































GeorGia Journal of readinG 15 Volume 38, number 1   2015

An Analysis of  
Teachers’ Discourse and  

Their Perceptions Concerning  
the Use of Questioning  
and Feedback During  
Reading Instruction  

in Third-Grade Classrooms
by Dr. MArie hoLbein AnD Dr. Jennifer fArist

abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher 
talk during elementary reading instruction. The study 
was designed to gain insight into existing discourse 
patterns and to understand how change in these 
patterns might be facilitated. The design of the study 
evolved after a review of existing literature on the 
topic of teacher talk indicated a lack of widespread, 
intentional focus on classroom discourse and its 
potential impact on student learning.

Qualitative methods were used to capture the language 
used by third-grade teachers during read aloud 
instruction. data sources included audio recordings 
of lessons and teacher interviews. These methods 
were used to identify common communication 
patterns in the participating classrooms. after the 
initial analysis of discourse, the two most commonly 
used types of teacher talk, questioning and feedback, 
were investigated with more depth. The goal was 
to determine not only the types of questioning and 
feedback used by teachers but also the purpose of 
these two types of discourse.

data were analyzed using a sociocultural lens 
based on the work of Vygotsky. The study was 
built upon theoretical and empirical evidence that 
effective teacher talk promotes student learning. 
The participating teachers were involved in data 
analysis as they reviewed transcripts of the read 
aloud instruction and responded to questions related 
to their use of discourse in the lessons. results from 
the study highlight the need for an intentional focus 
on the discourse used by classroom teachers and 
provide insight into social and cultural factors that 
inhibit productive discourse.

Student learning is the primary purpose of schooling, 
and the teacher’s role is to create an environment 

that maximizes student learning. a component of that 
critical learning environment is the verbal interaction, 
or discourse, that occurs within the social and cultural 
context of the classroom. The discourse facilitated by 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 16 Volume 38, number 1   2015

the teacher, often referred to as teacher talk, is the 
focus of this investigation.

Vygotsky (1986) recognized the importance of social 
and cultural contexts to learning, and his theory of 
cognitive development, now known as sociocultural 
theory, emphasized the interdependence of social 
and individual processes. He recognized a number 
of internal developmental processes which operate 
only when the child is interacting with people in his 
environment. one of these processes, internalization, 
occurs as social activities evolve into internal mental 
activities. The russian psychologist used the 
example of problem solving in children to illustrate 
this developmental process. When children find 
themselves unable to solve a problem, they routinely 
turn to an adult and verbally describe the situation. 
as they develop, children replace socialized speech 
with egocentric speech as language becomes an 
intrapersonal function in addition to its interpersonal 
use. He believed that only when speech became 
internalized did it begin to organize the child’s thought 
as an internal mental function.

Vygotsky (1978) used the term “meaning-making” 
to describe the process of linking new learning with 
what is already known. He theorized that meaning-
making is dependent upon utterances. The purpose 
of these utterances is joint meaning-making as one 
makes meaning for oneself and extends one’s own 
understanding while producing meaning for others. He 
concluded that the child develops into himself based 
on what he produces for others (Wells, 1999).

Vygotsky’s theory (1978) provided a firm theoretical 
basis for learning and development that is of central 
importance to education. He agreed with controversial 
thinkers of his time period that individual developmental 
change was not simply biological but also rooted in 
society and culture. His work expanded on writings of 
his contemporary psychologists who were beginning 
to recognize the importance of the interaction of 
humans with their environment. He recognized the 
important distinction between animals and humans: 
animals react to their environment while humans have 
the capacity to alter the environment for their own 
purposes (Schunk, 2008).

Vygotsky (1978) suggested that the use of sign 
systems (language, writing, number systems) was 
unique to humans, evolved as a culture developed, and 
led to behavioral changes and cognitive development. 
despite his interest in language as one of these sign 
systems, Vygotsky’s writings lacked specific guidance 
on the types of language that would best facilitate the 
learning process in the classroom (Wells, 1999).

despite this apparent gap between theory and practice, 
educators who support social learning theories 
believe that knowledge and practical application of 
Vygotsky’s theory will allow teachers to maximize 
student learning. Vygotsky recognized the crucial role 
that expert members of the culture (such as parents or 
teachers) play in providing guidance and assistance 
to learners. However, he cautioned against too much 
guidance and assistance as the goal should be that 
children will become increasingly competent and 
autonomous participants in learning activities (Wells, 
1999). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is based on 
the belief that ‘good learning’ occurs within a zone of 
proximal development (ZPd), which is just beyond 
what the child can do independently, or in advance of 
their development (Vygotsky, 1978).

