Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching.

This digest found in

Gender

What sort of pupil interaction might impact on learning?

As part of a larger study, this paper examined ways in which pupil interaction of either gender might impact on learning. The findings present a different picture from that reported from previous research and in the media, which implies that boys and girls will always respond and interact differently in the classroom.

What does this report say about pupil learning?

Evidence from the classroom observations and from interviews with teachers and children revealed:

boys did not in fact show greater propensity to talk to their neighbours, this was found to be predominately a feature of the interaction pattern of under-achievers, irrespective of gender. They could be classed as reluctant participators and this may have had a direct bearing on achievement;
high-achievers dominated positive learning interactions, whilst under-achievers dominated the more negative classroom interactions, such as talking to their neighbour or calling out; and
teaching styles in the high school provided limited opportunities for positive interactions between teacher and pupils. The report suggests that this could be linked to the higher incidence of 'negative' interactions by the under-achievers at this stage.

The national literacy and numeracy strategies are both dependent on a high level of pupil teacher interaction. The author argues that whole class involvement is essential if learning, and therefore pupil progress, is to be achieved through whole class interaction experiences. The research found that, in the high school, whole class teaching tended to be dominated by teacher talk. The author suggests that under-achieving pupils found it more difficult than others to listen actively, and therefore engaged in negative forms of behaviour.

Both national tests, and the evaluation in English of the National Literacy Strategy (OFSTED 1999) indicate that boys are under-achieving compared with girls, even at an early stage. According to this study underachieving boys from Year 1 onwards appear to be less willing to join in whole class interactions that are positive and are more likely to be engaged in off-task interactions. The author questions whether this has influenced their end of key stage results.

The study also highlighted the existence of a certain culture amongst adolescent boys, in which it was not 'cool' to be seen working hard or being enthusiastic. Although very keen to participate in classroom interaction in the early years of the middle school, high-achieving boys in Year 8 were, surprisingly, less likely than their under achieving peers to put their hand up or answer a question if invited. However, the author reminds us that these boys were academically successful despite their apparent non-involvement.She suggests that high-achieving boys were masking their efforts in order to conform to peer group norms.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > Gender > Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching.WedNov51204252003 > What sort of pupil interaction might impact on learning?
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction What did the research aim to do? Classroom interactions - joining in or opting out? The findings of the study. What sort of pupil interaction might impact on learning? How was the study designed? Author's Conclusions Implications Where can I find out more? Send us your feedback Collated digests Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems To view/remove/add notes and save your collated digests click here Get Word Reader Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. This digest found in Gender Send to a friend Word doc 60KB Printer friendly Collate for later What sort of pupil interaction might impact on learning? As part of a larger study, this paper examined ways in which pupil interaction of either gender might impact on learning. The findings present a different picture from that reported from previous research and in the media, which implies that boys and girls will always respond and interact differently in the classroom. What does this report say about pupil learning? Evidence from the classroom observations and from interviews with teachers and children revealed: boys did not in fact show greater propensity to talk to their neighbours, this was found to be predominately a feature of the interaction pattern of under-achievers, irrespective of gender. They could be classed as reluctant participators and this may have had a direct bearing on achievement; high-achievers dominated positive learning interactions, whilst under-achievers dominated the more negative classroom interactions, such as talking to their neighbour or calling out; and teaching styles in the high school provided limited opportunities for positive interactions between teacher and pupils. The report suggests that this could be linked to the higher incidence of 'negative' interactions by the under-achievers at this stage. The national literacy and numeracy strategies are both dependent on a high level of pupil teacher interaction. The author argues that whole class involvement is essential if learning, and therefore pupil progress, is to be achieved through whole class interaction experiences. The research found that, in the high school, whole class teaching tended to be dominated by teacher talk. The author suggests that under-achieving pupils found it more difficult than others to listen actively, and therefore engaged in negative forms of behaviour. Both national tests, and the evaluation in English of the National Literacy Strategy (OFSTED 1999) indicate that boys are under-achieving compared with girls, even at an early stage. According to this study underachieving boys from Year 1 onwards appear to be less willing to join in whole class interactions that are positive and are more likely to be engaged in off-task interactions. The author questions whether this has influenced their end of key stage results. The study also highlighted the existence of a certain culture amongst adolescent boys, in which it was not 'cool' to be seen working hard or being enthusiastic. Although very keen to participate in classroom interaction in the early years of the middle school, high-achieving boys in Year 8 were, surprisingly, less likely than their under achieving peers to put their hand up or answer a question if invited. However, the author reminds us that these boys were academically successful despite their apparent non-involvement.She suggests that high-achieving boys were masking their efforts in order to conform to peer group norms.