The effectiveness of classroom instruction considerably depends on the quality of interaction between teachers and students. To foster meaningful classroom interaction in mathematics lessons is essential for enhancing deep learning and critical thinking. Engaging students through collaborative and active learning strategies not only aids in understanding abstract concepts but also promotes higher-order thinking skills ( Dominguez, 2024; Firdaus & Satriawan, 2025). The conventional teaching methods in many Nigerian secondary schools, including those in Lagos State, often rely on teacher-centered approaches that limit student participation and engagement. This raises concerns about students’ conceptual understanding and academic performance in mathematics ( Opesemowo, 2025a), the subject usually regarded as challenging and intimidating. Implementing more interactive teaching methods like group work, discussions, and hands-on activities could help mitigate these concerns and foster a more collaborative learning environment. By encouraging students to engage actively with the material and each other, teachers can promote better retention of concepts and greater problem-solving skills ( Mukhtoralieva, 2025; Xayrullayevna, 2024). This shift towards student-centered learning in mathematics classrooms in Lagos State can improve academic performance and cultivate a deeper appreciation and positive attitudes towards the subject among students.

Flander Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS), a structured framework for observing and analysing verbal communication in classrooms, was developed by Flanders (1970). This system categorises interactions into distinct types, allowing educators to effectively assess the dynamics of teacher-student communication ( Novianti & Anugrawati, 2023). It classifies classroom interactions into teacher talk, student talk, and silence. FIACS has been widely adopted in educational research for assessing instructional practices and promoting more balanced teacher-student interaction ( Ayunda et al., 2021; Nafisah & Setianingsih, 2024). However, the original FIACS was developed within a Western educational context ( Flanders, 1970), and its application in diverse settings such as Nigeria has unveiled certain limitations. This has led to the development and adoption of Modified Flanders Interaction Analysis (MFIA), which adapts the original framework to suit better local classroom realities, including larger class sizes, cultural norms, and varying levels of student preparedness.

The MFIA aims to categorise all the verbal actions that can be found in this study. The aim is to promote implementing the Flanders process in the educational process in schools, as the quantity and consistency of teacher-student interaction is a vital element of effective teaching and improved learning in the classroom. In Nigeria, several studies have shown that classroom interactions are heavily dominated by teacher talk, often exceeding 80% of total communication, leaving minimal space for students’ inquiry, discussion, and exploration ( Agbarakwe & Ona, 2024). This imbalance limits the development of critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and learner autonomy competencies increasingly emphasised in modern educational frameworks as required for 21st-century success. Mathematics, in particular, demands active student engagement, frequent feedback, and dialogue to clarify misconceptions and reinforce learning.

The application of MFIA offers a promising strategy to address these challenges by providing teachers with actionable insights into their communication patterns and enabling instructional adjustments that promote more student-centered practices. When properly implemented, MFIA can be a reflective tool for teachers to evaluate their interaction styles, increase student talk time, and foster a more inclusive and participatory learning environment. In the context of Lagos State, where senior secondary schools face varied educational challenges, including overcrowded classrooms and heterogeneous student backgrounds, applying MFIA during mathematics lessons may help bridge the gap between instructional intent and learning outcomes.

The teachers-students’ interaction was so poor that students could not freely relate with their teachers one-on-one. Another problem is the teacher-to-student ratio because of the large population of students. The higher the population, the more difficult it is for the teacher to have individual rapport with the students. Hence, most students lacked proper monitoring to understand the subject. According to Olayinka and Olayinka (2023), students’ attitudes toward mathematics significantly influence their performance, with negative attitudes often leading to poor outcomes. Mathematics is a fascinating subject, but some teachers know how to teach but do not know what to teach, while others know what to teach but do not know how to teach. These two sets of teachers will make mathematics difficult for students. A good mathematics teacher must know what to teach and how to teach. With this, his students will excel and develop a positive attitude towards the subject. However, some teachers today belong to the formal category and either know how or what to teach.

Basically, teachers play a pivotal role in shaping the students’ knowledge by understanding and managing the dynamic processes that influence student outcomes. Multiple factors determine these outcomes, including subject knowledge, instructional strategies, teaching experience, attitudes toward mathematics, professional development, and classroom climate. Recent studies highlight that effective teaching practices significantly impact students’ interest, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics ( Iwintolu et al., 2024; Zhu & Kaiser, 2022). Aligning instruction with students’ cognitive processes fosters a more profound understanding and promotes meaningful learning ( Kelly et al., 2023; Opesemowo, 2025a). Moreover, student-centered pedagogical approaches that encourage active engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving have also been shown to enhance academic performance. The successful implementation of such strategies depends on continuous professional development and institutional support ( Kong & Wang, 2024). Rather than simply transmitting knowledge, teachers act as facilitators of learning, guiding students through structured and interactive lessons. Tools like the MFIA help mathematics teachers reflect on classroom communication patterns and improve instructional practices, ultimately supporting better learning outcomes in mathematics.

Despite its potential, limited empirical studies have examined the use of MFIA in Nigerian secondary schools, especially within the subject area of mathematics. This study, therefore, seeks to explore the application of MFIA during mathematics lessons in senior secondary schools in Lagos State. Thus, an analysis of classroom interaction could provide a sensitive means of exposing how specific patterns in classroom verbal interaction reveal ways the teacher simulates and guides student learning. Hence, this study examines classroom interaction between teachers and students during mathematics lessons in senior secondary schools.

This study adopted a descriptive survey research design, which is appropriate for systematically observing and describing the interaction patterns between teachers and students during classroom instruction ( Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This approach allows researchers to capture the nuances of verbal exchanges and the dynamics of classroom interactions, providing insight into how this pattern influences learning outcomes.

Question 1: What percentage of the time is spent on each classroom activity?

The results for the analysis of the percentage of the time spent are given in Table 1.

Table 1 analyses the distribution of instructional time across various classroom activities during mathematics lessons. The highest proportion of time (14.50), 30.50%, was devoted to direct teaching, indicating a teacher-centered approach dominated the classroom interaction, which aligns with conventional instructional practices in mathematics lessons. This was followed by teacher non-verbal behaviour, such as writing and drawing on the board, which accounted for 16.5% of classroom time, and student non-verbal behaviour, which constituted 15.25%. These findings suggest that a significant portion of the lesson was devoted to individual cognitive engagement, albeit largely passive.

The student responses to teacher questions represented 11.0% of the observed time, indicating moderate verbal student participation. Conversely, teacher responses to students and giving directions were relatively low, each accounting for only 2.0%, implying limited dialogic interaction or feedback within the lesson. Other forms of teacher talk, such as praise and encouragement (2.5%) and content-related questioning (3.75%), were used sparingly, potentially reducing opportunities for formative assessment and student motivation. The classroom also experienced 3.6 minutes of confusion or noise and 0.6 minutes of silence, suggesting occasional disruptions that may affect instructional efficiency. Finally, the time allocation reflects a predominantly teacher-based classroom with limited interactive and feedback-driven engagement, highlighting the need for more student-centered approaches that could promote active student engagement, increased dialogue and diversified instructional strategies to support meaningful learning.

Question 2: What percentage of the time is spent on each classroom behaviour?

Data was analysed using the classroom activities tables, which were regrouped into four: teacher verbal behaviour, teachers’ non-verbal behaviour, students’ verbal behaviour and students’ non-verbal behaviour. The time slice allotted to each classroom is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 shows time spent on classroom behaviour during mathematics lessons. The data indicates that teachers’ verbal behaviour dominates, occupying 44.75% of classroom time, reflecting a teacher-centered instructional style. Students’ verbal behaviour accounts for 22%, suggesting moderate student participation but limited dialogic interaction. Non-verbal behaviours are almost equally distributed, with teachers’ non-verbal behaviour at 16.5% and students’ non-verbal behaviour at 16.75%, indicating shared time spent on tasks such as writing or working independently. Hypothesis 1:

There is no significant difference between the verbal behaviour of teachers and students.

Table 3 presents a t-test comparison of the verbal behaviour of teachers and students during mathematics lessons. The result shows that teachers had a higher mean verbal behaviour score (M = 17.90, SD = 3.03) than students (M = 5.20, SD = 1.62). The calculated t-value (t = 11.087) exceeds the critical t-value (t = 2.262) at df = 9 and p < 0.05, indicating a statistically significant difference. Therefore, we rejected the null hypothesis. This suggests that teachers dominate classroom verbal interactions significantly more than students, reinforcing a teacher-centered communication pattern. Hypothesis 2:

There is no significant difference between the non-verbal behaviour of teachers and students.

Table 4 shows the independent t-test of the non-verbal behaviour of teachers and students during classroom instruction. The mean score (M = 6.60, SD = 1.647) for teachers’ non-verbal behaviour is higher than the student’s (M = 6.10, SD = 2.283). The calculated t-value (t = 0.745) is less than the critical t-value (t = 2.262) at df = 9 and 0.05 significant level, indicating that the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, suggesting that teachers and students engage in non-verbal classroom behaviours at comparable levels.

Table 5 presents a t-test comparison of the interaction time between teachers and students during classroom instruction. The mean interaction time for teachers is 24.50 minutes, while that of students is 11.30 minutes. The calculated t-value (t = 8.337) exceeds the critical value (t = 2.262) at df = 9 and p < 0.05 significant level, indicating a statistically significant difference. Hence, we rejected the null hypothesis. This result suggests that teachers dominate classroom interaction time, highlighting a teacher-centered instructional pattern with limited student participation.

This study is based on the application of MFIA, offering valuable insights into classroom interaction patterns during mathematics instruction in Lagos State senior secondary schools. The results collectively point to a predominantly teacher-centered approach, with limited student verbal engagement and interaction.

This study observed that teachers spend much of class time engaging in verbal instruction. This aligns with the findings of Burgess et al. (2020), who emphasised that heavy reliance on teacher talk can diminish opportunities for student engagement, critical thinking, and mathematical discourse. While helpful in delivering content, such dominance may hinder deeper understanding, especially if not complemented by student-centered learning activities. Similarly, Blatchford et al. (2011) noted that when teachers dominate classroom talk, students are often relegated to passive roles, limiting their active capacity, participation and intellectual autonomy. Subsequently, students’ verbal contributions were relatively minimal compared to their teachers. This finding is consistent with Chen et al. (2020), who argued that restricted student talk time can result in lower cognitive engagement and hinder the development of mathematical reasoning. Moreover, low verbal participation may reflect classroom culture where students are not encouraged or supported to voice their ideas, a concern also highlighted by Ho et al. (2023) in their study on silence over the wire: student verbal participation and the virtual classroom in the digital era. While some cultural norms may discourage verbal participation, Karjanto (2019) stresses the importance of gradually scaffolding students toward more active classroom involvement, even in traditionally teacher-centered contexts.

Teachers and students exhibited relatively balanced non-verbal behaviour, including writing, drawing, and not-taking. This parity reflects mutual involvement in academic tasks, suggesting that non-verbal engagement is more equitably distributed while verbal interaction may be one-sided. Ijaz et al. (2023) have argued that teachers’ effective use of non-verbal cues like gestures and visual aids can significantly enhance student comprehension. However, Valenzeno et al. (2003) caution that ambiguous or mismatched non-verbal gestures can confuse students, stressing the need for purposeful use of such cues. Therefore, teachers must be mindful of their non-verbal communication in the classroom, as it plays a key role in facilitating student learning and understanding. By being intentional and transparent with their gestures and visual aids, teachers can create a more engaging and effective learning environment for their students. Ultimately, the combination of verbal and non-verbal communication in the classroom can lead to improved academic performance and student success.

The disparity in the overall interaction time between teachers and students further confirms the teacher-dominated nature of classroom discussions. Research by Lo and Chen (2021) suggests that students benefit more from learning environments where their voices are integral to the instructional process. When the teacher-centered approach monopolises classroom time, opportunities for students to develop problem-solving skills, articulate reasoning, and collaborate with peers are constrained. To create a more student-centered learning environment, teachers should actively seek input from their students and provide opportunities for them to engage in discussions and activities that promote critical thinking and collaboration. By allowing students to take more ownership of their learning experiences, teachers can help facilitate the development of essential skills that are crucial for success in both academic and real-world settings. Encouraging active participation and valuing the perspectives of each student can lead to a more inclusive and dynamic educational experience for everyone involved.

The result of the study showed that teaching mathematics in senior secondary school has not completely weaned itself from the historical antecedent in which teachers dominated classroom activities. Again, the study highlights a significant imbalance in teacher-student interactions during mathematics lessons, with teachers occupying the dominant communicative role. While non-verbal communication engagement is more balanced, the lack of substantial student verbal participation raises concerns about the effectiveness of current teaching practices in fostering deep understanding and critical thinking. To address these issues, teachers should adopt dialogic teaching strategies, leverage technological tools to promote participation and engage in professional development focused on enhancing classroom discourse. Such measures are essential for creating learning environments that support active student engagement and improved learning outcomes in mathematics lessons.