researchers in england developed a teaching 
approach called Thinking Together, with the goal 
of putting “a sociocultural theory of education into 
practice” (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, p. 69). Their 
approach places a special emphasis on the teacher 
as a guide and model for language use. Teachers 
encourage students to give reasons, seek clarification, 
ask questions, and listen to each other’s ideas. The 
results of a multiyear study indicate that the Thinking 
Together program had a positive impact on children’s 
collective problem-solving as well as their individual 
reasoning capabilities. This provides evidence 
to support Vygotsky’s (1978) theory that social 
interactions begin on an interpsychological plane and 
influence individual thinking or the intrapsychological 
plane. The researchers concluded that the quality of 
dialogue between teachers and learners and among 
learners has a potentially powerful impact on learning 
(mercer & littleton, 2007).

numerous researchers have called attention to the 
value of talk and social learning within the classroom 
setting (Cazden, 2001; Skidmore, Perez-Parent, & 
Arnfield, 2003; Wells & Arauz, 2006). When evaluating 
characteristics of effective teachers, flynn (2007) 
concluded that teacher behavior, teacher-subject 
knowledge, and teacher-pupil interaction had more 
to do with successes than nationally prescribed 
objectives. The author asserted that teacher-pupil 
interaction, which included high-quality questioning 
and conversations designed to meet the needs of the 
group and individuals, appeared to be a key feature of 
the success of teachers’ lessons.

The question-answer relationship (Qar) strategy has 
been implemented during reading comprehension 
instruction to facilitate meaningful conversations about 
text (raphael, 1982). it is a strategy designed to 
“provide a common way of thinking about and talking 
about sources of information for answering questions” 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 17 Volume 38, number 1   2015

(Raphael, Highfield, & Au, 2006, p. 18). The language 
used with this strategy teaches students that answers 
can be found in the text or in background knowledge 
and experiences. by using the Qar strategy, students 
are taught to make decisions about where the answer 
to a question would be found. Questions that are in 
the book are labeled either right There or Think and 
Search, while those which require students to use 
background knowledge to answer are called author and 
Me or On my Own (Raphael, Highfield, & Au, 2006).

Statement of Problem
despite theoretical and empirical evidence which 
points to the potential impact of effective teacher 
talk on student learning, findings from research have 
not been translated into common teaching practice. 
Studies have determined that classroom discourse 
lacks evidence of effective strategies illuminated in 
research. instead, researchers in two studies found 
similar results: classroom discourse is typically 
teacher centered, interactions follow traditional initiate-
response-evaluate (ire) patterns, and questions are 
recall based, or those which elicit a single, correct 
answer (Myhill, 2006; Skidmore, Perez-Parent, & 
Arnfield, 2003).

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine discourse, 
primarily in the form of teacher talk, as an instructional 
practice in elementary classrooms. The teacher talk 
that occurred during reading instruction in separate 
classrooms was examined generally and then more 
specifically. Closer examination focused on the types 
of questions asked by teachers during read aloud 
and the feedback that teachers gave to students’ 
responses. finally, the study gave teachers an 
opportunity to critically examine and reflect upon 
their existing discourse practices as they reviewed 
transcripts of their teacher talk.

four research questions, related to questioning 
and feedback guided the study. The fourth research 
question from the larger study will be highlighted in this 
article. The question was: To what extent do teachers’ 
perceptions concerning the use of questioning and 
feedback during reading instruction align with actual 
practice? This question was chosen because it 
combines data from each of the preceding research 
questions in order to compare teachers’ perceptions 
concerning questioning and feedback with actual 
practice.

Method
Participants
The three participating teachers are third grade 
teachers at a K-5 elementary school in rural north 
Georgia. The participants were selected based 

on convenience. The school has a population of 
approximately 550 students. The school is classified 
as a Title 1 school based on a lower socioeconomic 
background of more than 50% of the students. The 
student population is mostly Caucasian, with about 
15% of the students classified as Hispanic. At the 
time of this study, the school was in the final year 
of participation in the federally funded reading first 
grant.

each of the participating teachers was assigned a 
pseudonym to protect their anonymity throughout the 
study. The pseudonyms used for the study were beth, 
Susie, and Ginger. each of the participating teachers 
had teaching experience in other grade levels, but 
they were all new to the third grade for the 2009–2010 
school year. These teachers were intentionally moved 
to third grade by the principal at the beginning of the 
school year, which suggests that she is confident in 
their teaching ability and competence because of the 
importance of success for students in third grade. 
Third grade is a year of high-stakes testing because 
third graders who do not pass the reading portion 
of the state-mandated test are not supposed to be 
promoted to fourth grade.

data Collection 
Teacher interviews and audio recordings of instruction 
were the two data sources for this study. an interview 
was conducted with each teacher prior to audiotaping 
in each classroom. Teachers were asked general 
questions related to the use of questioning and 
feedback during read aloud. They were also asked 
to explain how teacher talk during read aloud affects 
student comprehension and what variables impact 
the effectiveness of teacher talk. Questions for this 
interview were based on the research questions 
for this study and were designed with the goal of 
identifying teachers’ beliefs about these topics. The 
questions were somewhat predictive in nature as they 
allowed teachers to make statements about the topics 
before being recorded or reviewing any transcript 
data. each interview was audiotaped for transcription 
and analysis. 

