Quiet in class? Exploring discourses on verbal participation

ABSTRACT

Background

Verbal participation in the classroom is generally considered to contribute to positive student engagement and learning outcomes. Students are often required to demonstrate their learning in class by, for example, raising their hands and answering questions. However, there are students who remain quiet in the classroom, and are not responsive to invitations to participate. As quietness and low levels of verbal participation in class are often perceived and positioned as problematic in many educational systems and settings, more needs to be understood about the notion of students’ verbal participation and the implications for supporting all students’ learning journeys through school.

Purpose

The study sought to explore how students’ verbal participation was constructed and positioned in the narratives of parent-teacher conferences.

Method

A Swedish corpus of audio recordings and transcriptions of parent-teacher conferences with 24 students in years 5 and 6 (approximate student ages 10–12) across five schools was utilised as the basis for the investigation. Through an interactionally-oriented narrative approach, a collection of stories about verbal participation was identified. These stories were analysed using the concept of narrative positioning. Three stories from the collection were selected to demonstrate, in greater depth, aspects of how students’ verbal participation was constructed and how discourses unfolded.

Findings

The analysis demonstrated diversity in terms of how discourses were employed and how students were positioned in the narratives about verbal participation. Prevalent discourses drew on notions of learning, affect and assessment and were identified as pedagogical, psychological and performative discourses.

Conclusions

The study highlights how verbal participation tends to be constructed as an individual undertaking, with the implication being that students are assigned individual responsibility for this. As students are usually encouraged to make the most of their verbal participation in class, the study gives rise to important and complex questions in terms of challenging assumptions about how best to support student learning, particularly in the case of students who remain quiet in the classroom.

KEYWORDS:

• Verbal participation
• performativity
• student learning
• parent-teacher conference
• narrative positioning

Introduction

Many education systems and settings are characterised by a performative culture within school (Asp-Onsjö and Holm 2014; Ball 2003; Tanner and Pérez Prieto 2020). Such a culture typically features an emphasis on accountability, prioritising auditable outcomes rather than, for example, learning processes (Macfarlane 2015; Keddie 2016). For students, this often involves an individual obligation to display knowledge and understanding in particular ways, given that academic attainment is regarded as a choice and students tend to be given a degree of responsibility for their own progress (Asp-Onsjö and Holm 2014; Keddie 2016). As a consequence, there is an expectation for students to be visually and verbally active in demonstrating their achievement in class (Asp-Onsjö and Holm 2014; Ball 2003; Macfarlane 2015): in other words, to be assessable and to perform (Bragg 2007; Keddie 2016). This expectation can place high demands on students by making learning, at least in part, a public performance within the classroom (Macfarlane 2015).

However, as the literature relating to quiet students makes evident (Collins 1996; Reda 2009; Rosheim 2018), the public performance aspect may generate tension for schools, students and teachers, particularly in relation to students who may not participate in the ways expected by performative classroom culture. There are many reasons why some students may not be disposed to satisfy these demands (Abdullah, Bakar, and Mahbob 2012; Böheim et al. 2020; Rosheim 2018) and why performative tasks and activities may prove particularly challenging for certain students (Black 2004; Black and Varley 2008; Medaille and Usinger 2020; White 2011). Accordingly, quietness and low levels of verbal participation in class are often perceived and positioned as problematic in learning contexts.

Whilst the verbal participation of students is clearly important for pedagogical and democratic reasons (Böheim et al. 2020; Clarke et al. 2016; Perry-Hazan 2021), questions about the expectations on students to perform in the classroom in relation to performativity (Macfarlane 2015) deserve further attention. In this paper, the focus of our interest lies in exploring how students’ verbal participation may be constructed and positioned in the context of parent-teacher conferences. In advance of presenting the study in detail, the following section seeks to situate the work within existing literature and explain more about the study context.

Background

Verbal participation

The considerable body of research on the topic of verbal participation covers many areas of interest that are relevant to students’ involvement in classroom activity. Full discussion of these lies beyond the scope of this study: for our purposes here, we centre, in particular, on the characteristics of verbal participation in the classroom, its implications for students, and its role in relation to grading and assessment. Engaging students in verbal participation (e.g. in whole-class sessions and/or group discussions) can bring valuable educational benefits (Böheim et al. 2020, 2020; Sedova et al. 2019). However, it is noteworthy that the nature of students’ verbal participation can depend strongly on the organisation of classroom interaction. Although classroom interaction can be structured in many different ways, traditionally it is the case that whole-class interaction has tended to be organised through an ‘initiate-response-evaluate’ (IRE) model, with student hand-raising used as the conventional method of allocating turns at talk (Böheim et al. 2020; Emanuelsson and Sahlström 2008). In this way, students raise their hands to pose and answer questions, and to demonstrate willingness to take a public turn in classroom talk (Sahlström 2002). For teachers, hand-raising can be a useful tool to support classroom management and student assessment (Sahlström 2002). As hand-raising is easily observed and measured, it may be considered as an indicator of students’ verbal participation in class (Böheim et al. 2020).

