Dialogic Teaching

Dialogic teaching is an educational approach that emphasizes learning through dialogue rather than traditional lecture-based instruction. At its core, this method encourages students to actively engage in conversations, fostering a deeper understanding of the material by exchanging ideas with teachers and peers. Drawing on historical practices like the Socratic method, dialogic teaching has roots in constructivism, where learners construct their own understanding through interaction with their environment.

The approach is characterized by five key qualities: it is cumulative, collective, purposeful, supportive, and reciprocal. By prioritizing these elements, dialogic teaching aims to create an inclusive learning environment where multiple perspectives are explored and valued. This method not only promotes critical thinking but also helps students articulate their views and challenge assumptions in a constructive manner.

Moreover, dialogic teaching highlights the subjectivity of knowledge, allowing for diverse interpretations while ensuring that learning remains grounded in factual understanding. It invites unpredictability and spontaneity into the classroom, creating opportunities for genuine discovery and engagement among students. As such, dialogic teaching is a powerful tool for educators seeking to inspire curiosity and a love of learning in their students.

Published in: 2021

By:

Subject Terms

Dialogic Teaching

Abstract

Broadly speaking, the concept of dialogic teaching is essentially that not all instruction should follow the pattern of a lecture, in which the teacher broadcasts knowledge at the students, who passively receive it. The central idea of dialogic teaching is teaching through dialogue, which can take a number of different forms, but requires the student to become more engaged in his or her learning process by entering into an exchange of ideas with the instructor, with others in the class, or both.

Overview

Dialogic teaching is not a new discovery. The Socratic method, a form of teaching in which the teacher asks students a series of questions in order to probe their understanding and help them to think about ideas more carefully, takes its name from the philosopher of ancient Greece who practiced it more than two thousand years ago, Socrates. Since that time, educators have periodically rediscovered the value of dialogue in helping students to construct their own understanding of the world around them. Indeed, there is a school of thought within the fields of human development and education that is called "constructivism" because it explores ways of encouraging learners to enter into a conversation with their environment, whether that conversation is spoken or implied in the manipulation of objects, as occurs when a child builds a sand castle (Sedova, 2017).

In practice, dialogic teaching has a very different feel than traditional instruction. During traditional instruction, much of the lesson is delivered through lectures by the instructor, with students listening and taking notes for them to refer to later. The use of this type of instruction dates back at least to the Middle Ages, and much further in certain regions. It was long praised for its efficiency—one teacher can instruct many pupils at the same time—and for its accordance of the proper deference to the instructor, who functioned as the source of knowledge for the students.

At the same time, there are certain problems with the lecture format that the passage of time has proven unable to eradicate. The foremost of these is that it encourages passivity on the part of students, because they are encouraged not to come up with their own questions, but to sit and wait for the instructor to tell them what they should be interested in. This type of passivity not only is extremely tedious, causing many students to have difficulty remaining attentive, but also discourages creativity by rewarding only those who follow along with what they are told. Students whose primary instruction occurs through lectures tend to become very adept at memorizing facts, but much less comfortable asking questions and creating experiments that will answer those questions. It is not so much that one kind of thinking is bad and the other is good; rather, the world needs both types of thinking—rote memorization as well as creative experimentation (Simpson, 2016).

A related concern regarding traditional instruction is that it tends to perpetuate only one perspective on the world, namely that of the instructor and the experts whose work he or she is explaining. This issue tends to be more problematic in some subject areas than in others; if an instructor insists on only teaching trigonometry one way for thirty years, it is unlikely to cause a problem because there are only so many ways of learning the topic to begin with (Muhonen et al., 2016). If the topic is literature, on the other hand, then an instructor that insists on only teaching eighteenth century Hungarian poetry will be doing a disservice to students by excluding literature from other eras, regions, and formats. Part of the appeal of dialogic teaching is that in the course of a dialogue, both participants undergo a transformation. Dialogic teaching may begin as a dialogue between a teacher and a student, but if it continues long enough and with sufficient openness from both parties, the roles of student and teacher gradually begin to alternate.

Further Insights

Dialogic teaching opens up new possibilities for learning, and some of these can be unsettling to those more accustomed to traditional methods of instruction. One idea that often takes some time to get used to is the notion that not all knowledge is fixed and unchangeable, and that in fact, knowledge can be subjective, altering its form and content depending upon the context and the observer. The first reaction to hearing such a suggestion is usually either outrage or ridicule.