Questions Before recording
1) How do you decide what kinds of questions to ask 
during a read aloud?
2) How do you decide what kinds of feedback to give 
to student responses during a read aloud?
3) How does your teacher talk during affect reading 
comprehension?
4) What are some factors that impact your teacher talk 
during read aloud?

each of the participating teachers was audiotaped 
using a voice recorder during read aloud instruction. 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 18 Volume 38, number 1   2015

for three consecutive weeks, each teacher was 
audiotaped once each week. The third-grade teachers 
were all required to do with their homeroom class 
daily. Homeroom classes were heterogeneously 
grouped, so during the read aloud time, each class 
contained students with a variety of reading abilities. 
reading teachers chose a book to read aloud to 
students, often related to grade level science or social 
studies standards, and they prepared comprehension 
questions in advance to ask students before, during, 
and after the reading of text. The literacy coach 
provided reading teachers with guidelines to follow 
when developing comprehension questions. These 
guidelines included a list of comprehension strategies 
and a schedule for teaching specific strategies.

after the three weeks of audiotaping, transcripts were 
created from each read aloud session. Teachers were 
given a copy of the transcripts and allowed some time 
to read and reflect upon the content of the transcripts. 
The teachers were then interviewed using questions 
that were related specifically to the transcripts and 
based on the research questions. The questions for this 
interview focused on the actual use of questioning and 
feedback during the read aloud time. These interviews 
were recorded for transcription and analysis.

Questions while reviewing Each transcript
1) How did your teacher talk affect student com-
prehension during the read aloud? 
2) What was your purpose for questioning during the 
read aloud?
3) What types of questions did you use during the read 
aloud? (higher level/recall)
4) What was the purpose of the feedback you gave to 
students during the read aloud?

Two weeks later, the researcher interviewed each 
teacher again using culminating questions based on 
the research questions. Questions for this interview 
were created with the goal of allowing teachers to 
reflect on their actual practice. The questions were 
also designed to address differences between beliefs 
and practices that emerged when prior interview 
responses were compared to the read aloud 
transcripts. The qualitative nature of this research 
permitted the adjustment of the interview questions 
as the study progressed. The questions were refined 
slightly based on patterns and questions that emerged 
during data collection. These final interviews were 
also recorded for transcription and analysis.

final Questions
1) How do you decide what kinds of questions to ask 
during a read aloud?
2) do you normally have a “correct answer” in mind 
when you ask a question?

3) How do you decide what kinds of feedback to give 
to student responses during a read aloud?
4) How does your teacher talk during read aloud affect 
reading comprehension?
5) What are some factors that impact your teacher talk 
during read aloud?
6) Are you generally satisfied with your teacher talk 
during read aloud? if not, what would you change if no 
limiting factors existed?

To compare teachers’ perceptions regarding teacher 
talk during read aloud instruction with actual practice, 
frequency tables that were created after coding of 
transcripts were compared to interview data. Teachers 
were asked during each of the three interviews to 
reflect upon their existing and future practices as 
they identified areas for improvement. Though this 
study was not designed to facilitate change among 
the participating teachers, this type of reflection upon 
effectiveness is critical to improved teaching behaviors 
(Topping & ferguson, 2005). allowing teachers to 
compare their thoughts about the subject of teacher 
talk with their actual practice promotes awareness of 
effective and less than effective teaching practices.

results and analysis
The research question which guided the study was 
as follows: To what extent do teachers’ perceptions 
concerning the use of questioning and feedback 
during reading instruction align with actual practice? 
To answer this question, transcript data was compared 
to teachers’ interview responses.

analysis of teacher Questioning
Transcript data revealed that assessment was the most 
commonly used purpose for questioning. an example 
of this frequent pattern of questioning occurred when 
Susie was introducing a book about eleanor roosevelt 
to her students. She used questions and feedback 
to determine if students could name text features 
which are often found in nonfiction text. This was an 
assessment of prior learning:

Susie: What kind of things might we see in a 
nonfiction book?
Student: The headings.
Susie: Headings, good, what else?
Student: Captions.
Susie: Captions, good, what else?
Student: Subheadings.
Susie: Subheadings.
Student: Graphs.
Susie: Yes, graphs.
(Students continue naming text features.)



GeorGia Journal of readinG 19 Volume 38, number 1   2015

Susie: Yes, all those things that we’ve talked about 
all year in nonfiction we might find in this book about 
eleanor roosevelt, okay?

