Información sobre la Universidad / OPI

Initially, the findings suggested that the pupils perceived teacher explanations negatively (Pupil interviews). For example, when watching the video lesson, some pupils suggested the video learning was too passive and that the video teacher needed to incorporate more active, practical teaching strategies into her teaching. Amelia seemed quite indignant: ‘She's just putting it in [relative clause] …she hasn't taught them, she's

129

shown… She just said, 'Here's a sentence. Put that there… Like she weren't asking for their advice’. A negative attitude was also communicated via the pupil questionnaires, albeit indirectly through metareflective comments such as: ‘I have a short attention span’ (PG1,1:1); ‘This is quite boring but I will listen so I understand’ (PG2,1:1) and ‘I get distracted easily’ (PG2,2:2).

Therefore, it was surprising to note that, within the pupil questionnaires, many pupils ticked when my teacher

explains it as the preferred way of learning grammatical terminology (in preference to: talking about it with others and doing a practical activity) and, despite a sense of traditional and didactic approaches (e.g. ‘It helps

me when ‘she says it over and over again’ PG2,1:1), views about teacher explanations were still positive. Potentially, this reflected Vygotsky’s assertion that scientific concepts require instruction, without which they are not accessible to the child (1987).

However, on closer examination of the triangulated data, it was concluded that it was monologic teacher talk that the pupils did not like - the talk in which pupils were not involved (and the talk which was mainly demonstrated in the video clip). Conversely, it was the co-construction of declarative knowledge that was important to the pupils. For example, one pupil explained: ‘our teacher will involve us… And she'll ask us, 'What do you think? What words shall - ?' It seemed that, no matter how clear, precise and accurate the teacher’s explanations might be (and the video teacher was also considered to be ‘clear’ in her explanations by the pupils), the pupils perceived the need to be involved in the process of constructing meaning. As Davydov (1993) argues, teachers cannot impose their ideas; true learning is created through collaboration.

This would seem to reflect Vygotsky’s criticism of ‘the method of definition’ (1987:121). This method involves: the study of fully developed and fully formed concepts through the use of verbal definitions… This method deals with the results of the completed process of concept formation, with the ready-made product of that process.

Thus, Vygotsky suggests that in presenting fully formed explanations to the pupils:

we are frequently dealing less with the child’s thinking than with his reproductions of a particular concept, we are studying… his verbal development more than we are studying his thinking in the true sense of the word. (1987:121)

Therefore, it can be inferred that the pupils were also aware of a lack of need for ‘thinking’, resulting in pupil perceptions of teacher explanations sometimes being ‘boring’ (PG2,1:1).

That said, the findings suggested some caveats around this. On a one-to-one basis, it seemed that the teacher’s explanations sometimes caused pupils to retreat from the potential intellectual exchange. This could be seen when a teacher asked Jess if she would like help (LO2,2:1). Jess did not want to engage in this dialogue and the teacher sensitively moved away. While this may be for a wide range of social and personal reasons, it potentially illuminated the pedagogical challenges for the teacher trying to open up the pupils’ talking and thinking in a dialogic (rather than monologic) way (Alexander 2002). Furthermore, it could be inferred that the teacher’s own modelling of grammatical terminology reduced the potential for discussion in the ‘dialogic space’ (Wegerif 2013) closing down the space available for the child’s own metalinguistic thinking

130

and talking. Barker, Quennerstedt and Annerstedt (2015:422) maintains that it is important that the teacher does not take over, with a kind of ‘front-load and support’. This was in line with the findings, which suggested that the pupils did not like the dominance of the teacher’s presence; that explanations were welcome as long as they were not too long, that the teachers’ help was appreciated as long as their ideas did not take over. Vygotsky (1987) recognised that the adult can be overactive in a learning situation and that this will not support the child’s learning. The child must be actively engaged in an activity in order to learn (Stone 2012:281).

It may have also reflected pupil anxiety about “getting it wrong”. As one pupil wrote in the pupil questionnaire: ‘It is always hard and if I answer wrong it would be embarrassing’ (PG1,1:1). This was reminiscent of the ‘fearfulness’ often reported by adults (Wilson & Myhill 2012:11) Therefore, in that moment, Jess possibly needed more ‘space’ to process or produce her own metatalk (not typically her own language) in response to the teacher’s comments and questions. The challenge here would seem to be in giving the right feedback and posing the right questions at the right time. This can be related back to Vygotsky’s ZPD, which affords valuable assessment opportunities. This is of fundamental importance. According to Vygotsky, through assessing a child’s ZPD (1978:84) the teacher is able to better identify the child’s maturing intellectual functions. The assessment goal is to externalise the learner’s internal cognitive processes. However, this is exacerbated by the nature of the grammatical terminology being both the medium and the object of instruction. Thus, the findings suggested that the use of independent practical activities would provide valuable assessment opportunities.

Final assertion 8: Dialogic rather than monologic approaches (e.g. teacher explanations and pupil discussions) which prioritised the co-construction of meaning grammatical terminology (above presenting meaning in a finished form) were valued most highly by pupils.