**2. Understanding the problem of pedagogical talk and classroom interaction**

Teaching is an interactive, observable activity and is patterned in the sense that what teachers and students do and say does not occur randomly; but has recurring and characteristic patterns which have been found to exist in the analysis of classroom literacy lessons [2, 3]. However surprisingly, that in classrooms where students are expected to develop and use oral language and to learn to interact and to learn content through interacting with others, the extensive body of research in this field shows that it is still the teacher who does most of the talking ([4], p. 4). Although much research on how talk functions as a pedagogical tool and influential for student learning in highly nuanced ways, it is an aspect of practice that remains entrenched in predictable teacher-student exchange patterns and interactive routines. Foremost is the tri-part question-answer teacher-dominated turn-taking sequence known as the recitation script [5]; this typically involves a teacher **I**nitiation (generally a question) move, then student/s **R**esponse/s move, followed by a teacher **E**valuation or **F**eedback move. This exchange system is commonly referred to as the IRE/IRF [4, 6]. It has been shown to be an asymmetrical teacher-controlled interactive structure that, and as Cazden [5] identified, provides two turns for the teacher and one for one student from the cohort in every exchange sequence. Further, it has been suggested that this talk structure governing the conduct of many lessons also limits dialogic talk in lessons since students' turns are often restricted to the response slot in the three-part structure [4, 5].

social and societal activity. As Johnston ([1], p. 9) explains, language "is not merely *representational* (though it is that), it is also *constitutive*. It actually creates realities and invites identities". Thus, for teachers in educational settings, language and its use is critical for shaping the realities and identities of the students in their classrooms. And indeed, as Johnston ([1], p. 4) suggests, quality "talk is the central tool of a teacher's trade. With it they mediate children's activity and experience, and help them make sense of learning, literacy, life and themselves". In classrooms interacting and communicating with students emerges as especially complex since the kinds of interactions that occur in classroom lessons differs from those encountered in everyday life. Classroom interactions, in the main, are not like dinner table conversations, nor are they like a chat with a group of friends, they are different simply because of the number of parties (a cohort of many students and their teacher) involved in the interactions. In schools, as well as a socialising function, the power of language encountered in day-to-day lesson activity extends to having a pedagogical function and a manage-

*[t]eacher's language can position children as competitors or collaborators, and themselves as referees, resources, or judges, or in many other arrangements. A teacher's choice of words, phases, metaphors and interaction sequences invokes and assumes these and other ways of being a self and of being together in* 

Classroom talk, and the dialogues that shape it, thus is a powerful and influential practice architecture for shaping teaching and learning, a critical aspect of everyday pedagogical practice. Further to this, its efficacy in lessons is a fundamental matter for understanding professional practice, the dynamism of teaching and student learning. The question is to what extent teachers have an explicit working and workable knowledge of its role and influence on student learning, participation and engagement, and the flexibility to adjust the discursive flow of lesson interaction sequences (for different pedagogical, social and managerial purposes) through strategically enacted talk moves. This chapter examines the flexible enactment of classroom talk and the pedagogical dialogues it enables and constrains as a matter of urgency for teacher knowledge professional knowledge and in particular for teacher education.

**2. Understanding the problem of pedagogical talk and classroom** 

Teaching is an interactive, observable activity and is patterned in the sense that what teachers and students do and say does not occur randomly; but has recurring and characteristic patterns which have been found to exist in the analysis of classroom literacy lessons [2, 3]. However surprisingly, that in classrooms where students are expected to develop and use oral language and to learn to interact and to learn content through interacting with others, the extensive body of research in this field shows that it is still the teacher who does most of the talking ([4], p. 4). Although much research on how talk functions as a pedagogical tool and influential for student learning in highly nuanced ways, it is an aspect of practice that remains entrenched in predictable teacher-student exchange patterns and interactive routines. Foremost is the tri-part question-answer teacher-dominated turn-taking sequence known as

rial function. Through it, a

68 Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development

*the classroom (*[1], *p. 9)*

**interaction**

In 2006, Nystrand ([7], p. 394) recognised that classroom interaction practices have "have remained remarkably unchanged over the last century and a half". Skidmore ([8], p. 511) even suggested it is "the groove into which classroom pedagogy so easily settles by default". Indeed, "even experienced teachers themselves have limited knowledge about this dimension of their pedagogical and curriculum work" ([4], p. 4). Yet, shifting away from the recitation script or varying teacher talk moves to become more dialogic appears to be difficult [9], or at best marginally accomplished unless deliberate moves are made by teachers to achieve more dialogic talk practices [9, 10]. Although over many decades longer term spaced teacher professional development, including action research studies conducted with teachers, have made attempts to support teachers disrupt the resistant hold of the IRE/F on their classroom talk and interaction practices [11, 12–14], monologic talk remains intractable.