The frequency of assessment-type questions in 
the transcripts supports what the teachers said in 
interviews about knowing correct answers in advance 
and guiding students toward those correct answers. 
The teachers planned questions that typically had a 
single correct answer and they frequently assessed 
the students to be sure that they also knew the 
correct answer. This practice led to a predictable, 
teacher-dominated communication pattern which was 
especially noticeable when listening to the recorded. 
The teachers in this study did not seem willing to 
sacrifice control of conversations; they had an apparent 
recognition that they wouldn’t always know where the 
conversation might lead if controlled by students.

in another study, teacher and researchers who 
were intentionally attempting to infuse more student 
initiated dialogue into reading instruction described 
how they wrestled with decisions about when to enter 
conversations to explicitly teach reading strategies or 
interject accepted interpretations of text (aukerman, 
belfatti, & Santori, 2008). They worried not only 
about what would be said but also about what would 
be learned. This struggle was based, in part, on the 
recognition that in an educational system driven by 
assessment and accountability, students will at some 
point be expected to know the one correct answer and 
that answer may or may not emerge during a student-
led discussion.

Further analysis of the teachers’ perceptions about 
the purpose of questioning compared with actual 
practice suggests that teachers may be unaware of 
their multiple purposes for questioning. each of the 
teachers described her purpose for questioning very 
specifically: to teach students the QAR strategy. 
as predicted, the transcripts did contain multiple 
references to the Qar strategy. Students in all three 
classes were regularly asked which strategy (“right 
there,” “think and search,” “author and me,” or “on my 
own”) would help them find the answer and then they 
were asked to explain why they chose that answer. 
However, the data suggests that the primary purpose 
of questioning for all teachers was assessment. 
This included assessing student knowledge of the 
Qar strategy but also the assessment of content 
knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension of text, and 
text features. an example of this pattern of assessment 
from Ginger’s transcript:

Ginger: There’s that vocabulary word-diligence, 
what does that mean?
Student: Working hard.

Ginger: Yes, what was the time called?
Student: The Great depression.
Ginger: Good, the great depression (reading from 
text) okay, we talked about that word, migrant 
workers, it means people who move from place to 
place in search of work, there’s a picture there of a 
young migrant child and they work just as hard and 
often times for as many hours as the adults do and 
we read that Cesar even a lot of times didn’t attend 
school, he went to work to earn money for his family. 
And if you’ll look at the picture here the caption 
shows us a family picking grapes in California. okay, 
i want you to turn around and get with your group to 
discuss what were some of the working conditions 
for these migrant farm workers?
Students: (discussing with group)
Teacher: ok, what type of question? are you having 
to use the book at all or is it completely in your head? i 
see three groups holding up think and search, that is 
correct, you had to use the book because the book, 
the author, gave us clues about what the migrant 
workers were dealing with. now, was the answer in 
just one sentence or on just one page?
Student: no
Teacher: no, and that is why it is a think and search 
question.

another inconsistency related to the use of questions 
during was noted when the transcript data and 
interview data were compared based on the nature 
of questioning by teachers. each of the teachers 
described her questioning as somewhat balanced. 
Beth noted, “One read aloud which was fictional had 
more recall-type questions, but there was a good mix of 
recall and higher level questions on the other two read 
aloud lessons which were based on nonfiction text.” 
Susie stated that she “tried to incorporate all types of 
questions, especially higher-order thinking questions,” 
and she also described the types of questions that 
she used as “recall questions in which students had 
to think and search for the answers and inferential 
questions.” Ginger also felt like she “had a good mix 
of questions, with QAR, the ‘right there’ and ‘think and 
search’ are more recall where ‘author and me’ and 
‘on my own’ are generally higher level.” The teachers 
recognized that effective questioning is balanced 
(Cruickshank, bainer, & metcalf, 1999; Topping & 
ferguson, 2005). despite this recognition, the majority 
of questions used by all teachers would be considered 
lower level based on the Cognitive Process dimension 
(Anderson, et al, 2001, p. 67–68). Most of the time, 
students were asked questions which required them 
to remember or understand, which are considered the 
lowest two levels of the cognitive model based on the 
cognitive processes required to answer those types 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 20 Volume 38, number 1   2015

of questions. an analysis of the transcripts revealed 
that beth most often used remembering questions that 
required students to recall or repeat facts from text or 
previous instruction. This type of question was used 
when she was reviewing vocabulary words: “okay, 
what’s knowledge?” or “What does text mean?” These 
questions required students to recall definitions they 
had previously learned, so they would be considered 
lower level based on the cognitive process involved 
in answering. These questions promote retention of 
facts but not transfer of knowledge.

on the other hand, Susie and Ginger used more 
understanding questions which required students to 
classify or explain answers. These questions were 
often used when students were asked to explain the 
type of question (based on Qar strategy), such as 
when Susie asked, “Why was this a ‘think and search’ 
[question]?” The teachers used a limited amount of 
applying and analyzing questions during the. Ginger 
asked her students to analyze a character’s feelings 
when she said, “How do you think he is feeling now, 
and how have his feelings changed?” This question is 
considered higher level and an example of a question 
that promotes meaningful learning. Susie was the only 
teacher who used a question that required students to 
evaluate when they were giving their opinion about text.

