Widening Access to Educational Opportunities through Teaching Children how to Reason Together

Westminster Studies in Education Carfax PublishingTaylor $ Francis Group

Vol. 27, No. 2, October 2004

Widening access to educationalopportunities through teachingchildren how to reason togetherRupert Wegerif*, Karen Littleton, Lyn Dawes, Neil Mercerand Denise RoweSchool of Education, Southampton University, UK

This paper reports on a project to explore the impact of promoting exploratory talk as the mediumof teaching across the curriculum for 6- and 7-year-old pupils in three primary schools in the UK.We found that this focus on teaching through exploratory talk (which we call the ThinkingTogether approach) enabled the children to work together more inclusively and more effectively,improving their social skills and, at the same time, their use of language for reasoning andlearning.

Introduction

Research studies conducted over a number of years have indicated that encouragingthe use of the ground rules of Exploratory Talk in classrooms can be an effective wayof improving reasoning and learning (see accounts in Mercer, 2000; Wegerif &Dawes, 2004). In these research studies it was often noted by teachers that usingExploratory Talk had a beneficial effect on the behaviour of their children, produc-ing a more collaborative and inclusive classroom ethos. It was also noted that thepositive educational effects of a focus on Exploratory Talk were most markedamongst those groups of children who were performing least well initially. Thispaper reports some of the findings of a research study designed to explore the impactof Exploratory Talk on access to education and issues of inclusion. It was called the'Talking for Success Project' and funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. In thestudy the 'Thinking Together' approach to teaching and learning developed inearlier projects with 9- and 10-year-old children (Year 5) was adapted and appliedto children of only 6 and 7 (Year 2). Whereas in previous projects, the Thinking

Corresponding author: School of Education, Southampton University, Southampton SO17 1BJ,UK. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0140-6728 (print)/ISSN 1470-1359 (online)/04/020143-14© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0140672042000277099

Downloaded By: [University of Exeter] At: 14:40 1 September 2010

144 R. Wegerif et al.

Together approach had either been an extra intervention or particularly focussed onthe use of ICT in the Talking for Success Project we sought to apply this approachacross the whole curriculum for 1 year working with six teachers in three primaryschools.

In developing this project we began with the assumption, based on prior researchand experience, that the ability to communicate and to reason with others isimportant for success in education (and, in the longer term, for making a construc-tive contribution to society). Conversely, inadequate communicative competencewill reduce children's opportunities for participation and so can lead to marginaliza-tion and lower levels of achievement. Earlier research had indicated that essentialcommunication and reasoning skills were not taught effectively in many primaryschools. Some children may acquire such skills in their home environments, butothers do not have this opportunity. This seemed to be particularly true of thosechildren from some social and ethnic minority backgrounds. The project aimed toimprove access to education for these children by teaching them the basic talk skillsthat they require for success in school and for many aspects of their lives.

The Thinking Together approach

The Thinking Together approach encourages the use of 'Exploratory Talk' as amedium of teaching and learning. 'Exploratory Talk' has a long tradition in edu-cation in the UK. Advocated by Douglas Barnes in the 1970s (see, for example,Barnes, 1976) it was taken up and developed by Neil Mercer, who defined Ex-ploratory Talk as follows:

Exploratory talk foregrounds reasoning. Its ground rules require that the views of allparticipants are sought and considered, that proposals are explicitly stated and evalu-ated, and that explicit agreement precedes decisions and actions. [It is] aimed at theachievement of consensus. Exploratory talk, by incorporating both conflict and theopen sharing of ideas represents the more visible pursuit of rational consensus throughconversations. [It is] a speech situation in which everyone is free to express their viewsand in which the most reasonable views gain acceptance. (Mercer, 1995, p. 107)

This description of Exploratory Talk, combined with some conceptual consider-ations, knowledge from classroom experience and a review of research on collabora-tive learning (see Wegerif & Mercer, 1997'a, for a full account) can be used togenerate teachable 'ground rules' for talk.