Research suggests that the verbal participation of students is significant for teachers’ and students’ beliefs about students as learners (Black and Varley 2008; Coplan et al. 2011). Factors typically used to explain differences in how students participate in the classroom include internal factors, such as students’ individual characteristics and dispositions, and external factors, such as the classroom context, school subjects, teachers and peers (Abdullah, Bakar, and Mahbob 2012; Böheim et al. 2020; Medaille and Usinger 2020). Although verbal participation is linked to student learning, the relationship between an individual student’s verbal participation in the classroom and their learning is not straightforward, since it is evident that students who stay silent in discussions may still achieve at the same level as others (Flieller, Jarlégan, and Tazouti 2016; O’Connor et al. 2017) or participate in other ways – for example, as active listeners (Macfarlane 2015; Reda 2009). There are, clearly, many intertwined aspects involved in understanding students’ verbal participation in class and its relationship with learning. Students can, for example, be engaged in activities that require verbal participation in various different ways (Schnitzler, Holzberger, and Seidel 2021). It is also the case that traditional patterns of interaction in whole-class contexts may not provide all students with equity of access to participate verbally in class; rather, it may promote the construction of marginalised learner identities (Black 2004; White 2011). In many educational settings worldwide, evaluating students’ verbal participation in class is a prominent feature in the overall assessment and grading of student performance. This may, for example, involve the evaluation of students’ verbal participation by ‘recording the number of times students get involved in activities and discussion’ which can be ‘based largely on oral presentations or in posing and answering questions’ (Macfarlane 2015, 340).

Student performativity

Whilst Macfarlane (2015) discusses student performativity and participation from the perspective of higher education as a ‘voluntary phase of education’ (339), some of the reasoning and analysis could be relevant and helpful in understanding student performativity within a broader educational context. The three forms of student performativity, termed presenteeism, learnerism and soulcraft (Macfarlane 2015, 339–345), are connected with a bodily, dispositional or emotional performance for students: concepts drawn from Skeggs’ (2009) analysis ‘of self-performance in modern society’ (Macfarlane 2015, 339). Presenteeism, characterised by policies on attendance requirements and contribution grades, involves a bodily performance because students are required to attend and display appropriate conduct in the classroom. Learnerism, characterised by university engagement policies as well as commitment to ‘student-centred learning’, concerns a dispositional performance, since students are expected to be actively engaged in their own learning and to ‘develop the ability to self-evaluate’ (Macfarlane 2015, 341). Soulcraft, characterised by formulations about globalism and reflectivity in university curriculum, includes an emotional performance because it ‘demands an oral and textual enactment of the private and the personal’ (Macfarlane 2015, 347), as students disclose their thoughts on ‘value-based’ or ‘ideologically charged’ (344–345) concepts. These aspects of student performativity are socially, culturally and historically situated. The concept of bodily, dispositional and emotional modes of performance has potential relevance and could be useful for understanding student performativity in pre-tertiary education because these give insight into what performativity requires of students. Notably, Macfarlane (2015) observes that a performative environment ‘[…] demands a ‘playing of the game’. Performative environments encourage inauthentic behaviour as individuals endeavour to conform. Those who resist by refusing to ‘play the game’ are subtly disadvantaged’ (347).

Study context

The findings in this study are based on accounts from parent-teacher conferences with students in years 5 and 6 of compulsory school in Sweden. Students in years 5 and 6 in Sweden are typically aged between 10 and 12, and in classes with 20 to 30 students, with one or two teachers in charge of their class (i.e. a mentor or ‘class teacher’). Whilst it is quite common in years 5 and 6 for these teachers to teach most subjects to their class, equally, students may be taught by separate teachers for each subject. Although the teacher has considerable autonomy to decide how to teach and what classroom activities to incorporate into tuition, each subject has a syllabus consisting of an aim, core content and knowledge requirements (Skolverket 2018). Most syllabuses include statements associated with verbal participation: for example, conversations or discussions. Teachers usually include both whole-class activities and activities in smaller groups in their teaching. Different forms of verbal participation – for example, to support and further discussions – are often included in the syllabus knowledge requirements (Skolverket 2018) and are thereby significant in relation to awarding a student a particular grade in many subjects. The importance of verbal participation in the evaluation and grading of student performance in Sweden is also accentuated by the mandatory national tests in Swedish, English and mathematics, as one component of each test is an oral subtest,¹ and the results of the national tests are given special consideration in deciding the final grade in the subject (SFS 2010:800²).

In Sweden, the parent-teacher conference is a three-way meeting conducted at least once each term in compulsory school. During the conference, teachers meet with students and their caregiver(s) to discuss the student’s performance, development needs, and how to further their progress in school (SFS 2010:800; Skolverket 2018). Aside from these aspects, schools and teachers in Sweden have considerable autonomy to decide the form and content of the parent-teacher conference. There are, however, often routine ways of conducting these institutional encounters (Adelswärd, Evaldsson, and Reimers 1997), as well as formal recommendations to assist schools and teachers to conduct the parent-teacher conference in agreement with existing regulations (Skolverket 2013).

