CHAPTER

6
The recitation method
and the nature of
classroom learning

One inevitable feature of classroom life is the phenomenon we refer to as

the recitation method. This is the type of teaching that is so highly familiar
to anyone who has been to school. Alternatively known as the IRE cycle
(initiation–response–evaluation), or the CDR method (conventional–direct–
recitation), the recitation has a long history of application. It represents traditional
teaching methodology that has survived considerable criticism and attacks for
over two centuries. Stanford University professor Larry Cuban (1984) noted that,

Drawn from a large number of varied sources in diverse settings, over nearly
a century, the data show striking convergence in outlining a stable core of
teacher-centred instructional activities in the elementary school and, in high
school classrooms, a remarkably pure and durable version of the same set of
activities.
(p. 238)

He called this stable core the ‘grammar’ of schooling.

Just why is this form of teaching so familiar and persistent? The answer lies
in the predictable patterns that are set up and carried through. In IRE cycles the
teacher initiates an interaction with a class, and invites some form of response,
typically through presenting a question. A student responds, and the teacher
evaluates the response before initiating another interaction. Lessons can be
analysed in terms of cycles of structuring, soliciting, responding, and reacting.
Teachers and students know how to interact with each other. After a short period
of structuring, teachers emit clear signals that a sequence of questions is about
to begin. Teachers display subtle ways of communicating to the class that at least
some of them will be expected to respond. Student–teacher interactions proceed
in an orderly fashion, and teachers are able to cover aspects they deem important.
The IRE cycle (or recitation method, as we call it) represents a realistic com-
promise between priorities that enables a teacher to retain a level of authority
and managerial control.

44
 The recitation method and classroom learning

Criticisms of such forms of teaching are well founded and include the
following:

a Observational studies that the questions asked are mainly at a low level, often
calling for simplistic answers.
b Generally, only one student is active at a time: the majority of students are
often powerless to do anything other than bid to answer questions they had
no part in formulating.
c Education becomes a matter of receiving pre-packaged knowledge from an
authority figure and demonstrating its retention.
d The nature of the conversations inherent in the recitation is predictable, task-
oriented, but unstimulating. There is a topic to be covered, knowledge to be
assimilated, and outcomes to be achieved. But, such business is transacted
within a sterile, non-emotional, and rule-bound context.

Tensions between different teaching methods

Professor Nate Gage (2009), a pioneer researcher in the area of classroom
teaching, drew attention to the long-standing tensions between two process
models of teaching, which he labelled PDC and CDR. PDC is the progressive-
discovery-constructivist approach, as formulated within the Dewey tradition, and
CDR stands for the conventional-direct-recitation approach. Tensions between
variants of these two models have been apparent over the past century. However,
a large literature of observational studies has documented the sheer preponder-
ance of the CDR approach in classrooms across the globe. Representative of
such studies is the work of John Goodlad (1994, p. 230), who, in a study of over
1,017 classrooms in the United States, noted:

In effect, then, the modal classroom configurations which we observed looked

like this: the teacher explaining or lecturing to the total class or a single
student, occasionally asking questions requiring factual answers; . . . students
listening or appearing to listen to the teacher and occasionally responding to
the teacher’s questions; students working individually at their desks on reading
or writing assignments; and all with little emotion, from interpersonal warmth
to expressions of hostility.

In this project, Dr Goodlad reported that about 75 per cent of class time was
spent on such instruction, with teachers out-talking the students by a factor of
three. Students responding to teacher questions accounted for around 5 per cent
of the time, and less than 1 per cent of time was associated with open questions
that might ask for complex or affective responses. Indeed, the level of feedback
and reinforcement observed in these classrooms was remarkably low, apparently
almost non-existent in some classrooms. It is interesting to note that this figure

45
Learning within classrooms

of 75 per cent class time associated with teacher talk has been reported in many
other studies since that period, and across many countries. Another commonly
reported statistic is that, per day, teachers may ask well over 100 questions, as
compared to 5 stemming from the students.
Despite efforts of generations of educators, reformers, and idealists, the
essential features of the recitation method remain intact, and can be observed in
classrooms around the world. Dr Cuban (1982, p. 28) expressed his view by
noting,

What nags at me is the puzzling durability of this teaching at all levels of

schooling but most clearly and uniformly at the high school, decade after
decade, in spite of changes in teacher preparation, students’ knowledge and
skills, and continuous reform fever to alter this form of instruction.

