Procedimiento para la formulación y evaluación de proyectos de ampliación de

In all five classes, instructions are the dominant category of behaviour is “Instructions”, with approximately two fifths (respectively three fifths) of the episodes in mathematics classrooms (respectively science/physics) featuring at least one instruction. This is due to the wide range of actions caught by this category: disciplinary instructions (e.g., “Sit down”), task-related instructions (e.g., “Multiply three fifths by two thirds”) and instrumental teaching (e.g., “to divide by a fraction, flip and multiply”). Still, all three are telling of the authority of the teacher, and their prevalence suggests that the teacher controls the classroom, in a position of dominance over the students (to whom the instructions are addressed). Within

this authoritative approach, we also note a relatively high occurrence of enforcements of behavioural rules, although there is more variation between classes, suggesting that this is an idiosyncratic element.

The other categories of behaviour which appear frequently in both countries are:

Announcements (especially in science/physics). This suggests that there is an expectation for the teacher to explain what they are doing. Whilst we could have expected a higher occurrence of announcements in Gallifrey Vale, where teaching objectives are stated objectively (and as such) at the start of the lesson, no marked difference is observed.

Not unlike the high frequency of instructions, the high occurrence of announcements paints the picture of a teacher who is in control over their students’ actions, and adds to it a proactive, rather than reactive aspect.

Self-justification. In contrast to the aforementioned types of behaviour, this suggests that the teacher has to justify their actions with respect to, generally, the “wider picture”: educative aims or organisational aims. There is no suggestion, however, that the students have any control over the teacher’s actions. Rather, we interpret this as an explicit restriction of the teacher’s actions in terms of those aims, which happens at both the subjective level for the teacher and at the intersubjective level through the justification.

Page 139

Validation of statements, scientific questions and comments on questions. This is consistent with our expectations, drawn from extant research (see previous chapter), which pointed out the dominance of IRE/IRF sequences. There does not appear to be any substantial difference between France and England in terms of these events. References to official content or elements. This is significantly higher

in France than in England. This is consistent with our a priori analysis, which highlighted the detailed and prescriptive nature of the curriculum in France, as well as the importance of in-place structures in France (see Chapter 4). However, the nature of these elements was more varied, and left more to the teacher than our analysis suggested: textbooks only played an important role in Varos Hill, but were supplanted by teacher-produced original content in Skaro Motte (both mathematics and physics). In all cases, however, the handouts were used as a source of authority which was fixed outside of the classroom. For the purposes of the local interaction, then, the teacher (as well as the students) was submitted to the subject, as set in stone by the handout. This is an S-T-L arrangement, consistently with our predictions. This illustrates the cultural aspect of using fixed, authoritative material in France is more than a simple matter of availability of resources.

To illustrate this contrast, let us note that the mathematics teacher at Gallifrey Vale did produce some handouts, but these were puzzles which never took the characteristics of fixed, authoritative content.

Furthermore, on one occasion, the teacher is asked (in private interaction) whether he made the puzzle himself or if it came from the Internet, suggesting that students do not see it as an authoritative, official source. Finally, on one other occasion, the teacher dissociates himself from the book’s instructions, which shows that, at Gallifrey Vale, the interaction tends to follow a T-(S,L) structure, as per our a priori analysis.

In contrast to these relatively frequent types of behaviour, some categories display a low level of occurrence where they had been expected to play a major part in our a priori analysis. In particular:

Independent statements only happen in less than 5% of the episodes, and on two occasions (mathematics in each case) do not feature at all in the entire lesson. However, such statements were expected, through deductive analysis, to play a major part in classroom interaction: they alone display the teacher as a subject expert (outside of the discourse of assessment). This position of expert, in turn, is central to the learning process. This low frequency of teacher independent statements is even more surprising given the fact that non-scientific statements, though rare, are included in this figure. As scientific statements and corrections, which are also scarce (although not quite as much so with 8% of all episodes) are the only way in which the teacher may be the visible authority in charge of the subject, this is extraordinarily scarce. It therefore suggests a standard dominance schema where the subject to be taught dominates the

Page 141 interaction.

Whilst Gallifrey Vale’s science class appears to have a substantially larger amount of statements, this may be down to the explicit positioning of the teacher as a source of information at the start of the lesson, and to the exploratory nature of the lesson, rather than to differences between France and England more widely. This unexpected scarcity is the subject of the next chapter.

Jokes are the only type of behaviour which, globally, happens less frequently than statements (with just 4% of all episodes). This scarcity comes as no surprise, as we had removed the position of “entertainer” from the list of expected positions (see chapter 4). However, their presence suggests that plenary interaction is similar to peer-to-peer group work interaction.