People reject the idea that two plus two might not equal four under all circumstances, and insist that Richard Nixon was the thirty-seventh President of the United States regardless of what critical lens one looks through. These concerns are misplaced, however, because dialogic teaching does not suggest that facts are open to interpretation, but that knowledge—the product of discovering and analyzing facts—is a matter of perspective (English, 2016).

When knowledge is seen as something that emerges from the combination of two or more perspectives, as is the case in dialogic teaching, then it also follows that some types of knowledge are inextricably linked to those who create and perceive that knowledge. An example of this type of knowledge is seen in an assignment that asks students to attempt to determine what the correct attitude toward death should be. From the outset, it is clear that there cannot be a single, correct answer to such a question. Different cultures all over the world have had widely varying views on death throughout the course of history, and each one has been valid within its own time and place.

Individuals from similar backgrounds can likewise have answers to this question that are wildly different. One of the strengths of dialogic teaching is that it provides an excellent way of highlighting the differences in people's views, as well as understanding the similarities and common assumptions they share (Hammond, 2016).

Dialogic teaching has been praised for its ability to encourage critical thinking. This occurs because part of a dialogue means having someone ask questions about one's beliefs, and answering these questions requires a level of internal reflection that usually does not occur when one learns in isolation or through lecture.

For example, in a lecture one might learn that even though recycling may be inconvenient, it is an important thing to do. The typical student would write this information down in their notes, accept it as a fact to be memorized, and move on to the next task. In dialogic teaching, on the other hand, the teacher might discuss the same topic by asking students to describe why they feel recycling is worth the investment of time and energy that it requires. Some students might say that they recycle so they can leave a better world for their descendants, others might do so out of a concern for animals that are harmed by pollution, and still others might be motivated by their desire to enjoy outdoor activities without being confronted by trash and other waste products.

It is immediately evident that, through dialogic teaching, a completely different type of knowledge emerges: Students are able to learn about many different perspectives on the subject, going into much more detail than a lecture could deliver. At the same time, students are more engaged by the dialogic approach, because they have to think about their own views and then articulate them. Often, students will expand the dialogue still further by asking one another questions or challenging one another's statements. The end result is a rich analysis of a multiplicity of issues, made possible by the combination of several perspectives (Engin & Donanci, 2015).

Issues

Some confusion exists over what differentiates dialogic teaching from other teaching methods that involve discussion. Researchers describe dialogic teaching as having five qualities: cumulative, collective, purposeful, supportive, and reciprocal. The interaction should be cumulative in the sense that the information contributed by various speakers pertains to the same topic and provides additional detail, building upon what others have said rather than shifting to an entirely separate discussion. The interaction should be collective in the way that it involves the class as a whole, with each individual working alongside the others to develop greater understanding. The interaction should be purposeful inasmuch as it is planned or guided by the instructor to accomplish some educational goal; it should not simply be an open-ended discussion of whatever crosses the minds of the participants. The interaction should be supportive rather than argumentative, with participants seeking to help one another increase the overall understanding of the topic (Segal, Snell & Lefstein, 2017); the goal is not to show that one person is right and another is wrong, but to help everyone present increase their knowledge. Finally, the interaction should be reciprocal, with participants taking turns between speaking and listening, using active listening techniques whenever possible. While not all of these elements may be present at every point during an interaction, the more that are achieved, the greater the chance of the interaction producing beneficial results (Sedlacek & Sedova, 2017).

Those new to dialogic teaching often express a lack of clarity about how to begin using dialogic techniques in their teaching. It is difficult to argue with the assertion that not all dialogues are created equal; in many cases a dialogue may occur technically, without being a meaningful exchange of ideas. An example of this would be a teacher asking a student if she enjoyed the short story that had been assigned for class that day, and the student responding with "Yes."

While a question/response exchange is no doubt a dialogue, it is not the type of dialogue that is the goal of dialogic teaching. Rather, it is an example of a type of exchange known as initiation—response—feedback (IRF). The teacher initiated an interaction with the question, and this in turn elicited a response from the student. The good news for those wishing to learn dialogic teaching is that even a basic IRF exchange can be the beginning of a dialogue, if the teacher is adept at an instructional strategy known as scaffolding.