analysis of teacher feedback
When asked about their purpose for giving feedback 
to student responses the teachers indicated that they 
normally used feedback to guide students to the 
correct answer. in fact, based on the feedback given by 
teachers in the transcripts, this was often unnecessary 
because students had already given a correct answer. 
This is apparent because teachers responded with 
acknowledging and accepting efforts or praising and 
accepting efforts about 75% of the time. These types 
of responses indicate that the students gave a correct 
answer. In contrast, teachers clarified or corrected 
and encouraged much less often, about 25% of the 
time, which indicates that students gave incorrect, 
incomplete, or hesitant responses far less frequently.

The limited amount of correction and encouragement 
would suggest that students spent little time working 
in what Vygotsky (1978) called their zone of proximal 
development (ZPd). according to Vygostky, to promote 
cognitive development, students should be performing 
tasks, with the help of a teacher, which they could 
not perform independently because of the difficulty 
level (Schunk, 2008). in this study, teachers seem 
to be performing tasks with or for students that the 
students could perform independently without teacher 
assistance. even the students seem to recognize that 
they need more independent practice with text. an 
example of this is found in Beth’s transcript:

beth: What are some text features that we might 
see in a nonfiction book?
Beth: Okay, let’s open up the book and do a picture 
walk. First of all, on the first page we do have a table 
of contents. How many chapters do we have in this 
book?
Student: five
Beth: Where could we go in this book if we don’t 
remember what a word means?
Student: glossary
beth: okay, do we have a glossary?
Student: Yes
beth: (continues reviewing text features…maps, 
photographs, etc.)
Student: are we going to read?
Beth: Yes, we’re going to read
Student: Can we read by ourselves?
beth: We will start reading (teacher reads from text)

This dialogue illustrates the lack of challenge for 
students as they are not required to think about 
answers to questions. as Vygotsky explained it, “the 
only good learning” is that which is in advance of 
development (1978, p. 89).

Teachers in this study used vague terms to describe 
the types of feedback they used. They described their 
feedback as “encouraging” or “not negative.” However, 
an analysis of the kinds of feedback used determined 
that the majority of feedback was evaluative in 
nature. Teachers used feedback to evaluate student 
responses, and they maintained strict control of the 
conversation, usually following the ire pattern of 
communication. This common pattern consisted of 
the teacher initiating a conversation (often with a 
question), the student responding, and the teacher 
evaluating the student’s response. Here are samples 
of this frequent discourse pattern:

beth: by looking at this book, who can tell me—is it 
going to be fiction or nonfiction? (Initiate)
Student: Nonfiction (Respond)
Beth: Nonfiction is correct, how do you know—look 
at the clues on the front of the book. (evaluate/
initiate)
Student: a photo. (respond)
beth: a photo, exactly, it has real pictures. (evaluate)
Susie: okay, emily, What did eleanor do to help 
franklin win the presidency? Tell me the type of 
question that is. (initiate)
Student: Think and search (respond)



GeorGia Journal of readinG 21 Volume 38, number 1   2015

Susie: Good, it’s a think and search, now let’s 
answer that, what did she do? (evaluate/initiate)
Student: She walked through the crowds and then 
that showed respect from her. (respond)
Susie: okay, she roamed through the crowds to talk 
to people because he couldn’t. (Evaluate)

This pattern is consistent with what mehan called the 
“teacher’s agenda” (1978). It is a stance adopted by 
teachers for the purpose of achieving educational 
objectives while maintaining social control (mehan, 
1979). Throughout this study, teachers fulfilled 
their responsibility of evaluating the performance of 
students. Teachers in this study seemed to be aware 
of the time involved in mastering all of the standards 
and their obligation to evaluate student performance 
and then “move on” to new concepts.

The alignment between perceptions and actual 
practice was also explored during the interviews. 
These interviews allowed teachers to explain the 
social and cultural context which encompassed the 
verbal interactions. during the interview conducted 
while teachers reviewed transcripts and in the final 
interview, teachers were asked what changes (if any) 
they would make in the teacher talk that might improve 
comprehension. Teachers were also asked what 
factors might prevent those changes from being made.

beth felt like she “should have given the students more 
opportunities to respond to what they had heard.” She 
said, “i should have used more open-ended questions 
related to why they chose a specific QAR strategy.” 
She noticed what was evident in the transcripts; she 
had used 106 assessment type questions and only 
18 open-ended questions. beth added that being 
“assigned a specific comprehension strategy… we 
must focus on that strategy” limited her ability to 
change her teacher talk.

