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

This digest found in

Gender

Author's Conclusions

The author points out that whole class interactive teaching is now the 'norm' in first and middle schools. The teacher as an expert, draws on what learners already know, and guides and supports learners to a new understanding. However she questions whether this method of teaching was actually benefiting the learning experience of all pupils. Notes taken during classroom observations in the first and middle schools recorded how often question and answer sessions, which at face value seemed lively and successful, were actually just involving the teacher and a small group of children.

The author suggests that the relatively high number of calls on under-achieving boys in Year 1 might have been a consequence of the known research focus of the study, or it may be that teachers were trying to draw in under-achieving boys who had not put their hands up. If this is so, she asks whether the Year 8 teachers could adopt the same strategy with the high-achieving boys.

The paper concludes that further research could usefully focus on the motivations and perspectives of high-achieving boys on the transition from childhood to adolescence. A summary of Gender Differences in Achievement contains a case study that shows how some teachers have tackled poor motivation.

High-achieving girls, by contrast, remained consistently willing to engage in interactions with the teacher and were observed to be focused and on-task. They conformed to the classroom rules, they joined in when the teacher expected a collective response and were rewarded for this by being given ample opportunities to answer questions.

Finally, the study questions whether growing numbers of teachers may be increasingly defining the 'ideal student' as female, as suggested in previous research (Younger et al 1999). The author invites us to consider whether a hidden climate of mutual exclusion could exist where high-achieving girls and their teachers appear to be on the same wavelength, but where the rest of the class might feel alienated because they have different needs or other ways of thinking. It is suggested, in conclusion, that: 'we need to re-examine how teaching and classroom practices can be modified to encourage a climate of consensual learning'.

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 > Author's Conclusions
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 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 Author's Conclusions The author points out that whole class interactive teaching is now the 'norm' in first and middle schools. The teacher as an expert, draws on what learners already know, and guides and supports learners to a new understanding. However she questions whether this method of teaching was actually benefiting the learning experience of all pupils. Notes taken during classroom observations in the first and middle schools recorded how often question and answer sessions, which at face value seemed lively and successful, were actually just involving the teacher and a small group of children. The author suggests that the relatively high number of calls on under-achieving boys in Year 1 might have been a consequence of the known research focus of the study, or it may be that teachers were trying to draw in under-achieving boys who had not put their hands up. If this is so, she asks whether the Year 8 teachers could adopt the same strategy with the high-achieving boys. The paper concludes that further research could usefully focus on the motivations and perspectives of high-achieving boys on the transition from childhood to adolescence. A summary of Gender Differences in Achievement contains a case study that shows how some teachers have tackled poor motivation. High-achieving girls, by contrast, remained consistently willing to engage in interactions with the teacher and were observed to be focused and on-task. They conformed to the classroom rules, they joined in when the teacher expected a collective response and were rewarded for this by being given ample opportunities to answer questions. Finally, the study questions whether growing numbers of teachers may be increasingly defining the 'ideal student' as female, as suggested in previous research (Younger et al 1999). The author invites us to consider whether a hidden climate of mutual exclusion could exist where high-achieving girls and their teachers appear to be on the same wavelength, but where the rest of the class might feel alienated because they have different needs or other ways of thinking. It is suggested, in conclusion, that: 'we need to re-examine how teaching and classroom practices can be modified to encourage a climate of consensual learning'.