However, Dr Gage (2009, p. 75) reviewed the research basis of this method
of teaching and concluded that the ‘model embodies something profoundly
fundamental in the nature of teaching’. He identified several factors that help to
account for the longevity of the CDR method including (a) its traditional form
and intergenerational qualities, (b) its apparent adequacy and success in building
a well-educated populace within advanced Western societies, (c) the relative
failure of alternative methods such as progressive education and discovery
learning approaches, (d) the failure of the information technology revolution to
change structural aspects of the classroom, (e) the reality of the conditions of
teaching and the professional demands made upon teachers, and (f) the lack of
incentives and competition to drive significant alterations in educational delivery.

Advantages and disadvantages of the recitation method

Criticisms of the recitation method, as we noted earlier, become pertinent when
student engagement and active participation are acknowledged as primary goals.
For example, students are often expected to participate in research projects in a
small group context and then present their findings within a whole class seminar
context. After many years of being exposed to teaching practices based on a
recitation model, it is difficult for students to shift to any other model. The
recitation method evolved in response to issues such as mass education and
overcrowded classrooms, and the need to teach a set curriculum. The problem
becomes one of adapting teaching methods to suit the demands of the context
within which you are employed to teach.
The recitation method has several natural advantages at the professional level.
The teacher remains in control of the interaction. Hence, you can progress
through mandated material at virtually any pace you want to dial up. You may
be able to do this due to simple realities concerning the role (or absence of) of
feedback. The recitation gives you the illusion of teaching success. Your
reinforcement can lie in the fact that at least some students within the class appear

46
 The recitation method and classroom learning

interested and keeping up with the agenda. This can provide you with a level
of assurance. However, such a perception may be based upon illusion.
In particular there is a huge problem inherent in that students will learn little
from merely listening to teachers talk. For example, studies have shown that
although students can learn a great deal from analysing worked examples, adding
teachers’ explanations into this mix adds virtually nothing. It has also been shown
that when teachers race through curriculum materials at a faster than normal pace,
then deep learning is affected dramatically, whereas surface learning may be
relatively unaffected.
In short, the recitation method comes with many built-in problems that
involve teachers in cost–benefit dilemmas. All too often, the nature of the
interaction can become that of a single teacher interacting with a relatively small
subgroup of students from within the class. The issue is compounded when class
participants recognise what is occurring and tacitly allow such patterns to become
the norm. It is almost as though students begin to recognise just who is active
within each session, and perhaps who is not.
One experience many of us recall, from when we were high school students
ourselves, is developing the art of becoming invisible. We developed skills
enabling us to opt out of lesson participation. It is possible to appear slightly
attentive, while avoiding direct eye gaze, avoiding excessive movement,
shrinking slightly into the seat rather than sitting upright, or using bluffing tactics
such as pretending to be reading or writing. It is possible to sit in a classroom,
away from its focal centre, cause little disturbance, and virtually never be noticed.
Observational studies have suggested, this is not an uncommon experience. So
often, students seem to come to school to watch teachers working.

Understanding how we process information: more

problems with the recitation
One of the major principles of learning is that a learner needs to make an active
response to the source of learning. This idea runs through all theories of learning
irrespective of whether or not we use terms such as ‘behaviourist’, ‘cognitivist’,
or ‘constructionist’. Within the world of psychology, there is no such thing as
passive learning, unless this term implies learning to do nothing, in a manner
akin to learned helplessness. When we are learning from listening or watching,
our minds are highly active. All such effects are mediated through our active
working memories. For instance, when the mind is focused, observational
learning can produce powerful effects. People will often learn more effectively
from watching a model perform than from doing and performing that same action
in the flesh. Although we note the learners need to be active, this does not mean
being active in the physical sense of having to respond overtly.
The teacher’s role, agreed upon by all parties and all theories of learning, is
to invite and induce students to engage actively with learning sources. A great
deal of information flows through teachers’ talk. But when a teacher exposes

