Dialogic Teaching
Dialogic teaching develops higher-order thinking skills since it is profoundly being developed when it empowers such skills thus, it is considered as the most effective teaching method, or instructional strategy as mentioned in p.42. This is evident in the characteristics of such teaching as presented by Alexander (2008) who generated the term in use. Also, even though dialogic teaching is a form of interactive teaching, interactive teaching itself cannot be considered as dialogic. The quality of interactions is the characteristic that transform interactive teaching to dialogic, as explained right after.
The essential components of the dialogic classroom can be summarised in five principles, so it can be said that dialoging teaching is:
collective: teachers and children address learning tasks together, whether as a group or as a class, rather than in isolation;
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 facilitate dialogic teaching with particular educational goals in view.
60 Regarding the type of talk that supports a dialogic learning environment Alexander argues that there are two types of teaching talk that seem to meet that target; in terms of what has been observed in classrooms in his comparative research in five countries. These are:
discussion (teacher-class, teacher-group or pupil-pupil): the exchange of ideas with a view to sharing information and solving problems;
dialogue (teacher-class, teacher-group, teacher-individual, or pupil-pupil): achieving common understanding through structured, cumulative questioning and discussion which guide and prompt, reduce choices, minimize risk and error, and expedite ‘handover’ of concepts and principles.”
(p.30, italics in the original)
Evidently, his interpretation and categories mirror the suggested dialogical schemes which provoke higher-order thinking, in line with those adopted by the author presented in p.36. Indeed he states that, “discussion and scaffolded dialogue have by far the more cognitive potential”
(p.31). A view which itself justifies the appropriateness of dialogic teaching as the most desirable selected instructional method. Besides, Alexander’s own perspective can be aligned to the theoretical basis of this study; a Vygotskian stance towards learning where the value of talk is considered as pivotal.
Further analysis of the meaning attributed to discussion and dialogue is presented in the next section of this chapter, as being the most effective discourse genres, but also complex and ambiguous in terms of interpreting them. Alexander also identifies three more types of teaching talk, which are presented as well in the following section; rote, recitation, instruction/ exposition. He also stresses that, classroom talk should be characterised by an oral and organisational repertoire where each genre has its merit. Yet, some argue that research has not yet indicated the effectiveness of each genre or correlations to particular types of tasks or classroom organizations; issues discussed in other sections of this chapter.
Whatsoever, Alexander (2008) stresses that dialogic teaching is indicated by many characteristics evident in the talk developed during lessons, as presented below. Even though he
61 refers to the importance of applying diverse classroom organisations, it should be reminded that this study is focused solely on whole-class teaching; as explained in the second chapter, under the title “Organisational strategy” (p.46). He suggests that dialogic teaching is evident by:
Teacher-pupil interaction ... in which:
questions are structured so as to provoke thoughtful answers…
answers provoke further questions and are seen as the building blogs of dialogue rather than its terminal point;
individual teacher-pupils and pupil-pupil exchanges are chained into coherent lines of enquiry…;
[…]
pupils – not just the teachers – ask questions…; […]
children have the confidence to make mistakes… (Alexander, 2008, p.42)
Moreover, dialogic teaching is mirrored in questioning which builds on existing knowledge, elicits pupils’ understanding, includes a repertoire of question types where leading
question are infrequently used, gives pupils time to think, etc. Equally important is that, responses to questioning do not recall information but provoke extended answers in a “thinking aloud” manner. Feedback to such responses is informative, praises responses discriminatingly
and reformulates responses to avoid ambiguity.
These characteristics of dialogic talk are also cited throughout the last section of this chapter, where quality instruction within dialogic teaching is presented from a process perspective. Having in mind that this is a difficult task, dialogic talk as a process is presented spherically rather than comprehensively. Also, the notion of scaffolding and building understanding in a shared community where talk is considered as pivotal, is obviously embedded in the above indicators of dialogic teaching mirroring the theoretical approach of this study.
