Interactive or inactive? a consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching

By Chris Burns *, D. Myhill. 2004

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bb53e0f2be8cf690e5847966882f4cfa5deb804

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement (2020, background): “Participation may take the form of raising a hand to contribute verbally, respond to a question, make suggestions, or ask a question if called upon by the teacher (Böheim et al. 2020; Burns and Myhill 2004; Dixon et al. 2009; Fredricks et al. 2004; Howe and Abedin 2013; Ingram and Elliott 2015).”
Creativity, uncertainty and discomfort: teachers as writers (2006, background): “…the NLS emphasis on pace in whole class sessions, of which shared writing is one, obliges teachers to focus on the transmission of information (to ensure the prescribed objectives are covered) and fails to foster the full interactive engagement of teachers or children (Burns & Myhill, 2004).”
Opening classroom interaction: the importance of feedback (2006, background): “The findings of several recent studies into patterns of teacher–pupil interactions in literacy and numeracy lessons (see Burns & Myhill, 2004 ; Mroz et al.”
Online Education: Benefits, Challenges and Strategies During and After COVID-19 in Higher Education (2020, background): “In this context, Burns and Myhill (2004) concede that learning can be effective when discourse in the classroom is based on discussion between the teacher and students.”
Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse (2006, background): “Alexander (2004) argues that ‘interactive whole class teaching’ has become a default term and I have argued elsewhere (Burns & Myhill, 2004) that the term is meaningless, as the act of teaching is always interactive in that it is a series of exchanges between teachers and pupils, or pupils and…”
Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines (2016, unknown): “Thus, gender disparities could be due to instructors not calling on females as much as males (as has been seen in some K–12 classrooms [70,71]), female students not feeling confident enough to raise their hands to answer a question [72], or a combination of both.”
Relations Between Teacher Questioning and Student Talk in One Elementary ELL Classroom (2015, background): “Only by considering context and attendant discourse can we understand how questions function to be supportive or corrective (Burns & Myhill, 2004; Turnstall & Gipps, 1996) and result in student elaboration or shut down.”
Pedagogy and Possibility Thinking in the Early Years (2006, result): “Unusually perhaps, and in contrast to other primary colleagues, the professionals in this study were not driven by the need for speed to cover the prescribed curriculum which has arguably dominated the agenda in England in recent years (Burns and Myhill, 2004).”
Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project (2007, background): “Research suggests that this is the most common form of interaction, with most teachers’ questions demanding short, factual responses of a relatively low cognitive level, designed to funnel pupils’ responses towards a required answer (Burns and Myhill, 2004)' (Tanner et al.”