Susie mentioned that she would like to be able to 
ask questions that “involved multiple strategies” 
when practicing reading comprehension. She agreed 
with beth that being required to “stick to a certain 
comprehension strategy limits the type of questioning 
a teacher can do.” Though the participating school 
discourages multiple strategy reading comprehension 
instruction, a well-known national reading document 
published by the national institute of Child Health 
and Human development states that multiple strategy 
instruction seems to be the most effective way to 
teach cognitive strategies (2000). in addition, the 
report concluded that teaching a variety of strategies 
can result in increased learning, increased memory 
and understanding of new text material, and better 
reading comprehension.

Susie also noted that time was a limiting factor in 
improving reading comprehension. She “was surprised 
at how often i mentioned that we were in a hurry, i 
believe that might have hindered comprehension.” 
Susie recognized an example of this hurried 
discussion in her transcript. She posed a genuine 
information question before reading that was intended 
to build background knowledge as students shared 
experiences from their own lives. Susie asked the 
question and allowed students to discuss their answers 
with their peers, but when it came time to share their 
thoughts with the whole group, the discussion was cut 
short by the teacher.

Susie: okay, listen for this question. Have you ever 
been somewhere and been homesick and wished 
you were at home? Talk to your partners about 
what kind of question that is, and then answer that 
question with your group.
(Students talking in groups)
Susie: okay, guys, my turn. emily, what kind of 
question is that?
Student: on my own.
Susie: Okay, why is it ‘on my own’?
Student: Because it’s not about the book.
Susie: Excellent. I’m not asking you about the book. 
It’s not really about the book although this person is 
in the same predicament. I’m asking about you.
Susie: Cody, tell me about a time, real quick.
Student: Well, my maw-maw and paw-paw were 
taking me and my sister to this Christmas party, and 
i wanted to be at home with my parents.
Susie: okay, you missed your parents; homesick 
is a bad feeling. Okay, hands down. We don’t have 
time for everybody’s story.

When asked about changes that she would like to 
make, Ginger expressed a desire to do more “hands-
on and technology activities as follow-ups to my 
(especially for science and social studies themes).” 
This statement suggested that Ginger has a desire 
to create a more social, less teacher-directed climate 
during the read aloud time. She also believed that time 
was a limiting factor and “guidelines and expectations 
[as a result] of the reading first grant” inhibited 
changes.

each of the teachers mentioned challenges to effective 
teacher talk related to the school culture. it seemed 
that teachers control interactions in the classroom 
setting while administrators and the literacy coach 
exhibit control over instructional strategies (such as 
questioning and feedback) used by teachers. it is 
evident from teachers’ responses that the culture of 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 22 Volume 38, number 1   2015

the school influences student learning.

Teachers were also asked during the culminating 
interview about their “general level of satisfaction” with 
the teacher talk used during read aloud. This question 
was added to the final interview after the transcripts 
were created because the researcher wanted to 
determine if teachers were satisfied with the lessons 
after reviewing the transcripts or if they had specific 
changes in mind when they had a chance to review the 
lessons. despite statements by each of the teachers 
which indicated a sense of resistance to “being told 
what to do” during, each of the participating teachers 
expressed an overall satisfaction with the read aloud 
lessons.

Though Susie expressed an overall satisfaction with 
the teacher talk used during her , she did mention 
two possible changes that she felt could improve 
her lessons. She was concerned that she “rushed 
the students…i was surprised at how often i would 
say ‘Okay, quickly’ or ‘I need an answer right now.’” 
another area of concern was the focus on a single 
comprehension strategy. She said, “it would be 
wonderful to be able to plan a read aloud and then ask 
whatever we thought was appropriate for the particular 
book. i would like to be able to do that.”

When Ginger was asked the same question about 
her level of satisfaction and the changes that could 
improve her lessons, she also described herself 
as “overall pretty satisfied with it.” She did point out 
that she felt “somewhat scripted…with [questions] 
prepared [in advance for ].” However, she admitted 
that she doesn’t “always stick to that.” She explained 
further:

I do if I think about a question when I’m reading; I do 
ask it or talk about it. if a student asks me something 
in the middle of reading i try not to ignore that even 
though that’s not something I originally planned to 
talk about.

implications for action
This investigation of teacher talk was designed to gain 
greater insight into existing discourse patterns and to 
attempt to understand how change in these patterns 
can be facilitated. The focus of this study was the 
discourse used by classroom teachers. However, the 
results of the investigation identified another potential 
influence on teacher talk in classrooms: those outside 
the classroom such as administrators, professional 
development providers, and policy makers. more 
productive discourse will be the result of changes 
facilitated by both of these groups.

implications for Classroom teachers
Teacher talk is a potentially powerful instructional tool. 

To take advantage of this instructional tool, teachers 
must become aware of their current practices, 
intentionally use questions and feedback for multiple 
purposes, and strive to move students more quickly to 
a level of independent learning by actively involving 
them during instruction.

