Teaching Through Interactions Framework and Analytic Methods for Capturing Large Class Pedagogical Approaches

• In Event: How Do We Handle All the Children? Understanding Pedagogies for Overcrowded Classrooms in Malawi

Proposal

Classroom process features are aspects of the classroom experienced directly by children, such as teacher-child social and instructional interactions, classroom activities, available learning materials, and daily classroom routines. These are indicators of the quality of learning (Cryer et al., 1999; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn, 2008). Daily interactions between students and teachers are the primary mechanisms that drive student development and classroom learning (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). Quality interactions are exhibited through a supportive classroom climate, effective content delivery, opportunities to engage, coherent content, thoughtful discourse, modelling target behaviours, practice and application activities, scaffolding, cooperative learning, goal-oriented assessment, and constructive feedback (Brophy, 1999; Harbour et al., 2015).

Overcrowded classrooms are a common feature in LMICs, yet there is limited empirical evidence on the types of pedagogies that maximize student-teacher interactions in classrooms. Empirical evidence from classroom observation studies in sub-Saharan Africa sheds light on classroom interactions exhibited through discourse patterns, teacher dominance, questioning techniques and their linkage with learning outcomes (Ackers & Hardman, 2001; Hardman et al., 2009; Ngware et al., 2014). While the available evidence suggests possible linkages between classroom interactions and students’ learning outcomes, there is limited understanding of how teacher-student interactions are conceptualized in these LMIC contexts. The Teaching Through Interactions Theoretical Framework stipulates that the daily interactions between students (children and adolescents) and adults are the primary means that drive student development and learning (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). The TIIF delineates three broad domains central to promoting students' learning and social development: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support (Hamre et al., 2013). ES is a teacher's sensitivity to a child’s emotional needs during learning and is exhibited through a teacher's ability to support students’ social and emotional functioning in the classroom. CO is related to the organization and management of student behavior, productive use of time, and the pursuit of academic goals. Instructional support consists of the teacher’s interactions to implement the curriculum effectively, feedback during instruction to support students’ cognitive skills, and communicating with the students to foster language and academic skills development (Hamre et al., 2013). Based on data from focus group discussions and semi-structured key informant interviews from various education stakeholders in Malawi, including Student Teachers, Teachers, Head Teachers and Teacher Educators, our research addresses the following overarching questions:
1) How do education stakeholders perceive classroom interactions through classroom organisation, instructional support, and emotional support in Malawi?
2)How do education stakeholders in Malawi define the constructs of the TIIF and its applicability in the Malawi context?
A thematic data analysis approach was utilized to understand the applicability of the TIIF in the Malawi context. The findings will further explain possible cultural aspects that shape adult-child interactions in these contexts and how they can be defined through the TIIF. Our presentation will highlight potential research areas to operationalize the TIIF in LMIC contexts. We will share pedagogical and policy implications for classroom teaching and teacher training for educational stakeholders in Malawi and other LMICs.

Authors

• Brenda Aromu Wawire, Florida State University, Learning Systems Institute

• Adrienne Barnes-Story, Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University

• Jennie Robinette, Florida State University, Learning Systems Institute