Key points
- Paired talk routines can be a powerful lever for learning, but they are often a waste of instructional time
- To get pairs talking well, we need to teach exemplary routines, including explicitly modelling what good responses sound like
- To improve routines, teachers should consider constraining both the task and the time allocated
Prompting and promoting high quality student talk is important for explicit and responsive teaching, but it isn’t easy to get a class talking well. While many schools are working hard to implement “Turn & Talk” or “Think-Pair-Share”, very few schools have established a culture of truly exemplary partner discussion.
Turn-and-talk routines may look dead easy to run on the surface, but perhaps more than other engagement norms, paired discussion routines are prone to all kinds of instructional problems.
Why should schools invest in paired discussion routines?
Here’s why I think paired discussion routines are probably worth implementing.
1. High quality partner talk can stimulate and clarify thinking
It is students – not teachers – who need to do the heaviest cognitive lifting for learning to stick over time. Turn & Talk routines make up part of a teachers’ suite of techniques to engage students in thinking. Sometimes, discussion also suits the nature of what we are teaching (e.g. crucial processes of reasoning, see Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
2. Student talk feeds teacher decision-making
What students say is informative; their talk shines a light on what they’re thinking, and what they might need next from us. Turn & Talk routines also buy teachers a little time to get around the classroom, and to ask themselves: Are students accurately discussing new ideas? How much do they have to say? What connections can they make to related concepts? How deeply are they engaging with newly taught material? Who is encountering difficulty explaining ideas or processes? Who is working well together?
3. Discussion is critical for cultures of participation
Dialogic classroom environments do not materialise without careful scaffolding; high-engagement classrooms result from teachers involving all students in talk. Structured paired talk routines form a simple foundation from which we can build richer, more complex classroom discussions and debates.
4. Paired talk supports rehearsal of subject-specific vocabulary
Students need to actively rehearse taught subject-specific vocabulary in context (e.g. Beck & McKeown, 2004). We know that active use of language is more effective than passively encountering words and terms; without structures for practising language in context, it’s likely that many students will miss out on this critical practice of domain-specific language. Turn-and-talk routines provide a simple structure for this.
5. Paired talk lays a foundation for directed questioning
No matter how well executed, directed questioning (i.e. Cold Calling) only works brilliantly in classrooms where there is an abundance of student thinking in the environment: everyone involved in the discussion, everyone saying that target vocab word together, everyone on board. All-student response techniques (like Turn & Talk) help to generate this culture (see this post for more).
So, where do the wheels fall off?
Here are a few reasons why paired discussion routines go awry, even if the routine has been taught well.
1. Discussion prompts are ill-defined or unwieldy
“What do you think about what we’ve just read, Grade 5? Turn and talk to a partner.”
“Okay, that’s a lot of content we’ve just covered there. Let’s take some time to unpack that, Year 10s. Take a moment to discuss it all with a partner.”
“Grade 3/4, let’s just recap what we know about the story so far. You should know a lot, because we’ve been reading for a while now. 5 minutes, with a partner – off you go.”
In the classroom where behaviour is exemplary, student knowledge is solid, and motivation is strong across the board, these loose prompts may well work. In most classrooms, I observed, these kind of prompts are insufficient for high quality paired discussion.
2. Students are given far too much time to talk
It is a big ask to expect school-aged children to stay on task for extended conversations. (This goes for adults in a professional learning setting, too. Us humans have a lot to talk about with people we like, and most often, the stuff we want to talk about is not directly related to the discussion prompt we’ve been given.) In my experience, when the wheels have fallen off a paired discussion task, it wasn’t more time that students needed. It was less. The big idea is that a focused conversation cut short is preferable to a lengthy off-task conversation about last night’s episode of The Voice.
3. Students aren’t prompted to use great language
So many schools are doing brilliant work to teach Tier 2 and Tier 3 vocabulary explicitly, across and within domains. There’s a great opportunity missed if students are not using this language, instead rehearsing relatively poor language to discuss domain-specific concepts.
Getting it right
Tip 1 | Constrain the task
Tightening discussion prompts serves a few purposes: it increases accountability, supports manageability and fuels motivation. Develop talk prompts that are manifestly manageable, workable, and clearly defined.
“There is an alliteration on the board, Year 7. The author has used it here for a particular purpose. You are going to read the passage carefully, and then do 2 things with your partner. First, find the alliteration – identify it – and then discuss the intended effect on the reader. Go.”
Tip 2 | Constrain the time
Let’s imagine that some students (shock, horror) are not going to make the most of the time they are given to talk about their learning (no matter how well we’ve taught our talk routine). Do they lose 5 minutes of their learning time, or 50 seconds? The total time allocated to discussion matters particularly in classes where off-task discussions are common. Work the clock by allocating tight timeframes, only releasing students into longer-form discussions once they’ve demonstrated that they’re ready for it.
“There is an alliteration on the board, Year 7. The author has used it here for a particular purpose. You are going to read the passage carefully, and then do 2 things with your partner. First, find the alliteration – identify it – and then discuss the intended effect on the reader. You have just 110 seconds to do that, then we’ll see how you got on. Go.”
Tip 3 | Repeat the core task, and cue the response
Right before students are prompted to start talking, it’s helpful to repeat the core instruction, and cue the response (this element of the script below is italicised).
Repeating task elements and cuing student responses does a few things: it supports all students to make a secure start; it provides a safety net for students who might have mind-wandered mid-instruction; it allows teachers to model the use of subject-specific vocabulary.
“There is an alliteration on the board, Year 7. The author has used it here for a particular purpose. You are going to read the passage carefully, and then do 2 things with your partner. First, find the alliteration – identify it – and then discuss the intended effect on the reader. So that’s 2 things. Identify the alliteration, then discuss the intended impact on the reader. You’ll say something like, ‘The alliteration is _________ and I think that it impacts the reader by _______________ .’ 110 seconds. Go.”
Wrapping up
Teachers who want to increase the ratio of thinking and participation in classrooms are onto a good thing in paired talk routines, but we should all keep a close eye on the quality of implementation – knowing that this one can easily go wrong.
In the next few Implementation Edits, I will explore a broader range of all-student response techniques for impact in classrooms.
References
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In R. L. Allington & A. Walmsley (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 127–144). International Reading Association.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Talk and learning in the classroom. Routledge.
Ryrie Jones, B. (2025). Laying the Foundations for Cold Call. The Implementation Edit (blog).
Wiliam, D. (2018). Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 682-685.
Staffroom reflections
- How well have we defined our paired discussion routines? Do we know what they look like when they are executed well, and how do we judge this?
- How many video models do we have of high quality talk routines across our school? What can we learn from our colleagues who are implementing this well?
- When do the wheels fall off paired talk routines? What do we look for to know we need to do some improvement work?
- What professional learning inputs might we need to improve the quality of our paired discussion routines?
More articles
Save handout
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