In recent decades, reforms and revisions of the grading system, the national curriculum, and the significance of national tests have been seen as contributing to an intensification of performativity culture in the Swedish school system (Tanner and Pérez Prieto 2020). Activities for producing evidence of individual progress and learning outcomes are significant in a performative school context and can function as mechanisms of performativity (Ball 2003; Ball, Maguire, and Braun 2012). Since the regular evaluation, managing and monitoring of students’ progress in school are discussed in parent-teacher conferences, these meetings could be regarded as an aspect of this. What is said on these occasions could, thus, be thought to ‘encapsulate or represent the worth, quality or value of an individual or organization within a field of judgement’ (Ball 2003, 216). Participants could thereby organise themselves and each other within a particular field of judgement (Bragg 2007; Keddie 2016), for example, to present as a good parent, teacher or student in parent-teacher conferences (Kotthoff 2015; Pillet-Shore 2015). Within this conceptualisation, activities such as parent-teacher conferences may be regarded as ‘ways of presenting oneself within particular registers of meaning, within a particular economy of meaning in which only certain possibilities of being have value’ (Ball 2003, 225).

Purpose

With the above background in mind, the study reported here sought to explore, in detail, how verbal participation in class is constructed during parent-teacher conferences between student, parents and teachers. The specific research questions addressed through the study were: (1) How are students in school years 5 and 6 in Sweden positioned in relation to verbal participation in the classroom? (2) How are discourses used to construct students’ verbal participation in class?

Method

Ethical considerations

The approach for the current study was approved by the regional ethical review board as a component within a broader project³ and was conducted with adherence to the Swedish Research Council’s (2017) ethical guidelines. Ethical considerations of particular significance for this study included confidentiality in handling and reporting of the data comprising audio-recorded parent-teacher conferences, as well as gaining informed consent from adult (i.e. the teachers and parents) and child participants (i.e. the 10- to 12-year-old students). Prospective participants were provided with written information about the study and potential involvement well in advance, so that as a first step they could consider and indicate via email or phone whether they were willing to give informed consent to participate in the study. Further, the researcher was available in connection with each parent-teacher conference, so that participants could ask additional questions and talk with the researcher. The researcher paid particular attention to how the students might feel about their participation in the study, both before and after their parent-teacher conference. At this stage, informed consent was sought and gathered from students, their parents and the teachers. The participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were assured that the data resulting from their taking part would be treated confidentially. The recordings from the parent-teacher conferences were audio only and were de-identified in the transcribed and reported data. Identifiable data were anonymised during the transcription process, and any names of people or places reported were pseudonyms. To further ensure confidentiality, only descriptions of data and local contexts deemed necessary to situate the findings were presented in the reporting. Specific details regarding the data and context are described broadly or omitted.

Data collection

The data for this study originate from a corpus that comprises 36 audio-recorded and transcribed parent-teacher conferences from five schools (a mixture of municipality-organised and independently organised schools) located in different Swedish municipalities. The parent-teacher conferences were audio-recorded with a small device that was placed on a table where the conferences were conducted, which was typically in a small room or an empty classroom. The researcher stayed in an adjacent room during the parent-teacher conference, to reduce interference and maintain authenticity. The parent-teacher conferences took place between autumn 2018 and spring 2020. The organisation and length of the audio-recorded parent-teacher conferences varied both within and between the five schools and were between 6 and 43 min long. Most of the parent-teacher conferences were conducted in Swedish, although a few were conducted in English. In total, the participants were 24 students in years 5 and 6 (10 to 12 years of age); 30 parents, and 14 teachers. In the majority of cases, students and their parents met during the parent-teacher conference with a single teacher who, typically, was the student’s mentor or class teacher. For a few of the parent-teacher conferences, students and their parents booked consecutive meetings instead with several chosen subject teachers. Although it was common for only one parent to attend the conference, both parents attended in some instances.

Data analysis

Throughout the process of analysis, the audio recordings and transcripts were processed in their original language (i.e. mainly in Swedish, with a minority in English; as above). The parent-teacher conferences were transcribed in full, to facilitate the coding and analysis of the data. Analysis was aided by the use of qualitative analysis software as a tool for data coding. Data and preliminary findings from the current study were presented and discussed at seminars and conferences as part of verifying the consistency of the analysis. The parent-teacher conferences were explored using an interactionally-oriented narrative approach, in order to identify relevant collections of stories and accounts within the data. Within this approach, stories are considered to perform socially situated actions within specific contexts (Bamberg 1997; Georgakopoulou 2015; Mishler 1999). The data were, thus, initially coded in terms of the socially situated actions performed within the parent-teacher conferences, with a particular focus on the construction and positioning of students. Through inductive exploration and initial coding of the data, a collection of accounts and stories about students’ verbal participation emerged from parent-teacher conferences with 15 students. These became the subject for further analysis and were examined both individually and as a collection, thus maintaining the integrity of the data while enabling detailed analysis. The accounts were analysed using the concept of narrative positioning (see below) and multiple areas of content relevant to the study were identified within the collection. The specific lines of enquiry were articulated and revised throughout this process of analysis, with a focus on the use of discourse within the data.

