by Topsy Page
Pupil voice about ‘participation systems’ for whole-class talk – how is it decided who speaks, and are the systems effective?
We know that one of the key factors for classroom talk impacting positively on attainment is wide participation in the talk [1]. Recently, I’ve been reflecting a lot on how this is managed – how it’s decided which pupils will speak during whole-class talk moments, and what are effective ways to ensure wide participation.
I have started using the term ‘participation systems’ to refer to the different ways that participation is managed.
The following discussion is based around an informal review of pupil voice from talk audits I have carried out over the past three years (I selected nine audits from a range of primary and secondary schools.)
To begin with, it’s great to hear that pupils are aware that their teachers want to create fair systems where everyone gets a chance to participate:
‘She wants it to be fair and move it around.’ Age 10
‘She gives other children opportunities. She tries to help people out.’ Age 11
‘They try to include everyone.’ Age 12
‘He sometimes does a tally of who speaks, and does lines to show participation.’ Age 18
Volunteers
When asked, ‘How does your teacher decide who will respond?’, pupils often say that the teacher looks for volunteers:
‘Hand up or thumb on chest.’ Age 6
‘The person that puts their hand up.’ Age 10
‘Sometimes they ask the one who’s most eager.’ Age 13
‘It’s mainly hands up – whoever wants to speak.’ Age 17
Pupils also often say that, despite the system apparently being ‘hands up’, teachers sometimes choose pupils who didn’t volunteer:
‘They usually do hands up. But if someone doesn’t put their hand up they would probably choose them.’ Age 9
‘We raise our hands, or they pick the one without their hand up.’ Age 15
They also commonly say that their teacher sometimes chooses pupils who aren’t listening:
‘They choose people who are silly or who are talking to friends.’ Age 8
‘Sometimes she says, “Put your hand up,” but a lot of the time she just picks people who aren’t listening.’ Age 9
‘They ask someone who wasn’t paying attention.’ Age 16
Comments like these come from pupils across a broad cross-section of schools. The approach they are talking about can be summarised as:
- The teacher asks questions, and pupils believe they are supposed to volunteer to respond.
- The teacher chooses who speaks, and frequently chooses someone who didn’t volunteer.
I wonder whether this has been explicitly thought through, and whether it has been explained to or discussed with pupils. More likely, I think, it has evolved in classrooms, as teachers try to bring in ways to include everyone.
Alternatives
Pupils are also aware of other systems that their teachers use, which don’t rely on volunteers:
‘He decides on the Dojos – random.’ Age 7
‘We have a wheel where Miss spins it.’ Age 8
‘Sometimes we pick the next person.’ Age 14
‘In some lessons, they cold-call.’ Age 15
How do the approaches compare? Which are most effective in including everyone? What are their impacts on learning? Do they promote pupil confidence to speak?
Comparing approaches
Consider these comments:
‘[Random selection] is really fair, it’s nice. But some people don’t want to – they might be embarrassed.’ Age 10
‘If you look unconfident and put your head down they sometimes pick you. That can make you lose your confidence.’ Age 17
‘It’s good to discuss in pairs first, because then you can verbalise ideas if you’re not sure.’ Age 14
‘I’m now more confident to say, “Hold on, I need to gather my thoughts.’ Age 18
The first two comments illustrate how pupils can have a negative experience of being asked to speak when they didn’t volunteer. Certainly the ‘choose someone who wasn’t listening’ approach appears punitive, if a teacher is deliberately catching someone out in front of their peers. This doesn’t mean we should never call on pupils, but it does illustrate the importance of a supportive classroom culture. The third and fourth comments illustrate strategies you can use to create such a culture – thinking time, opportunities to practise before speaking to the whole class, and ways to express uncertainty or a need for more time.
Here are some comments from pupils who perceive that their teacher is using cold-calling to make sure a range of pupils have the opportunity to contribute and if necessary, get help and gain confidence:
‘I prefer cold calling. If someone gets it wrong, it’s better for them – they can get help.’ Age 8
‘But [cold-calling] is fair, because children who don’t have a lot of confidence can speak more now.’ Age 9
‘It’s good that they pick people who haven’t had a turn to answer.’ Age 11
Certainly, a great advantage of cold-calling is that you can plan in advance who you are going to ask – targeting your questions to challenge and support specific pupils as necessary (of course, it may not be obvious to pupils that you have done this).
What if we don’t do such a good job of choosing? Consider this pupil voice:
‘The randomising is best, because everyone wants to answer. He has trouble deciding with hands up!’ Age 8
‘I know they’re not doing it intentionally, but if they keep asking the same people it’s frustrating.’ Age 14
‘She doesn’t pick people on the far right of the classroom. She doesn’t look that way!’ Age 11
These comments make a case for sometimes using random selection (lolly sticks, randomiser app, wheel etc.) to decide who speaks. Genuinely random selection removes the mental load of choosing someone, and also removes the risk of any kind of bias. We are all at risk of unconscious biases, and as the last comment shows, this could even be as simple as a habit of looking left more often than right! Again, this is not to say dogmatically that random selection is the only good way of deciding who speaks, but that it’s helpful to be aware of its advantages when you are planning.
Here are two final comments to consider:
‘In our class, normally me and a couple of others put our hands up. At first, she does pick us, but then she will try to encourage others.’ Age 10
‘They revert to cold-calling if not everyone is talking.’ Age 18
These comments make me wonder why we are asking for volunteers in the first place. In both classrooms, the teacher is rightly aiming for a range of voices to be heard. So why always start with the regular volunteers and only then move onto the others? Why not just cold-call or randomly select in the first place?
In summary
There’s a lot more we could discuss here, and I don’t yet have a lot of pupil voice about other participation systems such as ‘pupil chooses’, rounds or ‘speak into the space’. I’ve also not yet had an opportunity to ask pupils about the ‘all hands up’ approach, where the teacher chooses who speaks but meanwhile expects everyone to raise their hand to demonstrate their listening and engagement.
But I think we can agree that we want everyone to feel willing, able and motivated to participate in whole-class talk. Based on pupil comments like the above, my own observations and dialogue with colleagues, I recommend that teachers:
- Demonstrate an expectation that everyone will think and everyone will contribute.
- Set up pupils for success by giving thinking time, time to talk in pairs or trios, and ways to express uncertainty.
- Use a variety of participation systems.
- Tell pupils they are not usually expected to volunteer.
- Are mindful and reflective about who they are choosing.
I wish you success in this.
Footnotes
[1] Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N. Vrikki, M. & Wheatley, L. (2019). Classroom dialogue: Does it really make a difference for student learning? https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/programmes/classroomdialogue/