Interpreting Discussion and Dialogue
The adopted interpretations for dialogue and discussion (in italics for this chapter), are those of Alexander (2008). Comparisons with other categorisations related to classroom talk are
62 made, to present how Alexander’s terms are interpreted and conceptually adopted in this study; see also the table at the end of this section. Certainly this is not done in an exhaustive manner of counter-comparison of all classroom talk typologies, this is done in an indicative way.
The terms discussion and dialogue refer to an exchange of ideas and opinions in a form of conversation between two or more participants. Dialogue often refers to interchange of ideas between one source and another (Mercer and Littleton, 2007; Howe and Abedin, 2013) while discussion is met in literature based on the very same concept as well (Vacc, 1994; Pirie and Schwarzenberger, 1988). Sometimes the two terms when met in literature refer to the same scheme of talk as being synonymous. For example, Mercer and Littleton (2007), while referring to classroom talk they quote:
The dialogues we will consider include teacher-student exchanges and discussions amongst students. Both those types of dialogue have potential value for learning and development, but we will show that each has special functions. (p.2)
By saying “Both those types of dialogue…” is assumed that dialogue and discussion are both a
form of dialogue. It seems that a more general meaning is given to the term dialogue since discussion is a type of it, and not vice versa. Even though they argue that, “each has special functions”, this mirrors differentiation according the participators in the talk; teacher – pupil or
pupil- pupil. Thus, according to Mercer and Littleton dialogue refers to a broader scheme of talk exchange which has more or less positive impact on learning outcomes.
Using Alexander’s interpretation (2004), there is difference between the two terms, at least
in a classroom context. Through dialogue pupils reach common understanding while during
discussion pupils and teacher share information. It seems a rather simplistic argument but
inhibits significant and specific differences that clearly distinguish the two types of talk.
Alexander’s view of dialogue echoes Barnes and Todd’s (1977) interpretation of “collaborative dialogue”.
63 […] the group members ascribe meaningfulness to one another’s attempts to make sense of the world. This helps them to continue…to shape their own understanding by talking, and contrasts sharply with any schooling which reduces the learner to a receiver of authoritative knowledge. (p.36)
According to this view, talking to each other, while trying to understand one another’s thoughts,
shapes and support understanding. In other words, reach common understanding through
dialogue as Alexander phrase it.
On the other hand, Voigt (1995) uses the terms “discussion pattern” and “elicitation pattern” to describe patterns of talking during maths. “Discussion pattern” is the exchange of
ideas and explanations, whereas the starting point of the discussion is a solution. When this pattern is reconstructed, the argumentation profits from pupils’ contributions and pupils learn how to argue mathematically. “Elicitation pattern” is observed when pupils follow teacher’s way
of solving step by step with main target to reach a solution at the end. Pupils participate successfully in the last pattern, by learning how to solve problems as expected by the teacher.
“Discussion pattern” can refer to both discussion and dialogue. Discussion is the exchange
of ideas in order to solve problems, “discussion pattern” suits perfectly Alexander’s explanation. However, the very same pattern could upgrade talk into a higher cognitive level, if teacher structures and guides the discussion by reducing choices aiming common understanding. In this situation, dialogue would suit the pattern. Discussion could also fit into “elicitation pattern”, which does not suit to dialogue. According to this pattern, pupils discuss with explanation being already decided and the design of discussion’s constructions is limited into thoughts and ideas that are coincided with teacher’s thinking. Dialogue is about expressing different opinions and
ideas, whereas pupils might argue whose thinking makes more sense, think of different ways to reach a solution, or disagree with suggested explanations.
Pirie and Schwarzenberger (1988) have distinguished pupils’ talk during mathematical
64 statements”. “Reflective statements” describe concepts and the relationship between them, thus
are linked to relational understanding. It has already been argued in the first chapter, that mathematical understanding is linked to relational understanding. “Reflective statements”, could be observed through a construction of dialogue. “Operational statements”, describe actions regarding instrumental understanding, which might be observed in both, discussion or dialogue. The coexistence of quality “reflective statements” with “operational statements” does not erase
the possibility of discussion to become a dialogue. It is not about the quantity of talk, but about its quality even at some instances during lesson.