Conceivably, part of the perpetuation of the issue is that in preservice teaching courses in many institutions, learning teaching practice has had a limited explicit focus on classroom talk [15]. It is often the case that preservice teacher's (PSTs) explicit knowledge about the role of dialogue for accomplishing lessons hovers above understanding and enacting a repertoire of talk moves that 'actively' promotes student learning, participation and engagement and agency. Indeed, both a meta-awareness of dialogic approaches to teaching, and a metalanguage or a more precise technical language for talking about talk in lessons, is generally limited to cursory knowings about questioning. Developing a metalanguage about talk and interaction is necessary for PSTs to be able to speak coherently (to each other and to other education professionals) about how dialogue works as a pedagogical practice; developing a meta-awareness is an overt consciousness, knowledge and understanding of one's own dialogic practices as enacted in practices. These are considered central for practice development [15]. Arguably, this limitation has the potential to restrict student learning when PSTs begin their teaching careers.

A focus on the talk and interaction makes visible the systematic ways in which teachers and students create their relationships and their classroom culture, the power and precision of verbal and non-verbal interaction in the production of classroom knowledge, and the ways in which what *counts* as learning is established [16]. Therefore, against this historical background of the study of classroom talk and interaction and understanding of its function as a core teaching practice, implications for PSTs are underscored. The unyielding taken-forgrantedness of classroom talk and its resistance to development and change in professional practice leaves open the question about whether an explicit focus on talk and interaction in teacher education courses is necessary if future teachers are to understand and enact a flexible repertoire of classroom talk and interaction moves. Faced with a career that inherently rests on their capacity for talking and interacting with their students (as a core pedagogical tool) [17, 18], it stands to reason therefore that such a focus is not only warranted, but essential if indeed the promises of education are to be realised. The central argument in this chapter therefore asserts that an explicit knowledge of the role of classroom talk and the development of a repertoire of dialogic talk moves cannot be taken too lightly in preservice teacher education. Further, that to change current practices in teacher education requires changing the practice architectures that enable and constrain learning dialogicality as a critical dimension of teaching practice.

teaching from listening to and interacting with students in classrooms and the value they place on this as formational for understanding teaching from their first session of study will

Knowing Pedagogical Dialogues for Learning: Establishing a Repertoire of Classroom…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78968

71

This chapter draws on a three-year empirical study conducted at a rural Australian university which investigated how learning teaching practice is not only informed but formed through interrogating the theory-practice nexus *in enactment*. It was notable that in this particular university site, classroom talk and interacting with students in classrooms was not the focus of explicit instruction in coursework or practicum placements for PSTs; it was taken-for-granted that PSTs could interact with students in classrooms. As a response to this enduring issue, the project presented in this chapter formed part of a broader study investigating teacher education practices aiming to support PSTs move towards pedagogical efficacy. Pedagogical efficacy, according to [24], depends not only on what one does, but also on the depth and quality of the understandings by which it is guided. Therefore, establishing what knowledge and theory actually guides and determines a PST's actions in the context of their interacting with students in classroom lessons in order to develop their practices from the onset of their careers, is a fundamental platform from which professional

The specific project, *Talking to Learn*, called for teacher educators to reconceptualise their courses and approaches for supporting PSTs develop core skills and teaching practices [17, 18, 25, 26]. Central to the project was making explicit the theory-practice nexus. The importance of the interconnection between theory and practice is also expressed strongly by Hughes [27] who suggested that without theory, practice consists of a set of unrelated actions with little or

The project was developed based on the fundamental premise that it is through quality interactions with students in classrooms that teaching efficacy is constituted [28]. It centred on the development of quality classroom interactions and dialogic pedagogies of PSTs–issues of practical concern for education globally [29–32]. In fact, it aimed to redress the fact that classroom talk and developing dialogic teaching practices in classrooms remains implicit, takenfor-granted and under-examined in preservice teacher education courses [33]. Furthermore, explicit instruction along focused opportunities for 'practising' engaging in dialogic pedagogies with students in classrooms, currently receives little dedicated space in many preservice education courses [28]. This neglect leads to a tendency for PSTs to enact a default practice in placement classrooms based on replicating known patterns of interaction of those observed

**4. Reconceptualising teacher education courses: supporting PSTs** 

**understand teaching as an interactive activity**

be highlighted.

practice is improved.

no basis for improvement.

**4.1. The talking to learn project rationale**

and those experienced in their own education [33].
