Transactive Talk

In order to understand the interactive nature of the discussion, I will present, in the following section, the proportions of transactive talk recorded during successful and unsuccessful sessions. I will then go on to consider the proportion of collaborative

metacognition (i.e. metacognition which is followed by or which precedes transactive talk) displayed during both conditions. The sub-research question which was addressed in this section was: What proportion of talk that can be categorised as transactive is displayed

On task transactive versus non-transactive by success 241 133 654 353 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% successful (895) unsuccessful (486) C on di ti on Proportion of utterances transactive non-transactive

Figure 6- 11 On-task transactive versus non-transactive talk by success

On-Task Transactive and non-transactive utterances by success and teacher presence

162 89 79 44 365 183 289 170 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% successful tp (527) unsuccessful tp (272) successful tnp (368) unsuccessful tnp (214) proportion transactive non-transactive

Figure 6- 12 On-task transactive and non-transactive utterances by success and teacher presence

On-task Teacher Present Transactive Utterances by Success and teacher or student

62 100 33 56 245 120 138 45 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Student successful (307) Teacher successful (220) Student unsuccessful (171) Teacher unsuccessful (101) c on di ti on proportion of utterances Transactive Non Transactive

Figure 6- 13 On-task teacher present transactive utterances by success and teacher or student

Figures 6-11, 6-12 and 6-13 provide a picture of the transactive quality of talk during successful and unsuccessful sessions. Overall there was very little difference in the proportion of talk that was coded transactive between the two conditions. However, the teacher was in the groups for a proportion of the time and the previous section provided evidence that the pattern of teacher talk was different across success conditions. In order to ascertain if there was a difference in the proportions of transactive talk when the teacher was present in the group, figures were provided which separated both conditions of teacher presence and success.

Figure (6-12) shows that when the teacher was not present the proportion of student talk which was transactive was almost equal across success conditions at 21%. However, when the teacher was present in the group the proportion of transactive talk increased across both conditions. Also, during unsuccessful sessions, there were slightly higher proportions of transactive talk recorded at 33% (89) compared to 31% (162) during successful sessions.

It is difficult to ascertain from these figures why the transactive talk increased when the teacher was present in the group. Figure (6-13) provides a breakdown of transactive talk made by the teacher or students in both success conditions. These figures show that the teacher displayed a larger proportion of transactive utterances than all of the students together. Therefore, the higher proportion of transactive talk during both successful and unsuccessful sessions when the teacher was present, can be accounted for by the

contribution of the teacher.

The proportions of student transactive utterances were similar across both conditions of teacher presence and success. When the contribution of the teacher is removed, student transactive talk during unsuccessful sessions accounted for 19% (33) of utterances. This proportion increased only slightly to 20% (62) for successful sessions.

A different pattern was observed for the teacher. During sessions when the groups were successful, transactive talk displayed by the teacher accounted for 45% (100) of total teacher utterances. This suggests the teacher was engaging with students in order to draw out their thoughts and ideas regarding the problem. In sessions when the students were not successful, the proportion of transactive talk displayed by the teacher rose to 55% (56). This is not to be unexpected as the teacher would naturally question, critique or extend thought processes which might be incorrect during an unsuccessful session.

6.3.1 Summary

Similar proportions of transactive talk were displayed by students regardless of success when the teacher was not present. This suggests that students interacted with one another’s ideas both during successful and during unsuccessful sessions.

Similarly, when the teacher was present in the groups, the proportion of student transactive utterances was similar regardless of success. However, the overall proportion of

transactive talk increased when the teacher was present. This can be accounted for by the transactive talk displayed by the teacher. The proportion of transactive talk displayed by the teacher was greater when the students were not successful in solving the problem compared to when they were successful.

These figures may be interpreted in different ways. The higher proportion of cognitive talk displayed by students during unsuccessful sessions (reported in previous section) may have prompted the teacher to engage in more transactive talk in order to encourage students to explain their thinking and possibly uncover flaws in their thinking. This type of

intervention from the teacher seems likely to lead to a positive outcome for individual students and may result in higher proportions of collaborative metacognition being

displayed. However, the intervention of the teacher may also have had a detrimental effect on the problem solving sessions. When students were working without the teacher in the

group, they were able to contribute to the discussion at any point. However, when the teacher was present in the group there was, at times, more of a dyadic discussion, with the teacher focussing on one member of the group at a time. Although students were able to interject, the presence of a teacher may change the dynamic of a group and the teacher as an authority figure may have the effect of discouraging many people to join in.

It is not possible to claim that students would disengage from the problem solving process when the teacher was present. Nor is it possible to claim that they would engage simply because the teacher was not in the group. However, if the teacher focuses on one student in the group in order to ask questions, this may result in fewer student to student

transactive interactions.

As previously mentioned, the students displayed similar proportions of transactive talk across all conditions and therefore it may be argued that the teacher interactions did not have a detrimental effect. However, the teacher was able to direct the discussion. If the teacher identified a particular aspect of the problem as one with which the students were having difficulty, the discussion might be directed towards that. If the teacher then continued to interact transactively with only one student, a lower overall proportion of student transactive talk would be observed than if the discussion was more open to all.