Ground rules for Exploratory Talk:

• everyone in the group is encouraged to speak by other group members;• all relevant information is shared;• reasons are expected;• contributions are considered with respect;• challenges are accepted;• the group takes responsibility for decisions;• alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken;• the group seeks to reach agreement.


Widening access to educational opportunities 145

The core Thinking Together lessons take these ground rules of Exploratory Talk astheir starting point. Early lessons focus on raising an awareness of the importance oftalk while developing skills such as listening, sharing information and cooperating.Later lessons encourage critical argument for and against different cases. In thelessons children are given opportunities to practice discussing alternative ideas,giving and asking for reasons and ensuring that all members of the group are invitedto contribute.

Some key features of all the Thinking Together lessons are that:

• learning objectives for group talk are made explicit in the introduction;• groups reflect on the quality of their talk in plenary sessions;• the class are directly taught talk skills such as asking questions, challenging one

another, reasoning, negotiating ideas;• meaningful contexts are provided to allow children to develop and practice talk

skills;• classes create and agree on a shared set of ground rules for talk;• the teacher focuses the class on the quality of their talk, provides intervention to

support groups during discussion and models Exploratory Talk in the way inwhich she or he talks to the class;

• the outcome of the lesson is not usually written work but a developed understand-ing which any of the group can rationalize.

For the talk lessons, classrooms are organized so that children work in mixed abilitygroups of three. This provides groups with a range of opinions and ideas and ensuresthat each group has a fluent reader/writer. Occasionally, pairs and larger groups areused when required by a specific task or context. To encourage a perception that allcontributions to the group work are equal, there are no set 'roles' within the groups,other than that of occasional scribe or reader.

Evaluations of the Thinking Together approach

Several evaluation studies designed to assess the efficacy of the approach have beenconducted, both in primary schools in the UK (involving pupils at Key Stage 2) andin Mexico (Rojas-Drummond et al., 2001). These studies have shown that childrenwho had been inducted into ways of talking and thinking together in groups usingthe Thinking Together approach used more of the Exploratory Talk that was beingtaught when working together to solve problems than children of similar back-grounds from matched 'control' schools (see, for example, Merder et al., 1999). Notonly did the children become more effective in using language for talking andthinking together, but children who had studied the series of Thinking Togetherlessons achieved better results on the tests of non-verbal reasoning (Raven's Pro-gressive Matrices) and in their understanding of curriculum subjects than those inthe 'control' classes, even when working alone. This suggests that the 'socializedspeech' of children who studied the Thinking Together lessons had been 'turnedinward' and so had contributed to the development of personal ways of thinking


146 R. Wegerifet al.

(Wegerif et al., 1999; Mercer et al., 2003). This finding substantiates the claimsmade by L. S. Vygotsky that intermental or social activity can promote intramentalor individual psychological development: 'The greatest change in children's capacityto use language as a problem solving tool takes place ... when socialised speech isturned inward;... language takes on an intrapersonal function in addition to itsinterpersonal use' (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 27).

Methods used in the 'Talking for Success Project*

During the preparation phase of the project we selected three 'target' schools (thosewho implemented the programme of lessons) and three matched 'control' schools(in which teachers and children pursued their normal activities). Six teachers in thetarget schools and five in the control schools were involved. The schools we selectedhad not reported high levels of academic achievement and had a high proportion ofchildren from social groups which are commonly described as under-achieving.Thus, one target school and one control school had a very high proportion ofchildren from low income families who had fairly recently arrived from the Indiansubcontinent and for whom English was an additional language (EAL). In theseschools EAL support was provided for several children in each class by the localeducation authority (LEA). In total, there were six teachers in the target schools andfive in the control schools. As the project began, we organized training for theteachers involved, prepared teaching materials and prepared for initial teachertraining sessions. We also briefed headteachers on the nature and purposes of theproject.

