Third Principle: A Dialogue for Learning

With a consistent approach of double loop thinking in the dialogue, a process is followed to find meaning in existing practice through dialogue as it is and as it might be. This dialogue is positively focused on the moral purpose of schools and is all embracing: leadership, social capital and human agency. It helps to synthesize and join broadly and deeply the distributed leadership at school into action involving people from all levels of the LfL model. Dawes et al. (2000) also present similar findings and claims that dialogic pedagogies are beginning to make inroads into traditional patterns of classroom communication. To be useful in terms of outcomes and understanding, it is important that all the actors involved in a dialogue should have a say and their voice is heard and acknowledged (Farooqi, 2011). It is contrary to the traditional teacher led classroom practices in which learners are positioned as compliant

60

supporters of the teacher‟s purpose, their voices barely acknowledged (Nazir, 2010). The importance of this socially co-constructivist learning approach (as described in Chapter One under „Co-constructivism‟) is highlighted by many researchers. It shapes the form and extent of dialogue. It is interlinked with the learning and development of knowledge within school and in the community around school (Watkins, 2003; Farooqi, 2011).

In the majority of the schools, as mentioned by Tharp and Gallimore (1988), only one kind of talk predominates being the „recitation script‟ of teacher‟s structured questions, brief recall answers with minimal feedback compelling children to report the point of view that may not be theirs hence limiting the possibility for them to be independent thinkers. Students are judged on their accuracy or compliance in following that command (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988). This type of pedagogical framework badly effects learners‟ capacity and potential. “When recitation starts, remembering and guessing supplant thinking” (Nystrand et al., 1997: p.6). Biggs and Moore (1993) present a model, commonly referred to as the 3P model (presage, process, and product factors) for understanding student learning through consideration of the relations between what teachers and students say, do and think and the learning outcomes. The model explains the entire process as a linear movement from presage to process to product, for interactions between the components and among different actors in equilibrium. A change to any part of the system affects other parts of the system. The three steps of his model include students‟ as well as teachers‟ contexts and potential. Process factors refer to the direct interaction between student and teaching presage and its impact on the way students learn. If the process is full of interactive discussion, the learning is deep where

61

learners actively construct knowledge for themselves. It makes the learning a highly interactive, shared activity which disapproves the traditional transmission model of teaching where teachers are the source of „ultimate information‟ and learners assume passive roles. Similarly, Carnell and Lodge (2002) argue that traditional teaching methods influence the dynamics and communicative relationships of classroom talk whereas an interactive dialogue takes learning forward to reach understandings that would not be possible otherwise as dialogue enhances reflection and professional learning. This dialogue for learning should not be confined to classroom talk:

“… if it [the dialogic principle] is valid for children‟s learning, it is no less valid for the learning of adults, including teachers themselves” (Alexander, 2004: p.39).

Alexander (2004) who brought forward the concept of dialogic teaching asserts that certain patterns of interaction among teacher and learners at different levels of exploratory talk (which he calls a dialogue) promote intellectual development among learners. Alexander (2004) categorises classroom talk into five levels. „Rote‟ is the first level where the drilling of facts and routines takes place through constant repetition. „Recitation‟, as he calls it, is the second level that focuses on the accumulation of knowledge through recall of what has been previously encountered. He calls the third level „instruction/exposition‟. At this level, teachers tell the pupil what to do imparting information procedures. In the „discussion‟ level, the exchange of ideas takes place with a view to sharing information and solving problems. He considers dialogue as the highest level as it results in common understanding and creation of knowledge. He assesses the impact of a dialogic activity on the learning of teachers within the

62

context of individualism, community and collectivism, or in other words, child, group and class through exploring a range of questions. Dialogue is the means through which LfL is enacted at different levels. It is not simply a requirement for learning and vital for co- constructivism of knowledge but an essential for human development also. In the five factors of dialogic teaching, Alexander (2005) highlights the following characteristics:

 “collective: teachers and children address learning tasks together, whether as a group or as a class;

 reciprocal: teachers and children listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative viewpoints;

 supportive: children articulate their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over „wrong‟ answers; and they help each other to reach common understandings;

 cumulative: teachers and children build on their own and each other‟s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and enquiry;

 purposeful: teachers plan and steer classroom talk with specific educational goals in view” (Alexander, 2005: p.14).

The concept of dialogue in LfL is similar to these studies (MacBeath et al., 2009) which starts from the classroom and is interconnected with all four levels of the LfL model. It takes place in an organized way and is positively focused on the moral purpose of school. According to MacBeath et al. (2009), it would be erroneous to confine this activity only to the classroom between student to student or teacher to student since the term dialogue is used in ways that reflect the interests of research communities as well. They introduce the concept of a critical

63

friend who is a detached outsider who helps through questioning, evaluating, appraising and seeing anew challenging. The dialogue at this level of LfL model is concerned with both the process (which is learning) and the product (outcome of any process), as it happens in the double loop thinking. Trust and provocative questioning are key elements of critical friendship. Descriptions of a critical friend by Stoll and Thomson (1996), emphasise the role of the critical friend in helping schools play a role that is interpretive and catalytic about learning and leadership. At the school to school level or between different organizational levels, the comparison takes place as the first step in the dialogue. The development and prevalence of dialogue depends on honesty, trust and willingness to engage and reframe, in the quest for understanding. Are teachers and leaders in schools in Pakistan involved in the dialogue for learning with a social capital view in their approaches? At what level is this dialogue prevalent in these schools? Is it really important to have this kind of dialogue in schools in Pakistan? The literature does not provide answers to these questions. However, importance of shared responsibility looks inevitable to make this kind of dialogue effective. The next part of the chapter explores how a shared leadership is created and appreciated in this regard.