Three stories from the collection were selected for closer analysis. These stories demonstrated variation in the use of discourse and in the way that students were positioned in relation to verbal participation. They were regarded as particularly suitable in-depth illustrations to reflect the diversity of discourses and student positioning evident in the collection as a whole, as the use of discourse in each of the three stories represented prevalent discourses identified elsewhere within the collection of stories about verbal participation. Focusing on a small number of stories enabled thick, rich descriptions of the findings and allowed for elaboration, not only of the content (what was said) but also of the way in which these actions were performed (how it was said). Situating the findings in relation to comprehensive stories about verbal participation, while analysing both the form and content of these (Mishler 1999), has heuristic value (Larsson 2005, 2009). That is, each story can enable the communication of various patterns from the parent-teacher conferences that may be recognisable in other contexts. Thus, the analysis of the use of discourses in each story was informed and illuminated by the analysis of the entire collection of data.

The concept of narrative positioning was used to analyse, in greater depth, the selected stories about verbal participation in class. The analysis was informed by Bamberg’s (1997) model of positioning, where the process of positioning is conceptualised as occurring at three levels: the construction of characters within the story, the mode of interaction, and the use of culturally available discourses. Analysing the first level of positioning involved identifying characters within the story and exploring how they are constructed and positioned in relation to others in the story world. The second level of positioning was analysed by exploring the mode of interaction and identifying the linguistic means for the narrator to advise, encourage or attribute responsibility, for example. The third level of positioning included identifying and analysing claims constructed as ‘true and relevant above and beyond the local conversation’ (Bamberg 1997, 337): that is, to analyse the narrator’s use of culturally available discourses to position oneself, or another, beyond the story world and the local interaction. The content and the linguistic devices used in the stories were analysed in conjunction with each other within each level of the analysis (Mishler 1999).

Findings

Using the approach outlined above, the research questions were addressed through the identification of a collection of stories from the parent-teacher conference data, leading to a deeper analysis of three selected stories about verbal participation. These stories provide broader insight into how various discourses were used and how students were positioned in and through the entire collection. Overall, the selected stories reflect, more widely, the strong emphasis apparent in the collection in terms of students being encouraged, supportively and sensitively by teachers, to become more active and speak up, thus exemplifying the requirement for students to perform publicly in the classroom. It was particularly noteworthy that students’ verbal participation became most relevant in the parent-teacher conferences when it was constructed as a potential area for development. This appeared to be the case irrespective of whether the stories were designed to advise and support students to increase their verbal participation, or whether they were designed to seek confirmation that students were participating sufficiently. The three stories, each focusing on a theme about verbal participation, are presented below. Each illustrates different social actions performed and together demonstrate diversity in the use of discourse in the parent-teacher conferences more generally. Where necessary, excerpts included in this paper have been translated from Swedish.

Theme 1: responsibility for learning in the classroom

Throughout the stories about verbal participation emerging from the parent-teacher conference data, a notable feature was the assigning of responsibility for facilitating learning in the classroom to the student. This was accomplished through the depiction of the student’s verbal participation in the classroom as important for learning and understanding. The story presented below is illustrative of this theme. During the parent-teacher conference, the teacher asks whether students felt more comfortable studying science in the English language. This initiates talk about the student’s verbal participation in class more generally. The teacher opens with an evaluation of the student’s verbal participation by acknowledging that the student speaks more, and seems more comfortable participating and responding to questions in class than previously, which is appraised as ‘really, really good’. The teacher continues:

Teacher: / … /Because I tell that to all my students when you-, and I’m sure you parents say the same, but when you say things you test how well you understand them and even if it’s not completely accurate, y’know, I can help you recall: ‘you meant this’ or … we can add a word or change it a little bit, so that it’s more precise. But it’s really good to try, even when you’re not completely sure what you gonna say and how- and what you think and what you know. Just still do it. That’s an important practice. That’s how we teachers get better ((laughs)) cause we say it over and over, right? It also helps your friends, because they hear you say it so it makes more sense than maybe what I explain, or how I explain things. Yeah? Feel free to share, you know. Maybe sometimes you can raise a hand not when you wanna answer a question but when you wanna add. Some kids do that when you have an example or something that you thought of, that you saw, that you know. That’s also really really good. You’d- It adds a lot. It helps kids remember – everybody else remember better and understand better when there’s more examples./ … /Teacher: like I said, I would like to see you even more comfortable – feeling more comfortable participating in class, for your own sake. So, you know, you really gain a lot when you answer and ehm … and add! You know, with your experience, what you’ve seen … you would be amazed you may say something that maybe makes sense to you, and others didn’t know and hasn’t seen what you’ve seen, you know, so … it’s really useful to share those/ … /from your point of view/ … /Parent: mm, and also ask a lot of questions I mean … make use of the experienced teacher/ … /because you’re not the only one not knowing certain thingsTeacher: Absolutely, like you say, for every person that asks I’m sure there are at least ten, ten in class that feels the same way. So you would being a spokesperson for them ((laughs))/ … /Teacher: / … /everything is already excellent I would say, not just good, excellent. I mean just keep doing what you’re doing/ … /and feeling more comfortable. There’s no reason to be, um, shy/ … /especially thinking this subject. That’s why we write predictions, you don’t know that it’s gonna be true or not. But there are no wrong answers: ‘what do you think?’. So/ … /especially during the lesson, I don’t expect you to know all the correct answers, I expect you to try and practice/ … /There should be no shyness, just say what you think, how you see it, how do you understand it? Everyone else’s gonna say ‘aah’/ … /