Though participation in this study was somewhat 
inconvenient for busy classroom teachers, they 
seemed to appreciate the opportunity to review the 
transcripts from their recorded instruction. each 
teacher recognized areas for potential improvement. 
These areas of improvement would not have been 
uncovered without participation in this study. To 
disrupt comfortable habits, classroom discourse must 
become a deliberate object of study (Cullican, 2007). 
recent studies have concluded that opportunities to 
analyze and reflect upon classroom discourse can lead 
to greater understanding by teachers of the impact 
discourse has on student learning (reznitskaya, 2012; 
Thwaite & rivalland, 2009).

Questioning of students should continue to be a 
common strategy used during reading comprehension 
instruction. Teacher’s questioning as an ongoing 
evaluation tool fulfills a major part of the teacher’s 
responsibility in the classroom. However, adjustments 
to the types and purposes of questions are necessary 
to maximize student learning. The results of this study 
highlight a noticeable lack of balance in the types and 
purposes of questioning used by teachers. feedback 
should also be used for multiple purposes, such as 
building upon student responses or inquiring further, 
not simply to evaluate student responses. according 
to Vygotzky, every function in the child’s development 
occurs twice; first, on the social level, and later, on 
the individual level (1978). Guided practice using 
questions and feedback which invoke higher order 
thinking skills will allow a child to develop cognitive 
processes first, between people (interpsychological) 
and then apply those processes as an independent 
task inside the child (intrapsychological). Changes 
in the types of statewide end of year assessments 
support this needed shift in focus toward more 
cognitively challenging tasks for students. according 
to the national PTa, states (including Georgia) are 
moving towards assessments in which “students will 
be asked not only what the answer is to a question, 
but why-i.e. how they know or what evidence supports 
their answer.” (national PTa, 2013)

Teachers need to move students more quickly to the 
independent stage during reading comprehension 
instruction. This need became apparent during the 
analysis of explicit language used during instruction 
involving the Qar strategy. Teachers focused, for 
at least three weeks, on teaching, modeling, and 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 23 Volume 38, number 1   2015

practicing a strategy that students had been using 
for over a year. although the authors of this strategy 
endorse a “gradual release of responsibility” when 
using the strategy (Raphael, Highfield, & Au, 2006, p. 
37), the teachers appeared to be reluctant to move 
toward more independent practice for students. 
This independent practice seemed appropriate and 
necessary based on the level of student success 
indicated by the teachers’ frequent use of affirming 
and praising feedback during the strategy instruction. 
Vygotsky (1978) recognized that children are capable 
of doing much more in “collective activity or under the 
guidance of adults” (p. 88) and warned that “learning 
which is oriented toward developmental levels that 
have already been reached is ineffective” (p. 89).

implications for administrators, Professional 
development Providers, and Policy Makers
Some of the necessary changes to teacher talk are 
beyond the control of classroom teachers. Those who 
make decisions about time allocated for planning 
and instruction and those who develop timelines and 
curriculum maps must allow and support an intentional 
focus on teacher talk as a powerful instructional tool. 
Teachers need to be given time to focus on improving 
instructional practices related to teacher talk, and they 
must have professional development opportunities 
that link the latest strategy for reading instruction to 
educational theory. in addition, outside observers 
must recognize the benefits of social learning in 
classrooms.

The results of this investigation of teacher talk indicate 
a need for teachers to have time to record themselves 
and then reflect on their practice. A researcher who has 
studied classroom discourse around the world concluded 
that regular monitoring of classroom discourse and self-
evaluation as part of in-service training was necessary 
for teachers (Wells & Arauz, 2006). Teachers also need 
to be given opportunities to reflect on their beliefs about 
teaching practice. This is the key to connecting theory 
and practice (Hardman, 2008).

references to educational theory as the basis 
for teaching practices were noticeably absent 
from teachers’ interview responses. Professional 
development providers need to recognize that teacher 
training for new strategies, such as Qar, needs to 
be more detailed. This includes any learning theory 
the strategy is based upon. Teachers in this study 
appeared to be implementing strategies that they 
were not well informed about. Without a thorough 
explanation of the strategy, teachers may not be 
implementing it properly. if teachers are unfamiliar 
with why a specific strategy is beneficial, they may 
become resistant to implementation. This could 
explain teachers’ statements regarding the timetable 

for teaching specific comprehension strategies 
at the participating school. Teachers explained 
unenthusiastically, “Basically, we just do what we’re 
told to do.” They reiterated, “a comprehension strategy 
is chosen for us and we must focus on that strategy.”

Those who influence classrooms from the outside must 
recognize and discourage questioning and feedback 
practices which promote short-term memorization 
rather than meaningful learning. in addition, those 
who are observing classrooms need to look for and 
encourage a greater balance between teacher and 
student directed activity during reading instruction. 
Vygotsky’s theory (1986) described the progression to 
reflection and logical reasoning at the intramental level 
as a result of discussion, interaction, and arguments at 
the intermental level. The apparent absence of social 
interaction at the intermental level could be affecting 
learning at the intramental level. Vygotsky described 
social interactions as the foundation of learning, 
“social relations or relations among people genetically 
underlie all higher functions and their relationships” 
(Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163). Those who influence 
classrooms from the outside need to encourage 
social interaction during reading instruction; this can 
strengthen the foundation for meaningful learning.

Concluding remarks
This investigation of teacher talk revealed discourse 
patterns which are consistent with those commonly 
described throughout educational research on the 
topic. The researchers in this study identified a 
gap in existing research, a frequent absence of the 
teacher’s voice in studies of classroom discourse. 
For that reason, the teacher’s voice was intentionally 
included in this study. further exploration into external 
influences on the discourse used by classroom 
teachers is necessary to gain greater insight into 
the problem of ineffective discourse practices and 
possible solutions. 
To maximize student learning, the discourse that 
occurs within the social and cultural context of the 
classroom must be targeted for examination and 
improvement. This type of improvement is not simple. 
it requires teachers to “partially relinquish control of 
the flow of discussion, give up the habit of evaluating 
each student contribution, and allow students to 
initiate when they have something that they consider 
relevant to contribute [to conversations]” (Wells, 2007, 
p. 264). Despite the challenges, improved classroom 
discourse is possible when the topic becomes an 
intentional focus of instructional practice and teachers 
take advantage of the social aspects of learning.

references
anderson, l. W., Krathwohl, d.r., airasian, P.W., 

Cruikshank, K. a., mayer, r. e., Pintrich, P. r., 



GeorGia Journal of readinG 24 Volume 38, number 1   2015

Wittrock, m. C. (eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for 
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of 
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. new 
York: longman.

aukerman, m. S., belfatti, m. a., & Santori, d. m. (2008). 
Teaching and learning dialogically organized reading 
instruction. English Education, 40(4), 340–364.

Cazden, C. b. (2001). Classroom discourse: The 
language of teaching and learning. (2nd ed.). 
Portsmouth, nH: Heinemann.

Cruickshank, d. r., bainer, d. l., & metcalf, K. K. 
(1999). The act of teaching. (2nd ed.). boston: 
mcGraw-Hill College.

Cullican, S. J. (2007). Troubling teacher talk: The 
challenge of changing classroom discourse 
patterns. The Australian Educational Researcher, 
34(2), 7–27.

flynn, n. (2007). What do effective teachers of literacy 
do? Subject knowledge and pedagogical choices for 
literacy. Literacy, 41(3), 137–146.

Hardman, F. (2008). Teachers’ use of feedback in 
whole class and group-based talk. in n. mercer & 
S. Hodgkinson (eds.), Exploring talk in schools (pp. 
131–150). Thousand oaks, Ca: SaGe Publications, 
inc.

mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social 
organization in the classroom. Cambridge, ma: 
Harvard university Press.

mercer, n., & littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the 
development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural 
approach. london: routledge.

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning 
in whole class discourse. Research Papers in 
Education, 21(1), 19–41.

national institute of Child Health and Human 
development. (2000). Report of the National 
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An 
evidence-based assessment of the scientific 
research literature on reading and its implications 
for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups 
(niH Publication no. 00-4754). Washington, dC: 
U.S. Government Printing Office.

national PTa. (2013). Parents’ Guide to New Tests in 
Georgia. retrieved from http://www.pta.org 

Raphael, T. E., Highfield, K., & Au, K. H. (2006). QAR 
now: Question answer relationships. new York: 
Scholastic, inc.

reznitskaya, a. (2012). dialogic teaching: rethinking 
language use during literature discussions. Reading 
Teacher, 65(7), 446-456. 

Schunk, d. H. (2008). Learning theories: An 
educational perspective (5th ed.). upper Saddle 
river, nJ: Pearson.

Skidmore, D., Perez-Parent, M., & Arnfield, S. (2003). 
Teacher-pupil dialogue in the guided reading 
session. Reading: Literacy and Language, 37(2), 
47–53.

Topping, K., & ferguson, n. (2005). effective literacy 
teaching behaviours. Journal of Research in 
Reading, 28(2), 125–143.

Thwaite, a., & rivalland, J. (2009). How can analysis 
of classroom talk help teachers reflect on their 
practices? Australian Journal of Language and 
Literacy, 32(1), 38-54.

Vygotsky, l. S. (1978). Mind in society: The 
development of higher psychological processes (m. 
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & e. Souberman, 
eds.), Cambridge, ma: Harvard university Press.

Vygotsky, l. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental 
functions. in J.V. Wertsch (ed.) The Concept of 
Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). armonk, 
nY: Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (a. 
Kozulin, ed.) Cambridge, ma: miT Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a 
sociocultural practice and theory of education. new 
York: Cambridge university Press.

Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the 
construction of knowledge. Human Development, 
50, 244-274.

Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the 
classroom. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(3), 
379–428.