In consultation with teachers, an initial set of five core Thinking Together lessonswere generated which focused on developing children's awareness and skills in usingspoken language (see Dawes & Sams, 2004). A further set of nine lessons were thencreated which applied the approach to curriculum subjects such as history, geogra-phy and religious education.

The implementation began with an introductory twilight session to informteachers about the background and aims of the project. All headteachers, advisoryteachers, participating teachers and learning support staff in the target schoolswere invited. This was followed by a full day of professional development forall Year 2 teachers in the target schools. A second full day of professional develop-ment had been planned, but this was replaced with two twilight sessions at therequest of headteachers who were concerned about lack of supply cover for staff.All learning support staff in the target schools also participated in a half day ofin-school professional development. Staff in the control schools were informed ofour interests in general terms and asked if data about children's talk and learningcould be gathered at appropriate times. Otherwise, no input was made to theseschools.

We wanted to explore changes in the way that groups talk and reason together andthe impact of collective reasoning on individual development. A short group test (forchildren working together in groups of three) was constructed from 15 questions



carefully selected from the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. In addition, allchildren completed the Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test individually.This test measures non-verbal reasoning and is standardized; performance on itcorrelates well with academic attainment. We have used these tests extensively inour earlier, related research and they have proved effective for assessing the qualityof group-based reasoning and the effects of Thinking Together activities on thedevelopment of individual children's reasoning abilities at Key Stage 2. All childrenwere given both tests at the beginning of the year. Focal groups of three childrenwere videotaped talking together about the group test, which was given three daysbefore the individual test. There was one focal group per class selected by theteacher as typical of the class. This sequence was repeated 6 months later (aftercompletion of the programme of lessons in the target schools). Recordings madeduring the group test provided us with rich qualitative data on changes in importantaspects of children's talk over time.

The development of lessons for the programme continued during this phase. Theteam prepared 25 activities to fit in with QCA schemes of work in the main areas ofthe curriculum such as science, maths, English, ICT, citizenship, religious edu-cation, geography and history. Lessons were devised to link in with the teachers'own schemes of work.

For implementation of the programme, the teachers arranged their classes intomixed gender, mixed ability and mixed ethnicity groups of three (this type ofgrouping having proved effective in previous research projects). We then asked eachteacher to select a 'focal group' that was as representative as possible of the abilityrange and ethnic mix of the class. In the project the focal groups were videotapedmore frequently than other groups to help us explore changes in their language useand behaviour over time. Towards the end of the project we asked teachers toreorganize the groups for one session. In this way we were able to assess whether thechildren who had experienced the Thinking Together lessons were able to work wellwith children that they had not worked with before.

Researchers visited all the target schools regularly to observe and gather data, tosupport the project teachers and to collect feedback on activities. This informalsupport was strengthened by twilight sessions twice a term for the first two terms. Inthe third term the pressure of SATs on teacher time made such meetings impossibleto organize. All the teachers, heads, support assistants (where possible) and a groupof children from each class were interviewed in the last month of the project. Theywere asked to discuss their involvement with the project and their impressions of itseffectiveness or impact.

Research aims

Our research aims were:

(1) to use qualitative observation, video and interview data to evaluate the im-plementation of the Thinking Together approach at KS1;


148 R. Wegerifetal

(2) to use a quasi-experimental experimental control study to assess the impact ofour teaching programme on reasoning and achievement, with a special focus onchildren from those social groups currently performing least well within edu-cation.

In addition, the project had the rather more practical aim of generating guidelinesand materials that would help to improve access to education for children whocurrently seem to be missing out, especially those with EAL.

Data

In the course of the project we gathered a range of different kinds of information inthe target schools, as follows:

(i) pre- and post-intervention video recordings of a 'focal group' in each target andcontrol class carrying out a reasoning test activity;

(ii) video recordings of other groups of children in target schools engaged in jointactivities during Thinking Together lessons;

(iii) video recordings of teacher-led whole class sessions during Thinking Togetherlessons;

(iv) observations and ethnographic notes from visits to the schools during theprogramme;

(v) audio recordings of interviews with teachers and children;(vi) children's scores on the Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices test of non-

verbal reasoning;(vii) children's scores on baseline tests at school entry and on the SATs test at the

end of Year 2. [This proved impossible to use due to the different nature of thebaseline data in different schools.]