According to the analysis, within this story about verbal participation the student is positioned within a larger social category of others, while being the main character. This position is accomplished as the teacher continuously situates the benefits of speaking, and being more comfortable in class, within ideas of self-improvement and the collaborative learning of science. In addition, the teacher performs the action of ‘routinizing’ (Pillet-Shore 2016, 46) the need to speak and feel more comfortable to share things in class by affiliating this demand with that of others. The student is similarly positioned within a collective of learners by the parent’s suggestions, in the sense that this supports the idea that the student would probably not be alone in this. That notion is then reinforced by the teacher, who corroborates that many of the student’s peers would feel the same way, suggesting the student as a possible spokesperson for them. Although positioned within a collective of learners in the story, the student is positioned, too, as an excellent learner who would enhance the learning of self and others by sharing views, understanding and queries overtly in class, thus acting as a resource for learning in the classroom.

It is noteworthy that the teacher encourages the student to become more comfortable and to speak more in class by supportively emphasising the importance of verbal participation, while also forestalling anticipated reasons for the student to avoid it (i.e. reasons to be ‘shy’). In addition to highlighting the learning benefits, the parent and teacher both contend that the personal knowledge and experiences of the student would contribute to a point of view that only this student could offer. Significantly, this underscores an assumed individualised responsibility for the student’s verbal participation in the classroom; in analytical terms, the student is positioned as a valued pedagogical asset. The teacher provides reassurance by making it clear that the student is doing very well, which reinforces the position of the student as being qualified to participate. The teacher also thoughtfully mitigates the stakes of being wrong, or inaccurate, by making it evident that the teacher would aid the student to recall and make the answer more precise; that it is a usual part of the subject to make predictions; and that the teacher does not demand that the student should know all the correct answers in class – rather, the important thing is to try.

A prevalent discourse used in this story rests on the notion that verbal participation has pedagogical benefits. The use of this discourse constructs verbal participation in class as facilitating and enhancing learning, which requires that the students undertake learning as a public performance rather than as a private activity. The use of discourse that relies on the idea that the students’ verbal participation has pedagogical benefits is, henceforth, referred to as pedagogical discourse. Within pedagogical discourse in the stories about verbal participation, it was evident, through analysis, that students tended to be evaluated in terms of their ability and capacity to add value to their own or their peers’ learning in the classroom. This was commonly praised because the students were positioned as being ‘qualified’ in and through the stories. Thus, it was the students’ capacity that was typically held to account, via the indication that they were not typically utilising or publicly demonstrating their ability to an acceptable extent. The students were usually positioned as a significant asset for learning in the classroom when pedagogical discourse was used in the stories about verbal participation. In this way, the students were ‘responsibilised’ (Keddie 2016) for learning in the classroom, and were, thus, encouraged to share their thoughts, ideas and experiences in public.

Theme 2: invalidating the presumed risks of verbal participation

According to the analysis, another feature evident in and through the stories about verbal participation was the invalidation of presumed risks relating to verbal participation in class, and the negotiation of presupposed emotional and social rationalisations for students’ limited participation. This was accomplished by depicting possible emotional and social reasons for the student to avoid verbal participation as groundless, thus weakening potential rationales for a lack of verbal participation. The forthcoming story provides insight into this theme. In the parent-teacher conference excerpt presented below, a focus on the student’s verbal participation is generated when the teacher makes an enquiry as to whether the student ‘dare to raise your hand a little more during lessons now’. The teacher then follows up on the enquiry:

Teacher: / … /Do you dare to talk a little and raise your hand sometimes?Student: A little, perhaps?Teacher: Perhaps? [What do you feel uncertain=Student: [Well, that-Teacher: =about when it comes to speaking in class?Student: Well, I don- Or … ((it becomes quiet))Teacher: Do you understand the things you are talking about? [That you are, like- or is it …Student: [Yes.Teacher: Yes, you think you follow what they’re tal-Student: Well-Teacher: What’s being discussed?Student: Yes. But-Teacher: And if you’re sure, do you raise your [hand and answer then?Student: [Yes, if I’m sure. Then.Teacher: Ah, okay.Student: But if I’m unsure then I’ll-Parent: Would- What would happen if you raised your hand and gave a wrong answer?Student: I don’t know.Parent: Should you try it sometime? And take a chance?/ … /And see what happens. How scary could it really be?/ … /That could be a small task, right?Teacher: That could be a small challenge. I think that could be good. Because- I think that you’re a bit worried about that for no reason at all. It- there’s no feeling in the class of anyone like laughing=Parent: NoTeacher: =or ridiculing or such. There is none of that. Instead, it is perfectly okay to make mistakes, and in case it would go totally crazy so someone sort of laughs a little. Then it’s not laughter at someone, then it is rather more like, a laughter that=Student: YesTeacher: =it was like kind of funny/ … /That it became a different word than you intended, and everyone sort of laughs at that./ … /You can laugh with each other that it ended up crazy in that case. Mhm. So you should dare to, because you are good at English.Student: mmTeacher: Yes. It would be nice, really, if there were more who speak a little.Student: Yes.Teacher: So it’s not just the same person who wants to talk all the time. Mhm.Student: Mm. In Swedish, oral competence./ … /I think it’s fun to, like, present keynotes and such.Teacher: Yes, I’ve noticed that. [And you’re great at it.Student: [Eh, and … yes, most fun to present in groupTeacher: Yes, do you feel more comfortable presenting in a group than standing alone?Student: Well, I CAN stand alone. But it is a little … hm-Teacher: I also think that this is a strength of yours. That you’re quite comfortable to stand in front of people and talk.Student: mmTeacher: It becomes very good when [student] presents. You’ve done beautiful presentations, I think.

Within this story, it is notable that both the ‘you’ and ‘I’ index the student and respectively form two distinct positions. One position takes form in the enquiries as to whether the student raises a hand and talks more during English. The student is positioned as someone who is not confident or certain enough to raise a hand and speak in class. This position is accomplished as the teacher and the parent imply that students in general avoid verbal participation to prevent exposing themselves to emotional and social risks. By using terms associated with different emotions throughout the story, the student’s verbal participation is, thus, affiliated with the possibility of emotional discomfort and inhibition. Other remarks and questions posed by the teacher and the parent affiliate verbal participation with social discomfort, as it is constructed as an activity where students could potentially lose face. The teacher and the parent attempt gently to challenge the student to engage with the presumed social and emotional scenario by discursively making the situation appear less significant for the student. This is evident through the query ‘How scary could it really be?’, together with the reassurance that students might be worried ‘for no reason at all’, and the reinforcement that the student is good in English, and the atmosphere in class is good. This positions the student as no longer needing to be concerned about speaking up, since it is suggested that the presumed risks of participation have been acknowledged and invalidated.

It is interesting to note that the student does not validate the position as someone who would necessarily lack the confidence to raise contributions verbally in class; rather, initiating ‘dis-preferred’ responses to these enquiries and remarks. On the one hand, the dis-preferred responses could perhaps suggest that the student is resistant to accepting this position, since these are only initiated before the teacher or parent interrupts. On the other hand, it is evident that the student turns the focus away from assumed hesitation and towards examples of contributions. In response, the teacher affirms that it is a strength that the student is quite at ease presenting orally. The student is, thus, positioned as someone who is comfortable with doing presentations in front of the class, which contrasts with the previous position.

A prevalent discourse used in this story rests on the idea that students may be inhibited in their verbal participation because of the emotional and social risks involved in the activity. More generally, the use of this discourse constructs verbal participation as a venture where the student must prevail, requiring students to be confident, bold and adventurous. Discourse that calls attention to emotional and social presumptions regarding students’ verbal participation is henceforth referred to as psychological discourse. When psychological discourse is used in the verbal participation stories, students are typically evaluated by personal attributes associated with emotions and dispositions that are presumed to determine their verbal participation in class, such as confidence, assertiveness, shyness, boldness, anxiety and comfort. Verbal participation is, within this discourse, constructed as a venture because it is portrayed as leaving the student exposed to the judgement of others and, potentially, to risk experiencing social discomfort. When psychological discourse is used, students tend to be positioned as uncertain, shy, afraid, insecure or anxious. The analysis suggested that psychological discourse was commonly used to negotiate the reasonableness of assumed emotional and social aspects which were believed to prevent the student from verbal participation. Staying quiet in the classroom for reasons that have effectively been invalidated, was therefore, presented as less tenable.

Theme 3: strategizing the outcome of verbal participation

Strategizing verbal participation in class, while holding students accountable for proving their knowledge and for the outcome of the teachers’ assessment, was a further feature identified through the analysis of stories about verbal participation in the parent-teacher conferences. It was accomplished by depicting verbal participation as key in achieving an effective and favourable performance evaluation and assessment from teachers. The example below provides illumination of this theme, developing from a context where the teacher confirms that the student is doing very well in general, whilst also emphasising that the student should participate more verbally in the classroom, and encouraging the student to do so. The teacher makes clear that this is ‘just a reminder’ for the student, since they have, and will, talk about this every time they meet. In the excerpt, the conference continues as follows:

Teacher: / … /Because it’s actually very much easier for a teacher also to assess a student when they see that they’re active, like, as well. So … you benefit from daring to do it. But you could also, of course, you should also be able to prove much of your knowledge in writing as well, like – definitely … but to be on the safe side, however, it’s also good to be very verbal and like active, dare to raise your hand and such things. Because you are fairly quiet as a person, like. So, it’s just to keep daring, talk more. Especially I say- This I say to those – to everybody, really,/ … /especially, you know, if you sit and get a question from the teacher or that the teacher asks a question to the whole class and you sit there and actually know of the answer. You know the answer. Then it’s really such a shame if you don’t raise your hand, right? That’s when you should- really grasp the opportunity and raise the hand, if you actually know the answer. It is a difference if you feel that you are unsure, then you might not dare to take the chance, raise the hand. Some dare to do that. That’s where you’re a little different. That’s totally fine… but if you sit and know the answer, then I think you really should try more and more. Dare. Raise your hand. So seize those occasions, I think. When you actually know … to dare to raise your hand more frequently, and talk. That’s when you should seize the opportunity, like, on those occasions/ … // … /Parent: Take a little more- take up some more space then.Teacher: Yes. But that comes with time, [student], you do have several years/ … /It’s like. It’s just about taking small steps, all the time./ … /For example, just like ‘Alright. I will raise my hand ONE MORE TIME, each week’. If you decide to do so, for example, then you have taken a small step forward. So that’s the way you’ve got do it./ … /

The teacher encourages the student to capitalise on available chances to participate verbally, such as when an answer is known, describing the student as ‘fairly quiet’. The rationale used is that it is advantageous to take part verbally, because oral and active participation may facilitate teacher assessment, although it is acknowledged that demonstrating knowledge through writing is important, too. Having the courage to engage in verbal participation is, thereby, constructed as involving ‘benefit’ for the student. In this way, according to the analysis, the student may, thus, also be considered to be positioned as having responsibility for providing verbal evidence of knowledge and helping to make it more salient for the teacher.

Throughout the story, the teacher sensitively advises the student to take opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and understanding by verbally performing in class. By providing guidance and suggestions, along with hypothetical modelling of the student’s thoughts, the teacher reinforces the position of the student as someone who should be attentive to potential openings to perform. Such possibilities in class are depicted as accessible for the student, while circumstances presumed to inhibit the student, such as being a quiet person, are depicted as manageable. The student is guided towards being more decisive and strategic by resourcefully manoeuvring these depicted opportunities and barriers.

A prevalent discourse used in this story rests on notions that verbal participation in class is a measure of student performance and a performance indicator for teachers’ assessment. The use of this discourse constructs verbal participation in class as key for students to benefit from teacher assessment. The use of discourse that focuses on the noticeability and effectiveness of students’ verbal participation is henceforth referred to as performative discourse. Within performative discourse in stories about verbal participation, students are evaluated by their ability and capacity to make themselves and their knowledge salient for the teacher. In the story above, the teacher evaluates the student’s verbal participation against a non-specific standard (i.e. the raising of the hand and verbal participation). In other stories, however, it is interesting to note that verbal participation in class is constructed more explicitly as a competitive activity, in the sense that the teacher recommends the student to take the floor and perform in the context of other students positioned assertively:

Teacher: / … /And that’s the strength of [class], it’s like that here you really talk a lot. Here you can say just about anything, and nothing is more right or wrong/ … /but that actually means that you ought to assert yourself as well then, throw up a fist and say ‘I think like this’ or ‘how do you think when you think like that?’, like that./ … /so that I get to see what you- how you think and reflect […]

When performative discourse is used in this way, students tend to be positioned as individuals competing for limited openings to assert themselves and display their knowledge in class. In all, the analysis indicated that performative discourse was used in the stories to emphasise the advantageousness of oral contributions in the context of facilitating teachers’ assessment, with the display of verbal participation constructed as a strategic enterprise for students within this discourse.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore how verbal participation in the classroom was constructed in discussions between students, parents and teachers during parent-teacher conferences. The research focused on the analysis of discourses used in stories about verbal participation and a consideration of how students were positioned in and through these stories. The analysis suggested that prevalent discourses used in the stories – referred to as pedagogical, psychological and performative discourses – drew on notions about the learning, affect and assessment of students in school. The use of these discourses in the parent-teacher conferences connects with notions of neo-liberal discourse and performativity (Ball 2003), as the discourses were used to appeal to students to make the most of their verbal participation in class, encouraging them to set aside their reservations by indicating how verbal participation would be of benefit.

In using pedagogical discourse, the verbal participation of students is constructed as a means to boost learning in class, with students positioned as significant pedagogical assets. Learning is, in this way, associated with the individual student’s capacity for verbal participation, rather than with the teaching, which places the onus on students to perform publicly in the classroom. Within pedagogical discourse, students are requested to perform by actively engaging in learning processes and managing their own learning through verbal participation and through the performative demands that follow. Responsibility for learning is, thus, allocated to students, by relating to concepts such as self-improvement. Secondly, when psychological discourse is used, verbal participation is constructed as a venture, presumed to involve emotional and social risk. Within this discourse, students are commonly positioned as holding invalid reasons for not participating, since grounds to avoid verbal participation are discounted. Students are, thus, advised to be bold and act within a rational space, free from affective boundaries associated with verbal participation, with lack of verbal participation framed as an individual issue. Finally, within performative discourse, students are positioned as not being sufficiently assertive to perform orally and so less able to reap the assessment benefits of verbal participation, against standards of verbal participation or a competitive class environment. Accordingly, teachers advise students to develop a strategic approach to their verbal participation, encouraging them to take chances and manage barriers to participation.

