoring and self-evaluation need to become a regular part of
inservice training, thereby giving teachers a degree of ownership of the process of
school improvement (Mroz et al., 2000; English et al., 2002; Hardman et al.,
2003b). 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. 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 interaction necessary for responsive
teaching.
410 F. Smith et al.

The findings suggest the need for further research into ways of effectively support-
ing teachers in their professional development in order to promote more reciprocal
forms of teaching to increase the opportunities for extended interactions with pupils.
There is also a need for more research to provide comprehensive evidence, for both
teachers and policy-makers, that interactive styles of teaching encouraging more
active pupil involvement can produce significant gains in learning.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Economic and Social Research Council for funding
the research described in this article (Project No: R000239213).

References
Alexander, R. J. (2000) Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education
(Oxford, Blackwell).
Alexander, R. J., Willcocks, J. & Nelson, N. (1996) Discourse, pegagogy and the National
Curriculum: change and continuity in primary schools, Research Papers in Education, 11(1),
81–120.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H. & Millet, A. (1998) Is the National Numeracy
Strategy research-based? British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4), 362–385.
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: a
framework for teaching (London, DfEE).
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999a) The National Numeracy Strategy
(London, DfEE).
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999b) Talking in class (London, DfEE).
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999c) Engaging all pupils (London, DfEE).
Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., et al. (2003) Watching and Learning. Final Report of the External
Evaluation of England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (Ontario, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, University of Toronto).
Edwards, A. D. & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994) Investigating classroom talk (2nd edn) (London,
Falmer Press).
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.
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. & Mroz, M. (2003a) Interactive whole class teaching in the literacy
and numeracy lessons. A report for the Economic and Social Research Council, (Newcastle,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne).
Hardman, F., Smith, F. & Wall, K. (2003b) ‘Interactive whole class teaching’ in the National
Literacy Strategy, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2).
Joyce, B. (1992) Cooperative learning and staff development: teaching the method with the
method, Cooperative Learning, 12(2), 10–13.
Mehan, N. (1979) Learning lessons (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. & Ecob, R. (1988) School matters (Wells, Open
Books).
Mroz, M., Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2000) The discourse of the Literacy Hour, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 30(3), 379–390.
Noldus Information Technology (1995) The Observer, Base Package for Windows, Reference manual,
Version 3.0 edition (Wageningen, The Noldus Information Technology).
 Interactive whole class teaching 411

Pollard, A., Broadfoot, P., Croll, P., Osborn, N. & Abbot, D. (1994) Changing English primary
schools? (London, Cassell).
Reynolds, D. (1998) Schooling for literacy: a review of research on teacher effectiveness and
school effectiveness and its implications for contemporary educational policy, Educational
Review, 50(2), 147–162.
Reynolds, D. & Farrell, S. (1996) Worlds apart? A review of international studies of educational
achievement involving England (London, HMSO).
Reynolds, D. & Muus, D. (1999) The effective teaching of mathematics: a review of research,
School Leadership & Management, 19(3), 273–288.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and
pupils (London, Oxford University Press).
Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003) Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing
classroom interaction, Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social
context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Tymms, P. (1999) Baseline assessment and monitoring in primary schools: achievements, attitudes, and
value-added indicators (London, David Fulton).