A scaffold is a type of framework that is used to support work taking place on another structure. In education, the concept of scaffolding is used to describe the ability of the instructor to give students a conceptual framework upon which they can build or extend their understanding of the curriculum. In practical terms, it tends to involve a teacher giving students some guidance to get them started toward understanding how to approach a lesson (Kumpulainen & Rajala, 2017). This might take the form of explicit instructions, or it could appear more subtly in the way an activity is designed to elicit certain responses and interactions.

In the example above, the teacher could use scaffolding to elicit more detailed responses to the question about the short story by asking each student to, without providing the character's name, describe their favorite character in the story with enough detail so that the class can guess who it is, and then be prepared to explain why that character was selected as the favorite. Structuring the task this way provides scaffolding for the students because instead of just asking their opinion about a work, it, first, requires them to reflect on what makes their favorite character memorable and, second, establishes an activity that will require communication between the student and the rest of the class. The goal is for the activity to spark discussions that take on a life of their own and that open up new forms of understanding, instead of merely producing a monosyllabic response (Jones & Chen, 2016).

Finally, dialogic teaching is a worthwhile tool for an instructor to have ready to deploy because it brings to the classroom a type of open spontaneity that is too often lacking, particularly with teachers who are new to the profession or unsure of themselves. A novice teacher's natural inclination is to try to plan every part of the lesson, to anticipate all the potential pitfalls and find a way to prevent them from causing harm. Preparation is always advisable, but in the field of teaching, overpreparation can easily become stifling, as students feel that they are being driven along a narrow path from which they must not deviate. Dialogic teaching, when done properly, is an antidote to this, because its reliance on cooperation between students and teacher to construct understanding means that much of what unfolds in class cannot be foreseen in any great detail; the teacher may know what questions will be asked, but there is no way to predict which of the many possible answers a student may give, any one of which could lead the discussion off in a new direction. This type of uncertainty can certainly be terrifying—for teachers as well as students—but it can also be exhilarating, precisely because it allows the unexpected to unfold. Indeed, it could fairly be said that the only way to permanently foster a love of learning in students of any age is to permit them this thrill of uncertainty, because this is what discovery is all about.

Terms & Concepts

Active Listening: A behavior that involves paying attention to what a speaker says and how it is being said, as well as reflecting back to the speaker what has been heard. Active listening provides validation and encouragement, increasing the depth of communication.

Constructivism: A theory of learning based on the idea that a person actively interacts with the world to construct his or her own understanding of it.

Initiation—Response—Feedback (IRF) Exchange: The typical classroom exchange is known as an IRF exchange. The teacher initiates by asking a question, the student provides a response, and the teacher may give feedback on that response, such as an indication that it is correct or incorrect.

Scaffolded Dialogue: Scaffolded dialogue occurs when one party expends extra effort to maintain the conversation, rather than allowing it to end, or provides a foundation for discussion by positing a topic for others to talk about.

Virtual Classroom: An online learning platform in which participants meet for their class interactions, rather than attending a physical location.

Whole Class Dialogue: A form of dialogic teaching in which the entire class is engaged in the discussion, as opposed to a discussion between one student and the teacher, with the rest of the class as observers.

Bibliography

Engin, M., & Donanci, S. (2015). Dialogic teaching and iPads in the EAP classroom. Computers & Education, 88, 268–279. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=110253911&site=ehost-live

English, A. R. (2016). Dialogic teaching and moral learning: Self-critique, narrativity, community and 'blind spots'. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(2), 160–176. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116192354&site=ehost-live

Hammond, J. (2016). Dialogic space: Intersections between dialogic teaching and systemic functional linguistics. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 5–22. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=112191503&site=ehost-live

Jones, P., & Chen, H. (2016). The role of dialogic pedagogy in teaching grammar. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 45–69. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=112191505&site=ehost-live

Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students' discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning & Instruction, 48, 23–-31. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=123133449&site=ehost-live

Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A., & Lerkkanen, M. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching & Teacher Education, 55, 143–154. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113792852&site=ehost-live

Sedlacek, M., & Sedova, K. (2017). How many are talking? The role of collectivity in dialogic teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 99–108. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=125023190&site=ehost-live

Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 67, 278–290. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124755903&site=ehost-live

Segal, A., Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching to the high-stakes standardised test? Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 596–610. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=125099787&site=ehost-live

Simpson, A. (2016). Dialogic teaching in the initial teacher education classroom: "Everyone's voice will be heard." Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 89–106. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=112191506&site=ehost-live

Dialogic Teaching

On this Page

Subject Terms

Dialogic Teaching

Abstract

Overview

Further Insights

Issues

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading