school trips and classroom lessons: an investigation into teacher–student talk in two settings

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 4, PP. 454–473 (2010)

School Trips and Classroom Lessons:An Investigation into Teacher–Student Talk in Two Settings

Jennifer DeWitt, Jill Hohenstein

Department of Education and Professional Studies, King’s College London,

Franklin-Wilkins Building (Waterloo Bridge Wing), Waterloo Road,

London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom

Received 2 January 2008; Accepted 18 September 2009

Abstract: Although school trips to informal science institutions can result in conceptual and affective gains, the

processes by which they do so are not yet clearly understood. Taking a sociocultural perspective that highlights the

importance of discourse for learning, this work focuses on the talk that occurred in teacher–pupil interactions, both

during a museum visit and during pre- and post-visit lessons in the classroom. The museum setting affords many

experiences not available in a classroom—does it also afford different types of discourse? Transcripts from one secondary

and three primary school classes provide evidence of the extent to which teachers’ talk conformed to a triadic pattern,

with discourse during the pre- and post-visit lessons more closely adhering to this pattern than that during the visit.

However, a closer look at teacher–student discourse revealed further complexities, including greater use of open-ended

questions during triadic than during non-triadic discourse. Overall, the findings from this research indicate that museum

visits may enable pupils to assert more authority temporarily and provide insight into processes by which such

experiences may contribute to learning. � 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 454–473, 2010

Keywords: field trips/excursions; museum education; informal science; elementary

Science centers and museums are important resources in supporting the teaching of science. Moreover,

research provides evidence that school trips to such places can result in both cognitive and affective gains for

students (Anderson & Lucas, 1997; Bamberger & Tal, 2006, 2008; Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009;

Jarvis & Pell, 2002, 2005; Neilsen, Nashon, & Anderson, 2009; Plummer, 2009). To date, it is difficult to

know precisely what mechanisms are involved in successful science center learning, and what it is about these

experiences that may be contributing to such gains. One potential means by which student learning may be

facilitated on school trips would be their interactions with others—with their peers, with science center or

museum staff, and with teachers. Moreover, it is possible that teacher–student interactions may be different in

museum and classroom settings in some key ways, and that such differences may offer clues as to how

learning is supported in out-of classroom settings. As such, we set out to compare interaction between

teachers and students in the classroom and on a science center trip.

Drawing on sociocultural perspectives about how knowledge is constructed, we are interested in

examining the nuances of how learning occurs in different contexts to discover more about the elements that

contribute to learning in various settings. Based on the work of Vygotsky (1978), many have suggested that

learning occurs as a social process, whereby knowledge is first encountered in communication with other

people and then, through continual work on the part of the learner, is gradually internalized and appropriated

into the learner’s repertoire of understanding (Cazden, 2001; Mercer, 1996; Nystrand, 1997; Wells, 1999).

Given that the major tool for communication is language, the above process of internalization highlights the

Contract grant sponsor: NSF 0119787.

Correspondence to: J. DeWitt; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20346

Published online 1 December 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

importance of looking at discourse in interaction in order to understand learning situations. There is a good

deal of work looking at discourse in classroom settings, a fair amount of research on family discourse in

museums, and a very small body of work investigating class trips to museums from a discourse perspective.

Below we review some of the work in each area before introducing our own study.

Classroom Discourse

In framing our study, we reviewed some of the considerable research that has been done on the nature of

talk in the classroom, its value in supporting learning and on ways particular kinds of discourse seem to be

effective in supporting learning. There are at least three (perhaps related) aspects of discourse that seem to

have particular relevance to our work: authority, questioning, and classroom demands. We discuss each of

these in turn.

The Role of Authority in Teacher–Student Interactions. In many classrooms, discussion is typically

dominated by the teacher, rather than being student-led and teacher-facilitated (Barnes, 1976/1992;

Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Much of this talk takes the form of triadic discourse. In triadic discourse, the teacher

initiates the conversation (frequently with a question), the student responds, and the teacher follows up with

some sort of feedback (Wells, 1999). Such feedback may be in the form of an evaluative comment (Initiation-

Response-Evaluation, IRE), or it may build upon what the student has said, perhaps with another

question (Initiation-Response-Feedback, IRF). While there are some differences between IRE and

IRF discourse, they are both forms of triadic dialogue, in which the teacher generally maintains

authority and controls the direction of the talk; and such talk (IRE/IRF) is the predominant form of discourse

in classrooms (Cazden, 2001; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Scott, Mortimer, &

Aguiar, 2006). While it can serve a number of different and quite valuable purposes—such as checking

understanding or marking knowledge as educationally significant (Wells, 1999), some have criticized the use

of IRE/IRF as restrictive of pupil engagement and learning (Lemke, 1990). It is also acknowledged that the

extent to which triadic discourse is authoritative in nature can fluctuate, with students allowed varying

degrees of control. However, such discourse generally does contrast with talk initiated and controlled by the

students.

In comparison, research on effective teacher–student talk in the classroom has shown that dialogue, in

which a teacher and students explore ideas together and ask genuine questions, can support the construction

of meaning or understanding (Alexander, 2004; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, &

Long, 2003; Wells, 1999). Such talk is distinguished from the authoritative discourse found in many

classrooms by its relatively free-flowing discussion, the appearance of pupil questions, and the teacher’s

willingness to allow some variation from the lesson plan.

In the past several years, a number of research groups have adopted the term ‘‘dialogic’’ to refer to this

less authoritative form of discussion (Alexander, 2004; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Nystrand et al., 2003; Wells

& Arauz, 2006). While there are some differences between the various uses of the word, most seem to use it to

refer to a pattern of discourse in which the teacher relinquishes some control of the talk and allows pupils to

express their own ideas, questions, and confusions relatively freely. For example, Mortimer and Scott (2003)

define dialogic talk as that where attention is paid to more than one point of view, and Nystrand et al. (2003)

make reference to dialogic spells, which are ‘‘characterized by engaged student questions and an absence of

teacher test questions’’ (p. 150). In fact, Aguiar, Mortimer, and Scott (in press) have noted that student

questions can move classroom talk in a more dialogic direction, although such shifts also depend on how

teachers respond to the questions posed.

Though some research has demonstrated links between dialogic interaction and school-related

performance (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003), it is important to note that dialogic discourse

is not necessarily nor invariably superior to non-dialogic or triadic discourse. Teachers may use both kinds

effectively. A study by Wells and Arauz (2006) highlights the complexity of this situation. Their research

found a dialogic style of interaction in some classrooms to be accompanied by a good deal of triadic

discourse. Moreover, although some of this talk ostensibly followed an IRF pattern, it could be characterized

as dialogic because of the overall nature of the relationship between the teacher and students. Dialogic

TEACHER–STUDENT TALK IN TWO SETTINGS 455

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

discourse could be signaled by things like more extended responses from students, discussions about topics

initiated by students, or teacher follow-up moves that were more facilitative than evaluative.

As Wells and Arauz make clear, and we concur, triadic (as well as dialogic) discourse can serve a purpose

in the classroom. As an illustration of how there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to classroom discourse,

Skidmore (2006) remarks that,

If the teacher asks many authentic questions which are unrelated to the topic of the lesson, then this is

unlikely to help develop students’ understanding fruitfully; whereas a concise, clear exposition by the

teacher may be the most efficient way of explaining the nature and purpose of a task before the class

moves on to a new activity. (p. 505)

Thus, both dialogic and authoritative discourse have critical and complementary functions in supporting

student learning (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Scott et al., 2006), although the balance of these types of

discourse may vary depending on the activity and its setting.

The Role of Teacher Questioning. Certainly, any classroom discourse—from authoritative to

dialogic—will involve questions asked by teachers, and questioning is one of the features of discourse

that is linked to authority and control in the classroom. Questioning has been looked at in various ways, but

one key distinction that many researchers seem to make is between open-ended and closed-ended questions

(Harlen, 2006), where open-ended questions invite pupils to probe their thoughts for problem-solving or deep

consideration and are less likely to have pre-determined correct answers than are closed-ended questions.

Questions, particularly open-ended questions, have the potential to support learning by challenging

students to extend their thinking, but questions can also serve to check students’ comprehension of a concept,

or just keep them on task (King, 1994; Mercer, 2002; Roth, 1996; Yip, 2004). Moreover, it is possible that

particular types of questions may be consistent with teacher-dominated or triadic discourse, but also

effectively scaffold or push forward student thinking. Questions in which teachers build upon students’ ideas

and provoke reflection about conflicting positions, within the context of teacher-controlled discussion, could

serve such a purpose (Dillon, 1989). Other kinds of questions may have the function of encouraging students

to take initiative or control of the direction of their activity. For instance, consistent with more dialogic

interaction, teachers may solicit student opinions or invite them to select topics for investigation. Thus, the

types of questions asked by teachers provide insight into the extent to which the interactions between the

teacher and students are dominated and controlled by the teacher, as well as suggesting the extent to which the

discussion might potentially be cognitively challenging for pupils.

Indeed, research has revealed a myriad of different roles served by teacher questions in the classroom,

including eliciting deep-level thinking (van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 2001) and posing

cognitive challenges (Chin, 2007). But how closely tied to the kinds of questions teachers ask is dialogic

‘‘talk’’? Some research has taken factors about questions into account quantitatively by statistically analyzing

large sets of data that include the context of question-asking as well as the consequences. For instance,

Nystrand et al. (2003) used a context-sensitive method of analysis to show that teacher use of authentic

questions is likely to lead to dialogic spells in classroom discourse. In a more qualitative analysis, Wells and

Arauz (2006) demonstrated how an IRF pattern mapped onto classroom talk in such a way that it actually

blended in to more dialogic, student-centered discussion. In each of these studies, use of context in analysis

afforded greater sensitivity to the nuances of classroom discourse, yielding evidence about the nature of

questioning in relation to dialogue.

It is important to mention here that a popular approach to examining questioning in classrooms involves

classifying questions and then tallying the number of different types of questions without regard for the

context in which the questions occurred. Admittedly, this approach is the simplest one to take when looking at

the use of questions. However, as has been noted by authors such as Carlsen (1991), this method of counting

questions (or possibly any discourse element) without considering the factors that led to the questions could

provide meaningless information about classrooms, when what would be more helpful to know is what

environments afford particular questions and what such questions lead to. As noted by several others

(Applebee et al., 2003; Nystrand et al., 2003), in interpreting teacher questions, it is important to note the

456 DEWITT AND HOHENSTEIN


context of the question, (i.e., what the activity was, how students responded, what the flow of the talk was, the

goal/objective for the question or activity). Such consideration of context provides some indication of form

and function of the question in the ongoing discourse.

In sum, the way questions feature in talk has a complex relationship to the nature of the discourse.

Though the previous studies tell a great deal about discourse in the classroom, it may be that there are other

factors in the teacher–student dynamic, such as demands made on teachers by policy, authority or

sociohistorical background, that play a part in how the discourse unfolds.

The Role of Demands on Classroom Teachers. We acknowledge that not all classroom settings are the

same. Some classes will be smaller than others. Some teachers (mainly primary) will have the same small

number of students all day, whereas other teachers (mainly secondary) will have several classes in any one

day, with hundreds of students in total. Furthermore, there are probably numerous distinctions we could make

between public and private education, experienced and inexperienced teachers, even different subjects of

lessons.

What is important to note is that research makes clear the role of demands on classroom teachers in

influencing teacher–student discourse. For instance, studies have indicated that interactive whole-class

teaching, as mandated by the National Strategies in the UK, is not very interactive (Burns & Myhill, 2004;

Myhill & Warren, 2005; Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz, 2004). What seems to appear in these settings is

mostly IRE and teacher exposition. The reason for the relative dearth of dialogic interaction probably has

little to do with teacher skill. More likely, the demand on teachers to cover curriculum, conduct assessment,

and teach a variety of different levels of students—which can be considered as part of the context in which

they operate—takes its toll on teachers’ feeling of flexibility (Skidmore, 2006). In fact, research has

demonstrated that even with specialized professional development, designed to facilitate teachers’ greater

use of dialogic teaching, getting teachers to change discourse style is very difficult (Borko & Putnam, 1996;

Guskey, 1986; Loucks-Horsely, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998), and the demands of their situation, or

context, probably plays a role in this.

The previous research on teacher authority, questioning, and demands on teachers also highlights the

importance of context in examining and interpreting the interactions between teachers and students, whether

they be authoritative, dialogic, or some combination of the two. Moreover, this consideration of context as

important is also consistent with the sociocultural approach to learning that underpins our work. The

sociocultural emphasis on learning through communicative interaction, particularly talk, together with the

research conducted both in the classroom and in museums about talk as related to learning, led us to our

comparison of student and teacher talk in these two different settings. While the previous sections have

focused on talk in classrooms, our study compared teacher–student talk in classrooms with that in museums

and science centers. These different settings could place different demands on teachers which could, in turn,

affect teacher–student discourse. Consequently, additional background to our work is provided by research

focusing on what happens during museum visits, including the discourse that takes place.

The Museum Setting

Researchers have generally recommended that when leading field trips teachers engage their students in

activities that make the most of what the site uniquely has to offer and invite social interaction and exploration

(DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Storksdieck, Robbins & Kreisman, 2007). Giving students some authority—

choice and control—over their learning has also been advocated (Griffin, 1998; 2004). However, some

previous work has characterized field trips to museums and science centers as ‘‘missed educational

opportunities’’ that failed to take advantage of the unique opportunities for learning afforded by such

experiences. For instance, Tunnicliffe, Lucas and Osborne (1997) noted a lack of deep content-focused

conversations during school visits to a natural history museum and a zoo, although their study did not

differentiate between teacher–student talk and talk among students. Other research found that teachers often

emphasize busy-work types of tasks such as copying a label onto a worksheet, at the expense of engagement

with the exhibits and objects in a museum (Griffin & Symington, 1997). Likewise, Cox-Petersen and

Pfaffinger (1998) observed that many teacher actions on school trips to a discovery center were focused on

managing student behavior in ways that conformed to expectations more appropriate to a school setting,



rather than initiating and encouraging the kinds of hands-on activities best suited to the center, even though

the teachers did view themselves as facilitators of their students’ learning. Moreover, links between school

and museum learning are often made in neither an explicit nor a genuine way (Griffin, 2004).

However, some research paints a more complex picture of what teachers are actually doing in these

settings. One possible reason for teachers’ actions during a trip would be the demands of the trip itself. That

teachers are in an unfamiliar environment, in which they must keep track of students and their belongings, and

manage other activities as well, undoubtedly influences their behavior in that setting, including their

interactions with students (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006; DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Griffin,

2004). Kisiel (2003, 2006) describes a number of strategies or types of behaviors used by teachers leading

field trips. ‘‘Structured student engagement’’ (e.g., worksheets, or a museum-led tour) was the most common

strategy. Several unstructured ways in which teachers could interact with students during the visit were also

noted, such as explaining an exhibit or object, posing open-ended questions, reading labels, and encouraging

free exploration. These different behaviors provide opportunities for, or necessarily require, teachers to

interact with students. But clearer insight into the nature of these interactions, including details of the

discourse used, is needed in order to more fully understand the processes by which school trips may support

learning. Kisiel’s research did identify some elements of teacher–student discourse, such as the use of open-

ended questions, but the talk was not audio-recorded, precluding a more comprehensive analysis of its nature.

Though there has been a relative lack of close attention paid to teacher–student talk in museum settings,

there has been a fair amount of research on family talk in museums (Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knudson, 2002).

Fender and Crowley (2007) demonstrated that parent explanation in a museum was related to children’s better

performance on a test about phenomena exhibited in a science museum. Additionally, research conducted in a

marine science center showed links between children’s understanding of science and the presence of open-

ended questions (Hohenstein, Callanan, & Ash, 2006). In addition, just as teachers may ask students a variety

of kinds of questions, parents visiting a natural history museum were observed posing different types of

questions to their children (Ash, 2004). Some of these questions (open-ended, inviting further thinking,

tapping previous knowledge or experience) seemed to be more dialogic than others, which were more

consistent with IRF patterns.

Additional work has explored talk on school trips in particular, but it has focused on discourse between

students, rather than between teachers and students (Griffin, Meehan, & Jay, 2003; Mortensen & Smart,

2007). Another study examined questioning during school visits, but the questions were asked by museum

guides, not teachers (Tal & Morag, 2007). It would seem, then, that more investigation of discourse on school

trips is needed, as conversation can be considered both as a reflection and as a means of learning (Bell et al.,

2009).

The research on the museum setting, described above, as well as research on classroom discourse,

informed the present study, in which we aimed to learn what similarities and differences existed between

teacher–student interaction in the classroom and talk in the museum. In order to address this question, we

followed teachers and students from their pre-visit classroom session, through their visit, and into their post-

museum classroom sessions.

Method

In this research, we examined two aspects of student-teacher dialogue both in the classroom and the

museum: the extent to which it was triadic and teacher questions. In addressing our question, our

methodological approach was essentially qualitative, which enabled us to adopt mixed methods in our

analysis. That is, our intention was to compare and contrast teacher–student talk in these two settings. In

order to do this, we coded naturalistic data using two flexible, yet research-informed schemata, allowing for

both a qualitative and a statistical comparison between settings. We also incorporated discussion of individual

teachers both to illustrate the range of data in the sample and to reflect the diversity found among teachers

clearly.

Research Design and Data Collection

Four classes—three in primary school and one in secondary school—participated in this research1.

These classes represent a convenience sample of those visiting the Science Museum (in London, UK) and the



New York Hall of Science. That is, the participating schools had independently scheduled to bring their

classes on trips. From the set of schools scheduled to visit, classes were recruited based on two criteria: that

the schools themselves were accessible to the first author via public transport and that they were bringing

classes of the targeted year group or grade level. Table 1 provides information about the teachers of the

participating classes and their trips.

In addition, all four schools were located in urban (3) or suburban (1) settings, and two of the primary

school classes (Mrs. Richards’ and Ms. Lohmann’s) were composed of mainly ethnic minority pupils and had

a high proportion (over 2/3) of English language learners. Thus, classes with different characteristics, visiting

different types of galleries and even different museums in different countries, participated in this research.

This variation was intentional, with the goal of exploring teacher–student talk in different contexts. That is,

we wanted to explore whether differences appeared in teacher–student talk between the classroom and the

museum setting—and if so, whether they appeared in primary and secondary school classes, when visits were

conducted to different locations and even in different cultural contexts. For instance, in the Science Museum

(London, UK), the Space gallery is a traditional object-rich gallery, with very few hands-on, interactive

exhibits. It is also a popular gallery with subject matter that is presumably of interest to many visitors.

In contrast, the Challenge of Materials gallery, a newer gallery about materials, their properties and uses,

represents a combination of object-based and more interactive experiences (e.g., computer and mechanical

interactives), though its topic may be less naturally appealing to students. Finally, the New York Hall of

Science (located in Queens, New York) represented an opportunity to gather data on teacher–student

discourse in a context quite different from that of the Science Museum. It is American and has many

interactive exhibits on a variety of topics, including light, illusions, and biology.

Across all of these settings, however, students participated in a similar activity. This activity involved

student selection of topics or questions to research during their visit, gathering information (taking notes and

photographs) during the trip itself, and utilizing the information gathered for projects in the classroom after

the visit. More specifically, the activity involved a pre-visit lesson in the classroom (including practice writing

questions and labels, topic selection, and an orientation to the visit), students working in pairs to take photos

and notes on the chosen topics in a museum gallery or science center, and creating projects (generally poster

displays or PowerPoint presentations) on these topics as follow-up back at school.

In collecting data, detailed observations were made of the classes in the schools before and after the trip,

as well as during the visit itself, and the participating teachers were audio recorded before, during, and

after the visit. Efforts were made to capture pupils’ talk as well (i.e., their responses to teacher questions).

In cases where the microphone did not capture the talk clearly, the transcriptions reflected the approximate

length and content of students’ utterances to the extent possible.

Coding and Analysis

The transcripts were coded using two schemas, which were grounded in the data but also drew upon

the work of other researchers (Hohenstein et al., 2006; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Nystrand et al., 2003;

Wells, 1999). For each of these schemas, we examined the patterns of discourse, taking into consideration

the context of what was said, such as previous utterances, concurrent activities, and tone of voice.

Context provides important clues to the role a statement or question provides in the flow of the discourse

(Carlsen, 1991; Myhill & Warren, 2005; Wells, 1999; Wells & Arauz, 2006). The principal schema—Triadic/

Non-triadic—was used to broadly characterize the overall nature of the verbal interactions. It attempted to

Table 1

Information about teachers and visits

Teacher(Pseudonym)

No. YearsTeaching Year Group Visit Focus

Miss Bayne 4 Year 6 (ages 10–11) Space (Science Museum, London)Mrs. Richards 5 Year 6 (ages 10–11) Challenge of Materials (Science Museum)Ms. Lohmann 6 Grade 4 (ages 9–10) New York Hall of Science (various topics)Mr. Prichard 20þ Year 7 (ages 11–12) Challenge of Materials (Science Museum)



capture the extent to which teacher–student interactions were triadic—tending to be consistent with the IRF

pattern that predominates in most teacher–student talk in the classroom (Cazden, 2001; Lemke, 1990;

Mortimer & Scott, 2003)—or non-triadic. Additionally, triadic discourse tends to be authoritative and

teacher–controlled, whereas non-triadic discourse tends to have greater symmetry in teacher–student

interactions (Scott et al., 2006). Although not identical, non-triadic discourse bears some similarity to

‘‘dialogic’’ talk, in that it is less teacher-dominated, may allow students to offer their points of view, and offers

students more opportunity to control the discussion (Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Wells, 1999). In the primary

Triadic/Non-triadic analysis, then, each turn was coded as an initiating move (I), a responding move (R), or a

follow-up move (F). Drawing on this, sequences of talk in which the teacher controlled or led the discourse

and which were generally consistent with the authoritative IRF pattern were coded as triadic. In such

talk, teacher turns tended to be initiations (I) and follow-ups (F), with students providing mainly responses

(R). For example:

Teacher: What is one use of metal?

Student: It’s used in cars.

Teacher: Very good.

Interactions that were more conversational (or less authoritative) in nature were coded as non-triadic.

Such interactions tended to follow a variety of patterns, not easily categorized as IRF. One such interaction

might sound like this:

Student: I found out that a dress can be made of metal.

Teacher: Really?

Student: Yeah. It’s over there.

Teacher: Where? Show me.

Student: Here. How do they make the metal curly like that?

Teacher: Well, I suppose they have to heat it up first.

Student: Cool!

For further insight into the nature of teacher–student talk, transcripts were examined and coded for

specific additional markers that seemed potentially consistent with these two types of discourse. Evaluative

statements made by the teacher (e.g., ‘‘good,’’ ‘‘well done,’’ ‘‘that’s right,’’ ‘‘wrong,’’ ‘‘brilliant’’) were noted

in the transcripts. Frequent use of such statements is often consistent with interactions that are dominated by

the teacher (Cazden, 2001; Scott et al., 2006). In contrast, in other types of discourse (including dialogic

discourse), students often have a more proactive role or take greater initiative in contributing to the

interaction. Consequently, statements in which a student volunteers or shares information (that has not been

requested by a teacher’s question), suggests actions, contradicts or corrects the teacher, or initiates a new topic

of conversation were of interest as potential markers of non-triadic discourse and were coded as volunteering

(VOL)2. Based on previous research on discourse (c.f., Alexander, 2004; Cazden, 2001; Mercer & Littleton,

2007; Nystrand et al., 2003) these kinds of statements (evaluative from the teachers and volunteering from the

students) would be expected to be consistent with triadic and non-triadic discourse, respectively. However,

the triadic/non-triadic analysis was done more holistically, rather than relying exclusively on these two

markers.

Questions—particularly those asked by teachers—are a key component of discourse between teachers

and students, no matter what its nature (c.f., Carlsen, 1991; Nystrand et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2004; Wells,

1999; Wells & Arauz, 2006). Teachers’ questions may be used to encourage higher-order thinking, to pursue

ideas put forth by students, to clarify student statements, to check understanding, and to keep students on task,

among other functions, and closer examination of these questions provides an opportunity to gain deeper

insight into teacher–student talk. It seemed possible that the kinds of questions teachers were asking might

have been influenced by the different settings of the classroom and the museum. Consequently, a separate,

additional coding schema (Teacher Questions) was used to examine the function questions served in the

discourse. The schema was adapted from that used by Hohenstein et al. (2006), incorporated some of question



types utilized by Wells (1999), and was informed by other literature on teacher questions (Carlsen, 1991;

Chin, 2007; Nystrand et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2004), but it also emerged from the data. That is, it was

developed in order to capture the kinds of questions the teachers in this research were posing to their students,

both in the classroom and on the trip. Some of the questions were more open-ended or complex in nature and

seemed likely to encourage content-related reasoning and explanations in the students (Prompt reflection,

reason, or explanation). Other questions encouraged open-ended description (Prompt description). These

types of open-ended questions have the potential to support or scaffold conceptual learning and extend

students’ thinking (Cazden, 2001; Yip, 2004). Other open-ended questions could be generally more task-

related in nature, but indicated that the teacher was encouraging student initiative and control. For instance,

teachers might request suggestions for how to carry out an activity (Request suggestion) or genuinely ask for

assistance (Request help).

Some questions were more closed-ended. Such questions included those requesting short factual

answers that indicated comprehension (Right answer). Others included invitations for students to participate

in the ongoing classroom activity or to interact with something during a museum visit (Invite participation),

questions that were procedural in nature and primarily concerned with keeping students on task (Check

progress), and questions concerning classroom routines and behavior management (Routine). These kinds of

questions are often seen in triadic discourse, serve as an indicator that the teacher is in control, and are less

likely to promote higher-level thinking (Cazden, 2001; Roth, 1996). The coding schema for teacher questions

is found in Appendix 1. It should also be noted that in applying this schema, the function of the questions

within the context of the lesson, as well as student responses to them, were considered, rather than simply

categorizing questions in isolation. Doing so was important because these factors can be expected to impact

upon the role the questions played in the discourse between teachers and students (Burns & Myhill, 2004;

Nystrand et al., 2003).

Two coders independently rated 10% of the data for each coding schema. Reliability was established for

the Triadic/Non-triadic schema with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.87 and for the Teacher Questions schema with a

kappa of 0.90. Remaining disagreements were resolved by discussion.

FindingsTriadic and Non-Triadic Discourse

The analyses described in this section examined whether the museum setting seems to allow for a

different type of discourse overall than does the classroom. To begin, Table 2 reflects the percentage of total

turns (teacher and student combined) which were part of discourse coded as triadic. It should be noted that

Table 2 separates classroom talk into that which occurred in the pre-visit lesson and that which occurred in the

follow-up lesson. This division was made because the organization of the lessons differed pre- and post-visit,

with the pre-visit lesson involving primarily whole-class teaching and the follow-up lesson consisting almost

entirely of work in small groups. Despite this difference in lesson structure, most of the discourse in all

four classes followed an IRF pattern, in which the teacher dominated the talk, both in the classroom and on

the visit.

During the visit, however, a smaller proportion of the talk—particularly noticeable in the data from

Mrs. Richards and Mr. Prichard—followed this triadic pattern, compared to the classroom. Analyses of the

talk in the two settings (museum and classroom, collapsing across pre-and post-visit lessons) reveal a

statistically significant relationship between the type of discourse and setting for three of the four teachers,

w2(1) for Mrs. Richards¼ 122.492, p< 0.001; w2(1) for Ms. Lohmann¼ 48.582, p< 0.001; w2(1) for

Table 2

Percentage of discourse coded as ‘‘triadic’’ (number of turns)

Miss Bayne Mrs. Richards Ms. Lohmann Mr. Prichard

Pre-visit 100% (180) 96% (682) 97% (272) 97% (338)Visit 94% (589) 77% (283) 88% (735) 80% (202)Follow-up 100% (457) 96% (331) 95% (1241) 97% (1137)



Mr. Prichard¼ 115.527, p< 0.001. (A Chi-square test could not be run for Miss Bayne because no classroom

turns were coded as ‘‘non-triadic.’’)3

In interactions coded as non-triadic, the talk was more conversational in nature, and was often student-

led or initiated. In the following excerpt from the visit, Mrs. Richards and two students are looking at a case

filled with metal objects.

Tilak: Look at that jewelry

Mrs. Richards: Jewelry?

Both students: Yeah

Mrs. Richards: Now, that’s interesting.

Anay: Whoa!

Mrs. Richards: What is [number] one, what is that?

Tilak: (inaudible) that is just amazing!

Anay: That is!

Mrs. Richards: Aluminium jewelry is made—(reading)

Tilak: from that (pointing)

Mrs. Richards: Oh, right! That’s interesting. I would never have thought—

This non-triadic interaction began when the student called the teacher’s attention to some metal

jewelry in the case. The teacher goes on to ask a genuine question, ‘‘What is [label number] one—what

is that?’’ The teacher’s tone of voice (and later conversations with her) indicated that she really had not

known the answer. She started to read the label and then a child jumped in to further assist (‘‘from that’’),

providing additional information to the teacher. Unlike typical IRF discourse, this particular interaction

was initiated by the student and then the students helped the teacher to discover some information that she

had not previously known (‘‘I would never have thought’’). Although this conversation is brief, it

may be indicative of a relatively balanced interaction between the teacher and students, in which the

teacher, perhaps temporarily, is less clearly in a position of authority than is often seen in teacher–student

interactions.

Another instance of student-led discourse occurred with the Year 7 teacher (Mr. Prichard) in the

Challenge of Materials gallery. Here, he and two students are looking at a clear plastic model of a man, in

which different materials can be seen (e.g., artificial joints, pacemaker—to illustrate materials used inside

the body).

Sam: I was watching this program—10 o’clock news. And this woman, she was having brain surgery—!

Mr. Prichard: Yes?

Sam: And then they put this, like battery in, like, under her arm or something. So they could, like,

they put these things around her brain. And put this battery thing there (pointing to model)

Mr. Prichard: Under her skin there? (Pointing to himself, near his shoulder)

Max: Yeah. What is that there for? (Pointing to something else on model)

Mr. Prichard: It’s to control the heart—it’s called a pacemaker. So, it could be—it could have some

electrodes up in the brain.

Max: Yeah. See it?

Sam: Yeah

In this excerpt, the first boy initiated the interaction by recounting to his teacher something he had seen

on television. The teacher’s clarification question indicated that he was attending to what the student was

saying. Before he had a chance to respond in more detail, the second boy jumped in with a question of his own.

The teacher responded to this additional interest of the second boy. In this non-triadic section of discourse,

then, it was the boys—not the teacher—who were leading the interaction, based on their own interests that

had been sparked by the plastic model.

The above two interactions contrast with the IRF pattern that characterized most of the discourse on the

visit and, especially, in the classroom. For instance, in the following classroom exchange, Mrs. Richards was

having students report back on a computer search they had done earlier on materials.



Mrs. Richards: Did you find any uses of glass that were interesting?

Laura: Glasses

Mrs. Richards: Spectacles you could wear

Laura: And cups—were decorated, magnifying glasses, (inaudible)

Mrs. Richards: Ahh—so you know that glass can be recycled. Thank you, that was a good one. Tania?

Tania: And we know that glass bottles get recycled.

Mrs. Richards: Brilliant. Well done.

In this triadic interaction, the teacher initiated the exchange by asking a question, followed up by

clarifying the student’s response (‘‘spectacles you could wear’’) and then repeated and evaluated the students’

answers (‘‘that was a good one’’ and ‘‘Brilliant. Well done.’’).

Teacher-led interactions also occurred in the museum setting, such as the following one in the Space

gallery of the Science Museum.

Miss Bayne: Right. Ronan, what was your topic?

Ronan: Um, living in space.

Miss Bayne: Right, so have you found anything relevant, then? What about along here (pointing)?

And we need to start taking our notes, with heading. Stephen, what’s your topic?

Stephen: Um, life in space?

Miss Bayne: Ok, remember you’re doing a project on this. So, if you don’t have any information—so

you’ve got to write down your notes.

Here again, the teacher dominated the interaction, which was primarily concerned with keeping the two

boys on task.

Additional Characteristics of Teacher–Student Discourse

Despite several teacher–student interactions similar to the non-triadic ones illustrated above, most of the

discourse—especially in the classroom—followed the triadic IRF pattern, suggesting that such talk is quite

firmly established in the practices of these teachers. Nevertheless, that non-triadic discourse formed a higher

proportion of the teacher–student talk during the visit than in the classroom for all four teachers indicates the

potential for such experiences to allow for a somewhat different relationship between the teacher and

students, perhaps one in which the teacher is less dominant or authoritative. Furthermore, the extent to which

students tried to take a more proactive role in the discourse is indicated by the frequency with which students

took the initiative in sharing information with the teacher, suggesting actions or contradicting or correcting

the teacher (statements coded as volunteering). In examining the proportion of student turns coded as

volunteering statements, the data indicate that such behavior appeared more frequently during the visit than in

the classroom, as seen in Table 3.

While the percentage of such volunteering statements is relatively low overall, it is notably higher during

the visit for three of the classes (with the proportion in Ms. Lohmann’s class during the visit much higher than

in the pre-visit lesson but only slightly higher than during follow-up). Comparing across settings, it appears

that the frequency of turns coded as volunteering (compared with those that were not) was significantly

different on the visit and in the classroom, w2 for Miss Bayne’s class¼ 11.169, p< 0.001; w2 for Mrs.

Richards’ class¼ 17.676, p< 0.001; w2 for Ms. Lohmann’s class¼ 5.059, p< 0.05; w2 for Mr. Prichard’s

class¼ 18.628, p< 0.001.

Table 3

Percentage of student turns containing volunteering statements (number of student turns)

Miss Bayne’s Class Mrs. Richard’s Class Ms. Lohmann’s Class Mr. Prichard’s Class

Pre-visit 0% (0 turns) 3% (10) 1.5% (2) 3% (5)Visit 9% (27) 13% (24) 9% (39) 14% (19)Follow-up 3% (7) 6% (11) 7% (42) 5% (32)



To gain a greater sense of the role that volunteering statements could play in conversation, we examined

teacher responses to these statements. Teachers responded in different ways to their students’ volunteering

statements: sometimes they elaborated and built upon such statements, while other times they simply

acknowledged them or even ignored them. These different kinds of teacher responses often corresponded

to whether the volunteering statement was part of a triadic or non-triadic interaction. For instance, in

Mrs. Richards’ class, 16 of 24 volunteering statements (67%) were part of non-triadic interactions. In one

such interaction in the Challenge of Materials gallery, a student approached Mrs. Richards and spontaneously

shared his knowledge of metal with her, ‘‘I already know that metal is hard.’’ She acknowledged and built

on his comment (which was not given in response to a teacher question) by responding enthusiastically,

‘‘That’s one property of it, and some metals are not so hard.’’

In contrast to Mrs. Richards’ class, only seven of Miss Bayne’s students’ 27 volunteering statements

(26%) during the visit were part of non-triadic interactions. Of course, the proportion of turns that were part of

non-triadic discourse in Miss Bayne’s class was very low (6%) overall. However, Miss Bayne often responded

differently to her students’ volunteering statements than Mrs. Richards had. She frequently ignored them or

responded in a way that reminded students that she was controlling the interaction. For instance, when a

student spontaneously tried to volunteer information about when the space shuttle was invented, she did not

build on his contribution in any way, but rather checked to make sure he was on task—‘‘You’ve got the

information down about it, have you?’’ Such a response reflects the authoritative, triadic nature of this

discourse.

Thus, while student volunteering statements reflect attempts to take a more proactive role in the teacher–

student discourse, the differing patterns of responses among the teachers suggest that such a role was not

equally welcomed across classes. Moreover, it reinforces that although volunteering statements could be

considered characteristic of non-triadic discourse, the teachers’ responses played an even more critical role in

determining the nature of the interaction. That Miss Bayne, unlike Mrs. Richards, did not follow the lead

initiated by her students is consistent with the higher proportion of triadic discourse in the transcripts from her

class. Thus, while these statements were often reflective of non-triadic discourse, their presence alone was

insufficient to shift the nature of the discourse from triadic to non-triadic. Whether or not there was uptake of

the statement on the part of the teacher—whether the teacher built upon them and so recognized the

importance of the student’s contribution—is also critical (Nystrand et al., 2003).

The nature of the discourse (and the relationship) between students and teachers may also be reflected in

the number of evaluative comments made by the teachers. That is, IRF discourse is one way in which teachers

maintain control (Burns & Myhill, 2004; Cazden, 2001; Wells, 1999), and evaluative statements form an

important part of such discourse, reminding students who is ultimately in control. Consequently, the number

of teacher turns containing evaluative statements were counted, and are summarized in Table 4.

Although most of Miss Bayne’s and Mr. Prichard’s discourse on the visit conformed to the triadic

pattern, they made fewer evaluative comments during the visit, relative to the pre- and post-visit lessons. Such

a pattern suggests that the teacher–student discourse on the visit may have been slightly different than that in

the classroom. Similarly, Mrs. Richards and Ms. Lohmann also made fewer evaluative statements on the visit,

compared to the pre-visit lessons. However, they also made fewer evaluative comments during the follow-up

lessons than during the pre-visit lessons, suggesting that for them, the structure of the activity (whole class

discussion in the pre-visit lessons, small group work during the visit and follow-up lessons) may have been a

more influential factor than that of the museum setting. Despite the smaller frequencies of evaluative

comments in the follow-up lessons of two teachers and consistent with the patterns seen in the two previous

Table 4

Percentage of teacher turns containing evaluative comments (number of turns)





sets of tests, analyses revealed that evaluative statements appeared more frequently in the classroom

than in the museum for all four teachers, w2(1) for Miss Bayne¼ 27.264, p< 0.001; w2(1) for

Mrs. Richards¼ 10.884, p< 0.001; w2(1) for Ms. Lohmann¼ 20.593, p< 0.001; w2(1) for Mr. Prichard¼14.712, p< 0.001.

The evidence would suggest, then, that a museum visit offers the potential for more collaborative

or balanced discourse, less tied to the triadic IRF pattern, and with students having a more proactive role

(more characteristic of dialogic discourse), than is often found in the classroom, as seen most clearly in

the transcript data from Mrs. Richards and Mr. Prichard. However, for some teachers (like Miss Bayne, and

possibly Ms. Lohmann), the IRF pattern of teacher-dominated discourse remained clearly predominant,

although there were differences between their talk with students in the museum setting and in the classroom.

Furthermore, while the data do not allow separation of the relative impact of the museum setting itself and

the activity in which students were engaged (searching for information on a topic), they do indicate that

the experience had some potential to facilitate such non-triadic discourse, at least for some teachers. At the

same time, it is not surprising that teachers’ discourse in the classroom before and after the trip conformed

quite closely to the typical IRF pattern.

Teacher Questions

Additional insight into the nature of the teacher–student discourse as well as its potential to support

learning is provided by an examination of the types of questions asked by the teachers. In the analysis reported

below, every teacher question was coded, and the proportion of questions of each type was calculated, as seen

in Appendix 2. A summary of types of questions asked before and after the visits, collapsed across teachers,

also appears in Table 5 below. Types of questions asked across settings and lessons were compared,

and further analyses examined whether certain types of questions were more likely to appear in triadic or

non-triadic discourse.

Collapsing across teachers and settings, 46% of teacher turns contained questions. However, this

proportion varied among teachers, with 57% of Mrs. Richards’ turns containing questions, 51% of

Ms. Lohmann’s, 38% of Miss Bayne’s and 36% of Mr. Prichard’s. Although Table 5 masks some of the

variability between teachers (which is more salient in Appendix 2), teachers seem to have asked relatively few

open-ended questions, particularly during the visit and follow-up lesson. In fact, based on family research

examining questioning in the museum (Hohenstein et al., 2006), we would not expect a majority of questions

in the museum to be open-ended. Indeed, the data suggest that many of these teachers’ questions were

relatively closed-ended and procedural in nature. Combining Right answer, procedural (Check progress,

Clarification, Routine) and tag questions, 37% (Miss Bayne, during the pre-visit lesson) to 78% (Miss Bayne,

during the visit) were of this type, and often over 50% of teachers’ questions fell into these categories, as seen

in Table 6. Moreover, during follow-up lessons in particular, each of the teachers asked more procedural

(Check progress) questions, which were primarily concerned with keeping students on task (e.g., ‘‘Have you

written down your information?’’ or ‘‘What have you done so far?’’), than any other single type, and this

pattern was also observed for three of the four teachers during the visit. However, the students did

have a task to do, and it is possible that without such teacher checks, the projects would not have been

completed.

Despite the pervasiveness of closed-ended and procedural questions, teachers did at times ask the

kinds of open-ended questions (Prompt reflection, reason, or explanation, Prompt description, and Other

Table 5

Mean percentage of question types*

Open-Ended(%)

Request Suggestionor Help (%)

RightAnswer (%)

Procedural &Tag (%)

Invite Participation(%) Other (%)

Pre-visit 34 9 22 26 6 4Visit 13 13 13 49 10.5 2Follow-up 10 13 11 58 2 5

*These percentages are means across teachers, thus providing numbers of questions asked would not be interpretable.



open-ended) that have the potential to extend students’ thinking and thus support learning (Roth, 1996).

Indeed, during the pre-visit lesson, 16% of Miss Bayne’s questions and 21% of Mr. Prichard’s were in the

Prompt reflection category. It is also interesting that a higher proportion of open-ended questions appeared

during the pre-visit lessons, which were primarily whole-class teaching, than during the visit and follow-up

lessons, in which small group work predominated. This pattern, reflected and summarized in Table 5, held for

three of the four teachers individually (all but Ms. Lohmann, for whom the pattern was reversed). Moreover,

all but two of the Prompt reflection questions appeared in sections of triadic discourse, and open-ended

questions generally seemed more likely to appear in triadic than in non-triadic discourse for three of the four

teachers (see Table 7).

Examining the transcripts more closely, different patterns of questioning emerged between the museum

and classroom settings. However, the precise nature of these differences varied among teachers. That is, three

of the four teachers asked different types of questions in the museum setting, as compared with the classroom,

but the kinds of questions asked in a setting were not consistent across teachers. For instance, for

Mrs. Richards questions seeking a short, factual, ‘‘right’’ answer, which often involved her leading the

students, appeared frequently during the pre-visit lesson (‘‘What do you call someone who designs?’’) and

the visit (‘‘What are those metals called?’’). Nevertheless, several of these questions during the visit

were intended to scaffold students’ use of the gallery as a resource (‘‘What is this booklet for?’’), and 11% of

Mrs. Richards’ questions during the visit invited students to interact with the elements in the gallery by

looking, touching, or manipulating (‘‘Why don’t you have a close look at that watch?’’). These questions

could further serve to encourage or scaffold students’ engagement with the gallery, and such involvement also

has the potential to support student learning during the visit. Finally, 9% of Mrs. Richards’ questions during

the visit were genuine requests for help from the students (e.g., ‘‘Where are the metals?’’, when she did

not know where to find that section of the gallery). Such questions suggest a temporarily less dominant

teacher role and a more balanced and interactive relationship (perhaps more consistent with dialogic

discourse), in which the students and teacher support each other.

In summary, despite some differences between the teachers, the data reflect that closed-ended, often

task-related or procedural, questions, as well as those seeking brief factual responses, tended to predominate

in both the museum and classroom settings. However, three of the teachers asked more questions inviting

active participation in the museum than in the classroom, which may have helped their students take

advantage of the opportunities (such as interactive exhibits) afforded by the museum setting. And all four

teachers asked more Request help questions in the museum than in the classroom, suggesting one route by

which the visits could have supported student autonomy. In addition, looking across settings the appearance

of at least some questions that could provide opportunities for more complex thinking indicates that the sort

of activity in which the teachers and students were engaged has the potential to support work which is

cognitively challenging.

Table 6

Percentage of teacher questions coded as right answer, procedural, or tag (number of questions)



Table 7

Percentage of teacher questions coded as open-ended


In triadic discourse 15% (37) 19% (74) 26% (154) 16% (48)In non-triadic discourse 0% (0) 14% (3) 7% (2) 9% (1)



Questions and Type of Discourse

It is of interest that three of the four teachers asked noticeably more open-ended questions in triadic

discourse than in non-triadic. More specifically, 15% of the questions Miss Bayne asked as part of triadic

discourse were of this type, while she asked no such questions during non-triadic discourse. For

Ms. Lohmann, 26% of her questions asked during triadic discourse were open-ended, but only 7% during

non-triadic discourse. Mr. Prichard’s questions followed a similar pattern, with 16% and 9% of questions

being open-ended in triadic and non-triadic discourse, respectively. That open-ended questions were asked

more frequently during triadic discourse than non-triadic highlights one way in which triadic talk can support

learning (Cazden, 2001; Nystrand et al., 2003), particularly cognitive or content learning.

However, one particular type of question—Request help—did seem more likely to appear in non-triadic

discourse than in triadic. While the actual numbers of Request help questions were similar in triadic and non-

triadic discourse (and recall that most of the teacher–student discourse was coded as triadic), the proportions

are not. For example, 31% (9 questions) of Ms. Lohmann’s questions in non-triadic discourse were coded as

Request help, but only 1% (7 questions) of those asked in triadic discourse fell into this category. Similarly,

33% (2) of Miss Bayne’s questions asked as a part of non-triadic discourse were requesting help, while less

than 1% (again, 2) of the questions she asked during triadic discourse were of this nature. Similar patterns

were found in Mrs. Richards’ and Mr. Prichard’s transcript data.

It may not be surprising that Request help questions formed a greater proportion of the teachers’

questions in non-triadic discourse, given that they are consistent with situations in which the teacher is not in

as authoritative a role (because he or she is turning to the student for information or assistance). Somewhat

similar patterns were seen with Request suggestion questions—they formed a greater proportion of questions

in non-triadic discourse than in triadic for two of the teachers. (The proportions were similar in the two types

of discourse for the remaining two teachers.) This finding of greater proportions of questions with the

potential to support student autonomy (which might be considered a characteristic of ‘‘dialogic’’ teacher–

student discourse; Alexander, 2004) in non-triadic talk, combined with that of more higher-order questions

appearing in triadic discourse, suggests that both types of talk may be educationally valuable but in

complementary ways, due to the different types of questions they may afford. That is, as reflected in teacher

questions at least, triadic discourse—for these teachers—would seem to be perhaps better suited to fostering

cognitive learning outcomes, whereas affective learning outcomes (e.g., increases in self-confidence or

autonomy) may be facilitated more by the types of questions asked during non-triadic discourse4. Finally, as

noted previously, although few clear patterns in teacher questions emerged when comparing museum and

classroom settings for most types of questions, the proportion of Request help questions was higher in the

museum (2–8% of questions asked) than in the classroom (0–2% of questions). However, the proportion of

Request suggestion questions was often higher in the classroom, particularly in the context of students’

decision-making about their projects.

Discussion

Sociocultural theories of learning, in which this study is rooted, strongly emphasize the influence of

context on learning, behavior, and interactions. The context in which learning, or any activity, takes place can

include elements such as the physical setting, demands on and opportunities for behaviors in that setting,

individuals, and relationships among them. Sociocultural theory, which maintains that learning is constructed

in interactions among individuals, also highlights the importance of discourse in processes of learning, a

position which is substantiated by years of research on classroom discourse. This perspective on learning, as

well as a relative lack of research on talk between teachers and students in a museum setting, led us to

hypothesize that there might be differences in teacher–student discourse between these settings—differences

that may also help illuminate some of the processes by which learning occurs on school trips. And indeed,

differences were found.

The findings of this study suggest that, although the discourse of these teachers is broadly typical of most

(dominated by the IRF pattern), the teacher–student discourse recorded during the visit to a science museum

was somewhat more dialogic or less authoritative in nature than that commonly observed in classrooms.

Research would suggest that such non-triadic discourse can be an essential feature of effective learning both



in and out of the classroom (Alexander, 2004; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004; Mortimer & Scott,

2003). For instance, in such interactions students may have a more proactive role and a greater opportunity to

express their ideas to their teachers. These opportunities may provide them time to explain their thoughts and

understandings to others, a process that has long been linked to greater learning (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & La

Vancher, 1994; Pine & Messer, 2000). Our data did not allow us to explore this possibility, but future research

should investigate this area more fully.

The possibility that interactions in a setting other than the classroom offer students a more proactive role

is consistent with the findings of the current study, especially in the greater proportion of student volunteering

statements in the museum setting. Moreover, the promotion of student autonomy, which is also supported by

the decreased proportion of teacher evaluative statements, could certainly contribute to affective learning

outcomes for these experiences, such as increases in self-confidence. Other researchers have suggested that

museums and other out-of-classroom settings may have a valuable role to play in contributing to affective

learning outcomes (Bell et al., 2009; Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995; Rennie, 1994; Rix & McSorley,

1999; Wellington, 1990). Researchers have also called for students to be allowed more authority over their

learning on school trips (Griffin, 2004). As we have shown here, teacher–student discourse on school trips

tends to be more supportive of student autonomy than it is in the classroom. Thus, a worthwhile future

research endeavor could investigate whether encouraging teachers to promote students’ volunteering

statements would be associated with increased student authority in the museum.

It should be recalled, however, that teachers did not always react in the same way to student volunteering

statements—sometimes building upon them and other times virtually ignoring them. Consequently, these

statements did not consistently shift the talk away from triadic discourse. In contrast, when examining a large

corpus of teacher–student classroom discourse, Nystrand et al. (2003) found that student questions did have

an important role in promoting dialogic spells and open discussion, but other research reflects that such

modifications also depend on teacher responses (Aguiar et al., in press). Thus, because of the potentially

important role of statements and questions initiated by students—and their consistency with at least the

possibility of greater student autonomy, it would be useful for future studies to examine them in more depth.

Such a study could also provide insight into how student initiations may ultimately contribute to learning

outcomes.

Although non-triadic discourse can play a valuable role in student learning, this study also found a

greater proportion of open-ended, complex questions in triadic than in non-triadic discourse, suggesting a

path by which IRF discourse can support learning, particularly cognitive learning. Such open-ended

questions, particularly those prompting reflection or reasoning, have the potential to challenge and extend

students’ thinking. Conversely, very few open-ended questions appeared in non-triadic discourse, perhaps

because teachers were simply less accustomed to speaking with their students this way. Given research

showing that asking higher-order questions is a challenging and complex process for teachers (Carlsen, 1993;

Roth, 1996; Yip, 2004), it is perhaps not surprising that it did not occur in the less prominent context of non-

triadic discourse. In contrast, a higher proportion of Request suggestion and Request help questions,

consistent with a less authoritative teacher role, appeared in discourse coded as non-triadic and such questions

can be valuable in fostering student autonomy. Thus, it appears that questions in these two types of teacher–

student discourse may complement each other to support student learning.

The differences in teacher questions between museum and classroom settings may suggest an influence

of the setting in which discourse occurred. While the patterns of differences were not generally consistent

across teachers, the proportion of questions requesting help (consistent with a less authoritative teacher role)

was greater in the museum than in the classroom. Some teachers also seemed to utilize questions that

encouraged students to take advantage of the opportunities for interaction offered by the museum setting.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that teachers used a variety of questioning styles both in the classroom and

during the visit, and a number of factors, including setting, may have influenced the types of questions asked.

Similarly, in a study of talk among family members, Ash (2004) reported that parents use a variety of

questioning styles with their children during a museum visit—some more rapid-fire and didactic, others

apparently more carefully attuned to their children’s zones of proximal development and with more

possibility of moving the conversation forward in a dialogic fashion. Thus, the nature of discourse may vary

noticeably among individuals as well as among settings. There is no doubt that the relationship between



setting and discourse is nuanced and complex. Further research, on a larger corpus of data, is likely to be

helpful in elucidating it.

Although some previous research investigating talk during school trips has characterized such

experiences as ‘‘missed educational opportunities’’ due to the relative absence of content-focused talk

(Tunnicliffe et al., 1997), the findings of the current study would suggest that such experiences may afford

valuable opportunities for student autonomy and more balanced or dialogic teacher–student interactions. In

addition, the appearance of at least some questions that invited student reasoning, reflection, observations,

and descriptions (albeit fewer than in the classroom) indicates another route by which the trip experience

could support student learning. It would also be valuable to explore routes by which teachers could be

supported in asking more questions of this nature during class visits.

While the observed differences in teacher–student discourse between museum and classroom settings

may be attributable to a number of causes, the critical point for this study is that such differences in discourse

were observed, as would be expected from the sociocultural theory that frames our study. That is,

sociocultural theory highlights the importance of context, which includes physical setting, as something that

can influence learning and behavior, including discourse. Consequently, it is not necessarily surprising that

such differences occurred, although they are noteworthy given the predominance of triadic discourse in talk

between teachers and students.

In this article, we have focused on teacher–student discourse as afforded by two different settings, the

museum and the classroom. Differences in the discussion are mainly consistent with models of the classroom

as largely teacher-led and the museum as less teacher-led (Wellington, 1990). Our study has shown the type of

teacher–student discourse that is possible on a field trip—discourse that has the potential to support learning.

Moreover, the findings highlight a critical way in which a school trip experience is distinct from that of being

in the classroom, namely, the type of discourse or the extent to which it is triadic.

We acknowledge and accept that teacher–student discourse has the potential to support learning in both

the classroom and the museum setting. In addition, the finding that triadic and non-triadic discourse may offer

different, even complementary, means by which student learning may be facilitated is congruent with other

suggestions that teachers use dialogic and authoritative discourse to serve varying purposes in the classroom

(Scott et al., 2006; Wells, 1999). In summary, the findings presented here offer promise that experiences like

school trips do have the potential to support—or at least allow for—various kinds of teacher–student

discourse which could, in turn, facilitate pupil learning from such experiences. Moreover, this study has gone

some way towards pinpointing specifics about discourse in the two settings that may be contributing to

learning in each.

Notes

1The research reported in this article was part of a broader study testing an activity designed to support learning

before, during, and after school trips, which did not solely focus on teacher–student discourse. A greater number of

classes participated in the larger study than are described in this article, but it was not possible to collect data on teacher–

student discourse in all of the participating classes.2While Wells (1999) uses codes for some similar kinds of student statements (e.g., give information, give

suggestion, give opinion), his schema does not seem to discriminate between situations in which the statements are in

response to a teacher’s initiating move and those in which they are not. Thus, this kind of code would seem to be unique.3A separate Chi-square test was run for each teacher in order to assess whether the pattern of differences between

the settings was observed for each individual teacher. Had the data been collapsed across teachers, it would not be

possible to determine whether a significant result was due to the influence of data from a single teacher.4We are not claiming that either type of discourse is uniquely capable of supporting either type of learning, but

rather we wish to highlight patterns that emerged in these teachers’ data and to hypothesize about possible implications

for their students’ learning.

We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the teachers and students who made this study possible

as well as the coding assistance provided by Ellen McCallie. Portions of the research were presented at

the 2006 annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching and at the

2006 ECSITE (European Network of Museums and Science Centres) conference. This work was

partially funded by NSF grant number 0119787 for the Center for Informal Learning and Schools.



