**6.1. Kidwatching and critically observing talk moves in classroom lessons**

Observing the interactive dimensions of teaching provided PSTs with an opportunity to focus on how talk and interaction in classroooms works to support student learning and participation. In Excerpt 1, from a transcript of a post-observation discussion PSTs Ryan, Lily and Ben discuss the Grade 3 lesson on space they had just observed.

*Excerpt 1*: The Greek chorus: PSTs discussing a lesson observation


**6.** Ryan: one thing I was thinking about was vacating the floor, and how part of a dialogue was silence, being comfortable with the silence in wait time and owning it to give the kids enough to think about what to say first and talk among themselves=

the kids enough to think and talk among themselves" is a critical talk move that enables, as Lily (turn 7) adds, "kids to have enough time to really get a good response happening". She went further to suggest that it shifts power by "handing the control a bit back to the students", rather than as Ben (turn 10) recognises, the teacher being "the gate keeper of knowledge and truth". Ben's example (in turn 8), highlighting the ways that interactive routines like raising your hand to indicate knowing or preparedness to offer a response to a teacher question, can in reality function to limit student's capacities to demonstrate what they actually or genuinely know about a topic like the universe or space; thus as Ryan suggested (in turn 1) means "less

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

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

77

Through their conversation it was evident that they were explicitly noticing and critiquing talk moves and using a metalanguage for describing it; for instance, they made connections to dialogue, problem solving, vacating the floor, extending learning, knowledge development, providing learning focused feedback, open questioning, having multiple perspectives, reflective responses, and wait time. These aspects of pedagogical dialogues, for them, became explicit knowings and the focus on observing classroom interactions was a practice architecture that enabled this to emerge. It was evident that as Ryan, Lily and Ben were orienting to the talk and interaction that they had observed they were at the same time building their understandings of it. Specifically, this was notable in turn 8 where Ben's response "arh:ha" indicates coming to a new understanding and Lily's acknowledgment (turn 12) that Ben's comment was a "good point" and one that she "did not think" about previously. Their exchanges showing how they were orienting to each other's thinking, demonstrates the ways they made critical connections between the practices they were observing, the theory they were learning about and the role of dialogues for student learning and engagement. And in fact, as Ben explained (in turn 8), kid watching was pivotal in this process. What is evident here is the theory-practice nexus *in enactment*. Their comments are particularly striking since

One aspect of the *Talking to Learn* project was providing PSTs with weekly opportunities to practise interacting with small groups of students. After a few sessions, sessions PSTs tried out different talk moves. In this next segment (recorded on a Flip Camera issued prior to the project), PSTs Lily and Ben are working with a small group of five Grade 3 students; their

*Excerpt 2:* "Wow, you know more than me": PSTs interacting with a small group of students.

these PSTs were only in their first session of their degree program.

**6.2. Practising interacting with students in classrooms**

focus is following up on the science lesson on space.

**2.** S1: We drew how big the sun, moon and earth was

**4.** S1: Because before we experimenting with the different balls-

**1.** Ben: So, what did you do yesterday?

**3.** S2: The size of the sun and the earth

engagement in learning content".


In this segment these three PSTs raise several interesting themes related to dialogue in classroom lessons and how it relates to learning. In turn 1, for example, Ryan recognised the ways the IRF relates to an awareness of power and management in classroom interactions. In fact, he described the IRF interaction exchange structure he was observing as "pseudo participation". Lily developed Ryan's point further (in turn's 3 and 5) by clarifying that it actually is a move that is counter to a "learning conversation". She then extended the idea by suggesting that the "toing and froing closes down opportunities for extending deeper thinking, learning". Her comments that the IRF is a structure that shuts down participation orients to the notion that she recognised that it might, in fact, restrict student growth.

Ryan and Ben develop the point about the IRF question-answer structure further by raising the matter of strategic silence and owning the silence. Their comments suggest that having the teacher vacate the floor to let students have more control of the conversation makes it more dialogic. As Ryan (turn 6) stated, "being comfortable with the silence and owning it, to give the kids enough to think and talk among themselves" is a critical talk move that enables, as Lily (turn 7) adds, "kids to have enough time to really get a good response happening". She went further to suggest that it shifts power by "handing the control a bit back to the students", rather than as Ben (turn 10) recognises, the teacher being "the gate keeper of knowledge and truth". Ben's example (in turn 8), highlighting the ways that interactive routines like raising your hand to indicate knowing or preparedness to offer a response to a teacher question, can in reality function to limit student's capacities to demonstrate what they actually or genuinely know about a topic like the universe or space; thus as Ryan suggested (in turn 1) means "less engagement in learning content".

Through their conversation it was evident that they were explicitly noticing and critiquing talk moves and using a metalanguage for describing it; for instance, they made connections to dialogue, problem solving, vacating the floor, extending learning, knowledge development, providing learning focused feedback, open questioning, having multiple perspectives, reflective responses, and wait time. These aspects of pedagogical dialogues, for them, became explicit knowings and the focus on observing classroom interactions was a practice architecture that enabled this to emerge. It was evident that as Ryan, Lily and Ben were orienting to the talk and interaction that they had observed they were at the same time building their understandings of it. Specifically, this was notable in turn 8 where Ben's response "arh:ha" indicates coming to a new understanding and Lily's acknowledgment (turn 12) that Ben's comment was a "good point" and one that she "did not think" about previously. Their exchanges showing how they were orienting to each other's thinking, demonstrates the ways they made critical connections between the practices they were observing, the theory they were learning about and the role of dialogues for student learning and engagement. And in fact, as Ben explained (in turn 8), kid watching was pivotal in this process. What is evident here is the theory-practice nexus *in enactment*. Their comments are particularly striking since these PSTs were only in their first session of their degree program.