The same information was also gathered in the three matching control schools, apartfrom items (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the list above. Talk from interviews, group activitiesand some whole class sessions were transcribed. This range of different types of dataprovided complementary perspectives on the relevant processes and outcomes.

Interviews with teachers and heads

Semi-structured interviews with the classroom teachers and headteachers in thetarget schools revealed a positive evaluation of the impact of the project, even in theone school in which the implementation had, due to staffing problems, been ratherunsatisfactory. All the heads and teachers expressed a desire to continue with theThinking Together approach in their schools and classes. The interviews revealed aheightened awareness of the nature and functions of talk amongst participatingteachers and of the importance of improving children's communication skills as ameans for ensuring their successful participation in education.



All the teachers noted that using the Thinking Together approach had a positiveimpact on inclusion. The following quote from one teacher, responding to aquestion about their children with special educational needs (SEN), is typical.

I give them one pencil so they have to take it in turns and even if they are helped towrite, and they are helped with what to write they feel that they've achieved and that'sone of the biggest things that I've noticed. The child who's a special education needschild, it's their feeling of achievement and satisfaction that they've done something thatthey wouldn't have been able to do I think if they'd been on their own, but also, I'vehad that feeling from the other children who feel pleased for the SEN child, you know?'Look what so and so's done!'

Most of the social groups have really knitted well and they have a sense of togetherness,and a sense of helping each other. It's wonderful!

She reports that she gives them one pencil in their groups of three so that theyare forced to collaborate and write together. This was possible because thefocus of Thinking Together lessons was always more on spoken than on writtenlanguage. All the teachers reported that their quiet children became more confidentand able to participate in discussions and they attributed this to the use of smallgroups and the ground rules of listening with respect and asking others what theythink.

We found the responses of the headteachers particularly valuable because,although they had agreed to the project being carried out in their school, they weremore detached from its implementation than the classroom teachers. One head-teacher commented:

Now, I've done that lesson (on Florence Nightingale) with Y2 last year and it was verydifficult getting questions from them; questions that you'd get information from. I didit with (a class in Y2) this year and it's incredible, the questioning—and I think it'sreally developed that skill of questioning. Because that's quite a difficult and matureskill to have, quite complex. In fact it was really interesting, because once we hadwatched the video and the children had asked the questions, when we came to learnabout Florence Nightingale, because they had asked the right questions they were ableto get so much more information.

This was echoed by another headteacher, who commented:

I was quite impressed with the way that they are working together ... they are listeningto each other, taking turns and asking. They are working things out together wherebefore I have not noticed that. In those particular sessions (i.e. lessons observed) I havenoticed that they have all been engaged in what they are doing.

She contrasted this with the previous state of affairs

Based on previous knowledge of these classes at this school I wouldn't have expectedchildren to have the skills to enrol other members of the group who weren't engagedinitially, bringing in other children into what's happening not just ignoring them.... Iwouldn't have expected to see so many children listening to each other, involving eachother, actually even noticing that somebody else hasn't given any input, and I think thatI certainly haven't witnessed that anywhere else before.



This same headteacher reported that changes had also been reported by outsideprofessionals who were experienced school visitors:

When we had our assessment (part of the Healthy Schools initiative) the assessoractually commented on their ability as groups of Year 2 children to sit and listen to theconversation round the table as a group that they hadn't noticed in other schools. Theywere quite impressed with that.