47
Learning within classrooms

students to high levels of their talk, the students’ basis for knowing what is relevant
or not can be undermined. Besides straight overload, this phenomenon is akin
to the redundancy effect as identified by cognitive load researchers. Studies into
the characteristics of effective teachers have found that they will explain material
extremely well, but in brief periods of time, for instance in 5- to 7-minute bursts,
whereas a novice teacher would have taken longer. In short, instructors who
assume that students will learn simply by listening for long periods of time are
buying into ideas inconsistent with what we know of normal human capacities,
as described by information processing theories.
The available studies into paying attention and vigilance indicate that mental
focus drops off after 10 minutes. Although there will be large individual
differences, a sensible working hypothesis is that students at the high-school level
may listen intensively for perhaps up to 10 minutes. After that, overload factors
come into play, as do other aspects such as ego depletion and simple boredom.
In fact, there are two major theories about mind wandering in the neuroscience
literature. One theory reflects the notion of ego depletion and a failure in self-
regulation (see Chapter 26). That is, one’s ability to focus intensively (or to try
hard) literally runs out through biological exhaustion, indexed by glucose levels
available to the brain. Hence, it is necessary to conserve one’s energies ready for
the next trial coming up in the future. In this theory, mind wandering is an
adaptive strategy for conservation of one’s resources.
The second theory is called cascading inattention. This reflects the role of
overload in preventing the mind from following the story being told. In other
words, excessive input is threatening to one’s clear mental organisation and gives
arise to confusion. The mind is striving for simplicity, but the input implies
complexity. In practice, both these theories, depletion and confusion, suggest
the same: that student attention deteriorates over the course of a lesson. One study with
university students found that by half way through lectures, 55 per cent of
students will report ‘yes’ when asked if they are mind wandering at the time.
Another study found that good students are able to regulate their attention by
literally ‘tuning in’ and ‘tuning out’ throughout entire lectures.
The common-sense finding, that attention is a limited resource, is com-
pounded by other research suggesting students (at all levels) are frequently
exposed to instructional explanations they are unable to comprehend. What has
been communicated to a group can be well out of sync with individual students’
capacity to understand and memorise complex information relayed. Within any
one class, differences in students’ prior knowledge will account for large
differences in their understandings of the same content. To attain high levels of
understanding and mastery, instructional explanations need to be adapted to
individuals’ knowledge prerequisites. But this goal is unlikely to be achieved for
all at the level of whole group instruction.
It has been repeatedly shown, through both classroom and laboratory studies,
that students who arrive at high school with misconceptions about phenomena
will not alter their misconceptions as a result of directive instruction or simply

48
 The recitation method and classroom learning

listening to ‘correct’ explanations. Such students are often unaccustomed to

having their views of the world challenged. Such misconceptions can be altered
through sensitive challenge, careful expository teaching, active discussion, and
individualised tutorial guidance. But the necessary conditions for this intensive
and interactive form of teaching to occur are rarely possible under general
classroom conditions.