References

Aguiar, O.G., Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (in press) Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The

authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos UK.

Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: Discovering

common ground in three countries. Curator, 49(3), 365–386.

Anderson, D., & Lucas, K.B. (1997). The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical features of a science

museum prior to visitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 485–495.

Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing

understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational

Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.

Ash, D. (2004). How do families use questions at dioramas?: Implications for exhibit design. Curator, 47(1), 84–

100.

Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2006) What do students learn on class visits to natural history museums? Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, California.

Bamberger, Y., & Tal, R. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view.

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274–284.

Barnes, D. (1976/1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A.W., & Feder, M.A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments:

People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In: D.C. Berliner & R.L. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of

educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class

teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35–49.

Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research,

61(2), 157–178.

Carlsen, W.S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’

classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481.

Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.

Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

Cox-Petersen, A.M., & Pfaffinger, J.A. (1998). Teacher preparation and teacher-student interactions at a discovery

center of natural history. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(2), 20–35.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In:

J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning (pp. 67–77). Washington, DC: American

Association of Museums.

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications

for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197.

Dillon, J.T. (1989). The practice of questioning. London: Routledge.

Fender, J.G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific

thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 189–210.

Griffin, J. (1998). School-Museum integrated learning experiences in science: A learning journey. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.

Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science

Education, 88(Suppl.1), S59–S70.

Griffin, J., Meehan, C., & Jay, D. (2003, May). The other side of evaluating student learning in museums: Separating

the how from the what. Paper presented at the Museums Australia Conference: Perth.

Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to

museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763–779.

Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.

Harlen, W. (2006). Teaching, learning and assessing science 5–12. London: Sage Publications.

Hohenstein, J., Callanan, M., & Ash, D. (2006). Exploring the links between parent-child questions and children’s

ideas about science. Paper presented as part of an invited symposium: Science Learning in Everyday Conversations, at the

British Psychological Society, Developmental Section Surrey, UK.



Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002). Effect of the Challenger experience on children’s attitudes to science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 39(10), 979–1000.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes toward science before, during,

and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 53–83.

King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and

how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.

Kisiel, J.F. (2003). Revealing teacher agendas: An examination of teacher motivations and strategies for conducting

museum fieldtrips. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Kisiel, J. (2006). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural history museum.

Science Education, 90(3), 434–452.

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knudson, K. (Eds.). (2002). Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers

of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organizations in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction,

6(4), 359–377.

Mercer, N. (2002). Developing dialogues. In: G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century

(pp. 141–153). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use

language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.

Mortensen, M.F., & Smart, K. (2007). Free-choice worksheets increase students’ exposure to curriculum during

museum visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1389–1414.

Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational

Review, 57(1), 55–69.

Neilsen, W.S., Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2009). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip experiences:

A case study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265–

288.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English

classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Structure and dynamics of

unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.

Pine, K., & Messer, D. (2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance.

Cognition and Instruction, 18, 35–51.

Plummer, J.D. (2009). Early elementary students’ development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 192–209.

Rennie, L.J. (1994). Measuring affective outcomes from a visit to a science education centre. Research in Science

Education, 24, 261–269.

Rix, C., & McSorley, J. (1999). An investigation into the role that school-based interactive science centres may play in

the education of primary-aged children. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 577–593.

Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content,

and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.

Scott, P.H., Mortimer, E.F., & Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse:

A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4),

605–631.

Skidmore, D. (2006). Pedagogy and dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 503–514.

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and

Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 395–411.

Storksdieck, M., Robbins, D., & Kreisman, S. (2007). Results from the Quality Field Trip Study: Assessing the LEAD

program in Cleveland, Ohio. Summit Proceedings. Cleveland, OH: University Circle, Inc.

Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching? Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 44(5), 747–769.



Tunnicliffe, S.D., Lucas, A.M., & Osborne, J. (1997). School visits to zoos and museums: A missed educational

opportunity? International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1039–1056.

van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during

conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres. Physics

Education, 25, 247–252.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

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

428.

Yip, D.Y. (2004). Questioning skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of Biological Education,

38(2), 76–83.

Appendix 1: Coding Schema for Teacher Questions

Open-Ended questions:

– Prompt reflection, reason, or explanation (PR): Question that encourages elaboration on the thinking process,

higher-level thinking (i.e., explaining, synthesizing, critiquing, explicating, predicting) or expansion of ideas.

Similar to Wells (1999) ‘‘request explanation’’ code, often used for ‘‘why’’ questions related to content or

requests for explanations or descriptions of science processes/concepts. Generally leaves open various possible

answers.

– Prompt description (PD): Question that encourages open-ended description based on observations of what is

being seen or done, or of a particular topic. This can also be used for recalling things that were seen or done at

the museum. (‘‘And what did that look like?’’)

– Other Open-ended (OO): In some cases, questions may be phrased as yes–no questions but may be judged to

leave open the opportunity for more reflection than a typical yes-no question or to invite a more in-depth

response or reflection. This code is also used for questions that seem quite open or more challenging than the

ones below, but don’t fit one of the above categories.

– Request suggestion (RS): Question that calls for a student to recommend or decide how to carry out an activity.

– Request help (RH): Question asking a student for help or assistance when the teacher does not know the answer

(genuinely needs the help).

Closed-Ended Questions

– ‘‘Right-answer’’ (RA): Questions that call for a short factual answer, often that will be judged as right or wrong.

Includes questions for which there is more than one possible answer (but there is a fairly limited set of right

answers). This code is also used for leading questions, when the teacher has a particular answer in mind that she

is looking for.

– Invite participation (IP): Questions that do not necessarily call for verbal answers but that provide an opening for

the student to engage physically with an exhibit (includes observing). Also used for questions that provide an

opening to participate in an activity (including activities in the classroom).

– Check (CK): Questions that are generally procedural in nature, focused on the task at hand. It also includes basic

questions that do touch on content such as ‘‘What is your topic?’’, when such questions have the goal of keeping

students on task or making sure they’re progressing in the task.

– Clarification (CL): Question that asks for clarification or repetition of something that has been said (or written).

This category should be limited to cases where the questioner is misunderstanding, verifying, or checking on

understanding.

– Routine (R): Questions that seem more about classroom (or visit) routine than about the subject matter or task.

Also used for questions related to supplies and to behavior management.

– Tag: Used for tag questions (‘‘You remember the bench, don’t you?’’ ‘‘That would be a good idea, right?’’)

– Other: Questions that do not fit into the above categories, including some seeking a brief ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer.

These are often task-related, but may occasionally relate to content.



Appendix 2: Teacher Questions

Question Types


Pre Visit Post Pre Visit Post Pre Visit Post Pre Visit Post

Prompt reflection,reason, orexplanation

16% 2% 2% 9% 5% 1% 9% 15% 8% 21% 0% 2%

Prompt description 7% 0% 0% 6% 0% 2% 3% 10% 9% 16% 6% 0%Other open-ended 18% 6% 4% 11% 2% 6% 10% 6% 6% 10% 0% 1%Request suggestion 11% 7% 15% 2% 7% 11% 15% 3% 11% 5% 13% 13%Request help 0% 4% 0% <1% 9% 2% 0% 8% 1% 0% 2% <1%Right answer 14% 4% 7% 33% 22% 15% 26% 19% 17% 16% 8% 4%Invite participation 5% 4% 5% 7% 11% 0% 6% 19% 1% 5% 8% 2%Check progress 5% 47% 26% 11% 28% 44% 14% 10% 23% 9% 25% 48%Clarification 2% 2% 7% 8% 1% 6% 4% 1% 10% 9% 17% 20%Routine 16% 25% 22% 6% 12% 8% 9% 8% 5% 5% 6% 2%Tag 0% 0% 5% <1% 2% 1% 0% <1% 1% 3% 12% 5%Other 7% 0% 6% 6% 1% 4% 4% 3% 6% 0% 4% 4%Total no. of questions 44 109 97 239 92 89 100 156 372 86 52 166



school trips and classroom lessons: an investigation into teacher–student talk in two settings

Documents