Issues of social inclusion also figured prominently for the teachers and headteachers.One headteacher from a target school with a high proportion of children with EALmade this observation of a group of children:

They didn't assume that what one child said was the answer. They were very keen toknow what each individual child knew, and that was really good. In another group,within the same lesson, there was a child who has a statement, and again, the inclusionthere was excellent. So I think it seems to work across, for all children, I suppose—spe-cial needs children, EAL children, the more able children. ...There's one little girlwho's both EAL and special needs and to see her animated in a lesson is justwonderful.

The child in question, who we will call Nuresha, is the focus of a more detailed casestudy below.

A case study: Nuresha, Vijay and Kyle (all names have been changed)

Nuresha was a child from a Bengali speaking family in one of the target schools.Vijay had a similar background, though he was more fluent in English. Kyle was anative English speaker of local origin. Nuresha was perceived by the class teacher asa very quiet child with limited English who did not participate in class. When wemade our initial video recordings of the group working together on reasoning testproblems, it was noticeable that Nuresha did not speak at all. On the recording shecan be seen sitting well back from the table, while the other group members, Vijayand Kyle, work on the task. Sometimes she looks round the room, sometimes sheplays with her ruler, but she is completely disengaged from the group. The teacherintroduces the group task and asks questions to check for understanding. She asksNuresha several questions, such as: 'Do you agree, Nuresha? What do you think?Can you see why it's not number 3?' In response Nuresha nods. When the teacherleaves the group Vijay takes over the pencil and answer sheet. Kyle says it is his 'go'and a little later asks Nuresha if she wants a go. Nuresha shakes her head. Neitherof the other children speak directly to her again during the rest of the sequence. Thesubsequent exchange between Kyle and Vijay involves disagreement over whoshould answer each question. There is no explanation of opinions or collaborationto work out the patterns in the puzzles. This is a kind of interaction that we havefound quite frequently in pairs and groups in classrooms which can be described as'disputational' talk. 'Extract 1: It's four not five' is a sample of the children's talkbefore implementation of the programme. The group are working on the Ravens'test puzzles.



Problem A

X

13

\

/

Figure 1. An example of a Raven's reasoning test puzzle

Extract 1: It's four not five

Kyle: It's four not five (referring to the number of the puzzle).Vijay: We're on number five now, bogey. Look, we done number four, dumb brain.

It's this one, isn't it?Kyle: No.Vijay: It's this one isn't it?Kyle: No.Vijay: Yes.Kyle: No.Vijay: It's number 1.Kyle: No, It's my turn to cross it off (Attempts to take the pencil from Vijay who

keeps it and marks number 1 on the answer sheet).

(Kyle raises a fist to Vijay and Vijay runs away from the table saying 'don't hit me'.)In this extract the boys disagree without attempting to explain, provide reasons for

opinions or seek each others' views. The competition between them is quite playful,but is not productive from an educational point of view. Their main aim seems tobe to assert or defend their individual ideas and there is no attempt to pursue thetask collaboratively.



Soon after this extract was recorded, implementation of the Thinking Togetherlessons began. The approach encourages children to listen with respect and ask oneanother relevant questions. The class creates and agrees to use a set of sharedground rules for talk when working in groups. The next recording we made ofNuresha was about half-way through the project in a whole class setting. In thissession Nuresha is better engaged with the task and appears much more comfortablein the group. She speaks appropriately and confidently in response to a questionfrom the teacher and takes part in class activities such as miming happiness to apartner.

In June 2004 we videotaped Nuresha, Vijay and Kyle undertaking exactly thesame problem-solving activity they had been engaged in the initial recording. Thistime the way that they worked together was quite different. The video shows allmembers of the group leaning forward to the table and frequently looking at eachother as they pursue the task. Nuresha is involved throughout. They decide as agroup that each should take turns at handling the task materials and ticking theanswer sheet. The children remind one another of some of the ground rules fortalking that have been agreed in their class. 'Extract 2: Which one ..." is a sample ofthe group talk. The children are working on the same Raven's test puzzle as inExtract 1.

Extract 2: Which one ...

Kyle: Which one ... (to Nuresha) You have to ask us which one we think.O.K. You have to say 'Kyle and Vijay, whose name, which one?'