IN PERSPECTIVE: Encouraging the student voice

Attempts have been made to alter classroom procedures to encourage quality

student talk and active teacher listening. For example, consider the Paideia model
of teaching, which considers that there should be three major parts to learning:
didactic instruction, Socratic questioning, and coached product – and each should
consume about one third of classroom time. Didactic teaching is not talking but active
teaching of ideas and relationships between ideas, and coached product puts an
emphasis on the coached more than the product. But the Socratic questioning is
the key – it entails asking students open questions (usually about higher order ideas)
and then listening to them answering and asking each other relevant questions.
Creating opportunities for quality student talk requires deliberate actions, learning
how to ask open questions (that do not then require teacher further involvement for
some time) and a subtle shift in the teacher’s role away from the traditional model.
Karen Murphy and colleagues have reviewed a large body of studies on quality
talk and found many approaches that promote vocabulary and understanding of the
fundamental ideas of lessons, and particularly that promote higher order thinking
such as comprehension, reasoning, critical thinking, and argumentation. They found
reducing teacher talk and increasing student talk was not enough. That is, merely
putting students into groups and encouraging them to talk was not enough. Student
talk is a means not an end. Deliberate strategies are needed to structure student
talk (such as Paideia and other methods outlined by Murphy) that leads to greater
comprehension and learning. In surveying the literature, it was evident that
particularly strong effects associated with encouraging such student talk were found
in the case of below average students.

Study guide questions

1 There are several terms used to refer to the recitation method, including IRE
cycles, the CDR method, or even ‘traditional chalk and talk’. Why is this
form of teaching still around after some 200 years of criticism and antagonism
from reformers?
2 What are the justified criticisms levelled against the recitation method?

49
Learning within classrooms

3 Roughly what percentage of class time seems to involve teacher talk? How
much time seems devoted to student talk?
4 Can you list any specific advantages that the recitation affords the teacher?
5 One worthwhile research finding is that once students are working through
worked examples, then additional teacher talk is virtually useless. Why would
this be the case?
6 One issue to note is that our attention is limited. Just what is known about
mind wandering?
7 How does the prior knowledge factor create difficulties for the effectiveness
of the recitation method?
8 Can student misconceptions be addressed through lecturing or direct
instruction?
9 What are some of the strategies used to try to get students to talk more and
participate in higher-level activities?

Reference notes
■ Professor Nate Gage of Stanford University was a most respected researcher
who helped to initiate the modern era of classroom-based research (Gage,
2009).
■ The continuity of the recitation method over time (Cuban, 1984).
■ Problems with teacher-directed lessons (Pressley & McCormick, 1995).
■ Tensions between these two models have been apparent over the past century
(Cuban, 1982). For a fascinating commentary on failure of open education
over past century see Chall, 2000.
■ Influential American book: A Place Called School: Prospects for the future
(Goodlad, 1994). An English study suggesting teacher dominance and student
low level of responding (F. Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz, 2004).
■ Many studies have now shown that although students learn a great deal from
analysing worked examples, adding teachers’ verbal explanations into this mix
adds virtually nothing (Wittwer & Renkl, 2010). Verbally based instruction
is virtually useless in communicating forms of procedural knowledge. These
findings are consistent with the fact that people cannot explain to others just
how they can catch a ball, or ride a bicycle. Overall, procedural knowledge
is immune to verbal forms of instruction.
■ Students come to school to watch teachers working (Hattie, 2012).
■ Effective teachers use brief instructional bursts (Brophy, 1986).
■ Human vigilance studies indicate drops in attention after several minutes
(Ariga & Lleras, 2011). Students may have up to 10 minutes before attention
fades (K. Wilson & Korn, 2007). However Wilson and Korn note that the

50
 The recitation method and classroom learning

10-minutes notion is too simplistic. Wide variations are evident, and many
students tune in and out in cycles.
■ Mind wandering as depletion in executive processing (McVay & Kane,
2010). Mind wandering as confusion (Schooler et al., 2011). For a valuable
paper on mind-wandering research and implications for professional practice
see Smallwood, Mrazek, & Schooler, 2011.
■ Students’ mind wandering during university lectures (Risko, Anderson,
Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012). Capable university students show
cycles of ‘tuning in and out’ during lectures (Bunce, Flens, & Neiles, 2010).
■ Instructional explanations (at all levels of group classroom teaching) frequently
fail to give rise to substantial learning effects for many students (Wittwer &
Renkl, 2008, 2010).
■ Students’ misconceptions are not altered by simply listening to correct
information through direct instruction (Aydeniz & Kotowski, 2012). For a
classic reading on how the mind resists new information when it already has
a view in place see Chinn & Brewer, 1993.
■ The Paideia method (Billings & Fitzgerald, 2002). Review on increasing
student talk (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009).

51