Brown (1982), also distinguishes pupils’ talk into “message-oriented” and “listener- oriented”. “Message-oriented” talk is goal directed that expresses certain message aiming at changing listener’s state of knowledge. In order to change listener’s state of knowledge, listener
should be active by listening and comparing arguments with his own views and knowledge. A discussion of higher mental functions should be developed, in other words dialogue, while pupils participate successfully by listening and contributing to the argumentations. “Listener-oriented” talk aims at establishing and maintaining good social relations with the listener, which can be observed while exchanging ideas within a discussion. It might seems that everyone pays attention but in this situation pupils are mainly passive listeners, by accepting others opinions but without relating them with their own.
Mercer (1995), identifies three types of pupils’ talk in the Spoken Language and New Technology (SLANT) project supports that pupils’ talk can be divided into three categories; disputational talk, cumulative talk and exploratory talk. Cumulative and exploratory talk seem to suit into the discussion and dialogue scheme respectively. Cumulative talk is when speakers “build positively but uncritically on what the other has said...construct ‘common knowledge’ by accumulation” (p.37). Mercer’s reference to ‘common knowledge’ is not synonymous to Alexander’s notion of common understanding, since the last inhibits critical construction of
65 understanding by considering others’ points of view. Besides, Mercer uses quotation marks when he refers to ‘common knowledge’ since through cumulative talk, knowledge is only seemingly
common. From that perspective, cumulative talk might be observed within a discussion by sharing ideas cumulatively without developing views on each other’s idea. Exploratory talk is when pupils “engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas” (p.37). It is when
pupils use justified statements to challenge and counter-challenge each other which it certainly fits into the dialogue scheme.
Borich (2007), refers to “teacher-mediated dialogue” and gives to the term the same meaning Alexander offers for the term dialogue. It helps learners reconstruct what is being learned using their own ideas and thought patterns. “Teacher-mediated dialogue”, is not about
the correct answer but asks the learner to internalise the meanings by elaborating, extending, and commenting on it using the learner’s own technique thoughts.
Burbules (1983), uses the term dialogue to refer to all classroom talk generally while among the four two hierarchical categories presented in his study, one is coincided with
discussion while two fit Alexander’s schema of dialogue. “Dialogue as a conversation” inhibits
sharing of information in order to build a community of shared knowledge thus, it fits the
discussion pattern of Alexander. “Dialogue as inquiry” and “dialogue as debate”, could be both
translated into dialogue since the concept of consensus. In other words, common understanding, is embedded in both of them, while “dialogue as a debate” suits much better since it underlines that participants are characterised by critical and combative stance.
Scott et al. (2006), categorise interaction during science classes into four distinct types. Among them, “dialogic interaction” can be aligned to both discussion and dialogue. They define
it as a situation where teacher and pupils consider a range of ideas, pose genuine questions and explore different points of view. However “if the level of interanimation is low, the different ideas are simply made available” (ibid, p.611). Thus, at a low interanimation level the ideas are
66 only shared and not critically developed through talking. This mirrors the concept of discussion, whereas at higher interanimation level it becomes a dialogue since different points of views are taken in mind by the participants through cumulative questioning.
Lastly, “contextual privileging format” and “pastiche format”, suggested by Renshaw and
Brown (2007), seem to be coincided with discussion and dialogue respectively. “Contextual privileging format” requires teacher to support pupils in judging the importance of an idea which
is coincided with discussion’s interpretation of sharing knowledge and solving problems. However, Renshaw and Brown clearly indicate the significance of pupils adopting a certain way of speaking and acting. A notion which remains untouched in Alexander’s dialogic teaching, probably because of its asynchronous connection to the notion of dialogic teaching. Dialogue enables “handover” of concepts in line with “pastiche format”, which offers multiple
representations of the very same concepts in order to be considered by all the participants.
Considering Wegerif’s (2008) argumentation, discussion and dialogue are translated according to Bakhtin’s and Vygotsky’s writings to dialogic and dialectic, respectively. This is
extensively presented in the section “Adopting the Terms Discussion and Dialogue as Dialogical Schemes”, in the first chapter.