Vijay: You have to say 'I don't want to do this' or 'Kyle, what do youthink?'... say ...

(And a little later)Vijay: Next. Nuresha's getting the best ones, isn't she? You have to say 'what

do you think, Vijay or Kyle?'Nuresha: I think that (number 2)Kyle: I think that (number 4)Vijay: Nuresha, look.Nuresha: I think, that, that, that.Kyle : No, because, look, because that goes round. It goes out. It goes out.Vijay: Or that one.Kyle : No, because it hasn't got squiggly lines.Vijay: It has to be that.Vijay: OK num' 4.Nuresha: Num' 4.

In this extract Nuresha is much more involved in the group's shared reasoning. Sheis encouraged by the other two children, who are listening to one another andaccepting alternative viewpoints better. Nuresha suggests an alternative which chal-lenges Kyle and Vijay, prompting Kyle to provide reasons why her suggestion may



not be the correct answer to the puzzle. When the group converge on an answer,Nuresha affirms her participation by repeating the answer aloud, echoing Vijay.

Nuresha speaks in total 26 times in this second recording. This is less than theothers (Kyle 72 and Vijay 76) but is obviously significantly more than the pre-in-tervention session. She is involved in all the decisions that are made. She is askedone question in the pre-intervention test, but 21 in the corresponding post-inter-vention session. 'What do you think?' is the commonest form of question, severaltimes taking the form 'What do you think, Nuresha?'. All three children display areadiness to work together and an understanding of the importance of eachindividual contribution to the group's answer.

We have additional evidence that this group were thinking together moreeffectively in the post-test than in the pre-test. The Raven's test puzzles (see Figure1) have right or wrong answers. The group complete 15 puzzles and scored 11 inthe pre-test. Most of these answers were decided and recorded by Vijay, whocontrolled the pencil. In the post-test we see alternatives being suggested andreasons being given for rejecting or accepting an answer. In the post-test the groupscored 13 out of 15. The final two questions were rather more difficult and fewgroups worked out the correct solution.

Key Words in Context (KWIC) analysis

To provide a more general assessment of the effects of the intervention programmeacross all the classes, we used a computer-based method for analysing changes inlanguage use (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997b) called Key Word in Context (KWIC).Using a concordancer (software for analysis of language) it is possible to identifyand measure rate of occurrence of items such as questions, pronouns, names andother key words. We looked at key words such as 'because', 'why' and 'I think',which can indicate reasoning, across all the transcripts. The changes in languageuse and in the way that children interact, illustrated by the case study of Nuresha'sgroup, were confirmed by this type of analysis. The results are summarized inTables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Key Word in Context (KWIC) analysis for six target groups

Key words September 2002 June 2003

Because and cos (used in explict reasoning)I think (used to introduce hypothesis)If (used to reason about problems)Why (task-related questions)Which (task-related questions)What (task-related questions)You (used in questions)

923

239

1531

363113122121

144


1535

00

1285

21177127

11


Table 2. KWIC analysis for three control groups

Key words September 2002 June 2003

Because and cos (used in explict reasoning)I think (used to introduce hypothesis)If (used to reason about problems)Why (task-related questions)Which (task-related questions)What (task-related questions)You (used in questions)

Comment

It can be seen that the use of logical connectors ('because/cos') and the use of 'what'and 'why' task-related questions increased over the period of the intervention in thetarget classes.

The same analysis for the talks of the three groups recorded in the control classesin the post-intervention period showed no similar pattern of change. For accessreasons, only three groups in control classes could be recorded pre/post-interven-tion.