The uses of pedagogical, psychological and performative discourse detected through the analysis of the parent-teacher conferences resonate to a certain extent with the three aspects of performativity identified within university policy by Macfarlane (2015), particularly as they require different modes of performance for students (Skeggs 2009). Specifically, when a pedagogical discourse is used, students are expected to make a dispositional performance by demonstrating their willingness to take an active part in learning, similar to aspects of ‘learnerism’ (Macfarlane 2015, 341). In performative discourse, students are expected to make a bodily performance: they are requested to demonstrate their knowledge in an efficient and noticeable manner, often by raising their hand to show that they know the answer. This can be compared with aspects of ‘presenteeism’ in university (Macfarlane 2015, 339). In a psychological discourse, it is possible to perceive that students are expected to make an emotional performance, in the sense of making a public performance with confidence. However, it is important to note that it is not suggested that this is in line with the emotional performance required of students within ‘soulcraft’ (Macfarlane 2015, 344).

Within the three illustrative stories presented in the paper, analysis indicated that students tended to be positioned as having individual responsibility for their verbal participation in class. They were strongly encouraged to set aside their disinclination for verbal participation in class in favour of making the most of their verbal participation as part of developing a successful learner identity (Bragg 2007; Keddie 2016). Conceptualised through performativity, the analysis shows how students may build repertoires to present themselves, forming a particular response to the indicators, targets and evaluations in the classroom that matter (Ball 2003). Verbal participation can, accordingly, be constructed as a significant aspect of what has been referred to, in various ways, as playing ‘the classroom game’ (Asp-Onsjö and Holm 2014, 40; Macfarlane 2015, 347). In response to the demands of making a public performance in the classroom, the expectation is that students put themselves forwards as enterprising student subjects; in other words, to ‘fabricate’ themselves (e.g. Bragg 2007, 345; Keddie 2016, 116). This may encourage inauthentic behaviour from some students, who might prefer to be active listeners or benefit from staying quiet (Flieller, Jarlégan, and Tazouti 2016; Macfarlane 2015; O’Connor et al. 2017; Reda 2009).

Overall, the stories about verbal participation illustrate that a lack of verbal participation may be constructed as a significant disadvantage for students (Macfarlane 2015). This is not, of course, surprising, given that verbal participation is considered to have educational benefits and contribute to positive student engagement (Böheim et al. 2020; Schnitzler, Holzberger, and Seidel 2021; Sedova et al. 2019). However, there is a growing body of literature providing insights towards a more nuanced understanding of this (Böheim et al. 2020; Macfarlane 2015; Perry-Hazan 2021; White 2011). The current study offers a contribution by drawing attention to the notion that students may be quiet or less verbal for several reasons, which can appear incompatible with policies (Macfarlane 2015; Perry-Hazan 2021) or conceptualisations of successful learner identities (Bragg 2007; Keddie 2016), particularly within a performative school culture. The parent-teacher conference proved to be a rich setting through which to explore the subtle and nuanced ways in which students are positioned in relation to verbal participation in the classroom.

Limitations

The findings of this small, in-depth qualitative study are based on audio-recorded parent-teacher conferences with 15 students, with a focus on the detailed analysis of three illustrative stories about verbal participation. The specific educational context, practice and sample must be considered when interpreting the findings. The deep analysis and rich descriptions are intended to provide insights, which could be relevant in further understanding verbal participation, student performativity and the ways in which students are expected to perform publicly in class. Although it is not the intention to draw conclusions beyond the current setting, there may be patterns that will be recognisable in other contexts. The findings presented here may resonate elsewhere internationally and become useful for other studies (Larsson 2009), thereby providing further insights into student performativity and aspects relevant for understanding more about students’ verbal participation.

Conclusion

The study offers insights into the status that verbal participation holds at school. A detailed analysis of the social actions performed during parent-teacher conferences was undertaken, highlighting the use of pedagogical, psychological and performative discourses on verbal participation. The analysis draws attention to how students are encouraged to make the most of their verbal participation in class, with such participation constructed as an individual undertaking. Lack of oral participation is constructed as a disadvantage, which has particular implications for quiet students, who may be disinclined to perform publicly in the classroom in front of teachers and peers. In the context of research that suggests the multifaceted considerations around students’ verbal participation, it is hoped that this study can help to widen our knowledge of this important and complex area, ultimately gaining deeper understanding of how best to support all students to thrive in class.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. See further: https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/nationella-prov-i-grundskolan/genomfora-och-bedoma-prov-i-grundskolan#h-Muntligadelprov; and https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.49f081e1610d887500ac9/1634547110942/information-np-ak6-engelska.pdf.

2. See further: SFS (2010:800), Chapter 10, paragraph 20 a §.

3. Regionala etikprövningsnämnden i Linköping, 2018, dnr 2018/100–31.