Who benefits from dyadic teacher–student interactions in whole-class settings?

Abstract

International audienceTo what extent can teacher–student dyadic interactions modify the hierarchy of student performances within a single class? To answer this insufficiently researched question, the authors conducted two parallelstudies involving 33 Grade 5 classes in France (759 students) and 15 Grade 5 classes in Luxembourg (243 students). Interactions were observed during whole-class lessons. Posttest scores were analyzed using multilevel models controlling for five level-1 variables and two level-2 variables. The authors did not find any effect of dyadic interactions on relative student performance in mathematics or in language (French or German), in France or in Luxembourg. This result is interpreted in terms of both the public character of dyadic interactions in whole-class settings and the class management functions of these interactions

All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement

“…Also, the linkages between each engagement dimension and student performance are well established in variable-centered studies. Student participation in the form of hand-raising and verbal contributions (Cobb 1972;Flieller et al 2016;Pauli and Lipowsky 2007); deep information processing prompted, for example, by teacher questions and peer contributions (Chi et al 2018;Jurik et al 2014;Liem et al 2008); and the experience of interest (Jansen et al 2016;Wigfield and Cambria 2010) and enjoyment (Pekrun et al 2002) are antecedents of academic achievement. However, taking into account the interdependencies and overlap between the three engagement dimensions, consideration of engagement patterns is important in this regard (Wang et al 2019).…”

“…Often, external student participation as the verbalization of one's own ideas and answers is identified as a key function of student learning (Sedova et al 2019), which is associated with the assumption that silent students might miss learning opportunities (O'Connor et al 2017). In contrast, others claim that it is students' active internal cognitive and emotional engagement in whole-class dialogues that determine learning (Flieller et al 2016;Inagaki et al 1998;Stahl and Clark 1987). Students may think about how they would answer the teacher's questions and compare their ideas with those of their peers, thereby integrating identified contractions and overt teacher feedback into their conceptual understanding (Mercer and Dawes 2014).…”

Do Teachers Treat Their Students Differently? An Observational Study on Teacher-Student Interactions as a Function of Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement

“…e IRE interaction pattern gives teachers a high degree of control over the classroom dialogue. ey can use answers to increase involvement by checking students' understanding, asking additional questions, or adapting instruction [3,16].…”

“…With this kind of observation scheme, whether high-expectation students engage in more and higher level interactions in classrooms can be studied. According to Flieller et al [16], it is difficult for teachers to meet the individual needs of all students in classroom dialogue during whole class teaching. ey state that this is easier to realise during individual work following whole class teaching.…”

“…ey state that this is easier to realise during individual work following whole class teaching. During that phase of the lesson, teacher-student interactions can become more extensive and better adjusted to students' individual needs [16]. Regarding the type of feedback that is provided by the teacher during individual work, recent studies have broadened the scope.…”