There is a certain amount of randomness in variations in key word use betweengroups and episodes and so we must be cautious in interpreting this data. Some ofour key terms chosen as indicative of Exploratory Talk, such as 'if, increased in thecontrol groups videotaped. These increases occurred in the class of a 'control'teacher who was very aware of the importance of promoting thinking and question-ing in her class and was very effective in improving the reasoning of her children.However, in the control groups there is no overall increase in a range of key termsfound to be important indicators of language being used to reason together and toencourage the inclusion of other's perspectives. In the target groups the increase ismarked across a range of such indicators. This suggests that some of the changes inlanguage use that occurred in Nuresha's group were also occurring in other groupsand therefore it is reasonable to assume that it resulted from the Thinking Togetherapproach.

Summary and conclusion

In this paper we have outlined a project which addressed the issue of inclusionthrough a focus on promoting Exploratory Talk in the classroom. When engaged inExploratory Talk children ask questions and give reasons. The findings of previousprojects have shown that a focus on promoting Exploratory Talk can improvereasoning and learning. However, Exploratory Talk is not only about cognition andcognitive outcomes, it is also about social processes and inclusion. Children whohave appropriated the ground rules of Exploratory Talk encourage others to speak,listen carefully to what they say and then respond constructively even if their



response is a challenge or a disagreement. We worked with six teachers in threeprimary schools to implement teaching and learning across the curriculum in Year2 (6- and 7-year-old children) with a focus on the promotion and use of ExploratoryTalk. All the teachers and headteachers in the study reported in interviews that thisprogramme led to a more collaborative an4 inclusive atmosphere in their class-rooms. A case study of one focal group in one class suggests some of the mecha-nisms that led to this improved inclusion. Transcripts of the talk of this group beforeuse of the Thinking Together approach show that one quiet girl with SEN and EALwas completely excluded. Transcripts of the talk of the same group working on thesame task some months later show how this girl was encouraged to speak by theothers in her group and responded by participating much more effectively. Thisgreater inclusion and shared thinking is realized through the use of specific forms oflanguage to ask each other questions and engage in joint reasoning. One focal groupof children, selected by the teacher as representative of the class, was recorded ineach target and control class in the study. A comparison of changes in their use oflanguage over one school year suggests that the Thinking Together approach didhave some impact. The overall evidence, from this and other studies, shows that thequality of interactions in classrooms can be improved by a method of teaching andlearning that focuses on enabling children to participate effectively in dialogues. Theimplication of the findings of this study, from the interviews and the transcriptanalysis reported is that a focus on the quality of talk in the classroom may have thepotential to improve the inclusion of potentially marginalized children into themainstream of classroom activity and so facilitate access to education for all.

References

Barnes, D. (1976) From communication to curriculum (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books).Dawes, L. & Sams, C. (2004) Talk box: talking and thinking together at Key Stage 1 (London,

David Fulton).Mercer, N. (1995) The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners (Cleve-

don, Multilingual Matters).Mercer, N. (2000) Words and minds: how we use language to think together (London, Routledge).Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (1999) Children's talk and the development of reasoning

in the classroom, British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.Mercer, N., Littleton, K. & Dawes, L. (2003) Computers and learning conversations, paper

presented at the Information and Communication Technologies and the Transformation ofLearning Practices Seminar, Goteborg, Sweden, September.

Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N. & Dabrowski, E. (2001) Collaboration, scaffolding and thepromotion of problem-solving strategies in Mexican pre-schoolers, European Journal ofPsychology of Education, XVI(2), 179-196.

Vugotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (2004) Thinking and learning with ICT: raising achievement in primary

classrooms (London, Routledge).Wegerif, R. & Mercer, N. (1997a) A dialogical framework for investigating talk, in: R. Wegerif,

& P. Scrimshaw, (Eds) Computers and talk in the primary classroom (Clevedon, MultilingualMatters), 49-65.



Wegerif, R. & Mercer, N. (1997b) Using computer-based text analysis to integrate quantitativeand qualitative methods in the investigation of collaborative learning, Language and Edu-cation, 11(4), 271-286.

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999) From social interaction to individual reasoning: anempirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development, Learningand Instruction, 9(5), 493-516.


Widening Access to Educational Opportunities through Teaching Children how to Reason Together

Documents