Concluding, discussion and dialogue should characterise the daily lessons even at some instances during classes. A simple exchange of opinions is transformed into dialogue when the context of the lesson is designed to enable quality contributions by the pupils. Contributions that could not be made by anyone alone, rather than the pupils built their thinking according the contributions of the classmates; this is how quality is addressed to the contribution. As Alexander (2004) stresses, “the dynamics of talk matter no less than its content, while social and cognitive purposes go hand in hand”. Discussion has its own importance since it is only a “step”
67 that step forward. The question is how a teacher can reach that level in order to become more effective, an issue developed in the following sections.
Table 2: Typologies aligned to Alexander’s discussion and dialogue
Author Discussion Dialogue
[Bakhtin, see p.36-37] Dialogic
[Vygotsky, see p.36-37] Dialectic
Barnes and Todd, 1977 Collaborative dialogue
Voigt, 1995 Discussion pattern/Elicitation
pattern
Discussion pattern
Pirie and Schwarzenberger 1988 (pupils’ talk)
Operational statements Operational statements/ Reflective statements
Brown, 1982 (pupils’ talk) Listener-oriented Message-oriented
Mercer, 1995 (pupils’ talk) Cumulative talk Exploratory talk
Borich, 2007 Teacher-mediated dialogue
Burbules, 1983 Dialogue as a conversation Dialogue as inquiry/ Dialogue as a debate
Scott et al., 2006 Dialogic interaction Dialogic interaction
68
Dialogical Schemes: an everlasting target of education
Raising quality classroom talk, has been a target of education internationally for many decades. Edwards and Westgate (1994) argue that, important studies on classroom dialogue can be found from 1970s. English et al. (2002) indicate that, the need for interactive teaching has risen in USA in late 1920s with a research emphasis on pupils’ freedom of speech after concerns
about the rise of fascism in Europe. In UK government introduced the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in 1998, stressing the importance of “interactive whole-class teaching” where pupils should involve and contribute to high quality discussions (DfEE, 1998, 1999). More recently, England’s primary national curriculum in 2009 underlined, among others, the
importance of acquiring the key skills of communication and working with others, as well as thinking skills of reasoning, enquiry and creative thinking (Alexander et al., 2010). However, it is quite ironical that while research and educational policies have been stressing the importance of quality interactivity, through inspired and creative classroom talk, there is no consistent evidence indicating that teaching instruction follows such scheme; on the contrary.
Alexander (2008) through his cross-cultural study found that dialogical schemes though the most cognitively valued types of classroom talk are those met rarely in classrooms.
However, he found that classroom talk mainly consisted from a basic repertoire of three types of teaching talks, other than dialogical schemes:
rote (teacher-class): the drilling of facts, ideas and routines through constant repetition; recitation (teacher-class or teacher-group): the accumulation of knowledge…through
questions…to…stimulate recall…or to cue pupils work out the answer from clues provided in the question
instruction/ exposition (teacher-class, teacher-group or teacher-individual): telling the pupil what to do, and/or imparting information, and/or explaining facts, principles or procedures.
69 Apart from Alexander’s study, extensive literature points to the pervasiveness of similar patterns of talk within classroom in terms of being poor in cognitive demand by the pupils. Some of the most broadly known are the three moves IRF/IRE structure, recitation script, triadic dialogue and the two-thirds rule; IRF structure is further discussed for its cognitive value in the following section ‘The importance of feedback’, in p.81.
The IRF structure was first indicated by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) as a teacher-led talk consisting of three moves observed dominantly in all classrooms. Those are initiation (I), usually in the form of teacher question, a response (R), in which a student attempts to answer the question, and Follow-up move -also found as Feedback (F), where teacher provides some form of feedback to pupils’ answer. The IRF structure consists of closed questions, brief pupils’
answers, recalling of information and is prevalent in directive forms of teaching (Smith et al.2006). Mehan (1979) named the third move evaluation (E) thus some refer also to the IRE structure. Lemke (1990) gave the name “triadic dialogue” to refer to the three moves of such
structures. Tharp and Gallimore (1988), refer to the “recitation script” to describe the situation within classrooms. It consists mainly of teachers asking questions, in hope of eliciting certain