Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning

Scholarly interest in dialogic pedagogy and classroom dialogue is multi-disciplinary and draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks. On the positive side, this has produced a rich and varied body of research and evidence. However, in spite of a common interest in educational dialogue and learning through dialogue, cross-disciplinary engagement with each other’s work is rare. Scholarly discussions and publications tend to be clustered in separate communities, each characterized by a particular type of research questions, aspects of dialogue they focus on, type of evidence they bring to bear, and ways in which standards for rigor are constructed. In the present contribution, we asked four leading scholars from different research traditions to react to four provocative statements that were deliberately designed to reveal areas of consensus and disagreement[1]. Topic-wise, the provocations related to theoretical foundations, methodological assumptions, the role of teachers, and issues of inclusion and social class, respectively. We hope that these contributions will stimulate cross- and trans-disciplinary discussions about dialogic pedagogy research and theory.[1] The authors of this article are five scholars, the dialogic provocateur and the four respondents. The order of appearance of the authors was determined alphabetically

Contributions and silence in academic talk: exploring learner experiences of dialogic interaction

The benefits of dialogic interaction which engenders academic talk are greater understanding of concepts and ultimately higher educational standards. However, recent research suggests students, both home and international, face certain challenges in contributing to dialogic interaction in a higher education context. This article reports on a study which explored learner experiences of dialogic interaction and reasons for contributing or remaining silent. Data were gathered from a one-semester postgraduate module at a UK university through interviews, audio recordings of sessions, stimulated recall sessions and course assignments. Results suggest that sociocultural factors such as confidence in language, confidence in knowledge, previous educational experiences, and expectations of roles influenced the learners’ willingness to contribute to the academic talk

Developing Pre-Service Teachers’ Evidence-Based Argumentation skills on Socio-Scientific Issues

We report on a study of the effect of meta-level awareness on the use of evidence in discourse. The participants were 66 pre-service teachers who were engaged in a dialogic activity. Meta-level awareness regarding the use of evidence in discourse was heightened by having same-side peers collaborating in arguing on the computer against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue on the topic of Climate Change and by engaging in explicit reflective activities on the use of evidence. Participants showed significant advances both in their skill of producing evidence-based arguments and counterarguments and regarding the accuracy of the evidence used. Advances were also observed at the meta-level, reflecting at least implicit understanding that using evidence is an important goal of argumentation. Another group of pre-service teachers, who studied about the role of evidence in science in the context of regular curriculum and served as a control condition, did not exhibit comparable advances in the use of evidence in argumentation. Educational implications are discussed

Of Research reviews and practice guides: Translating rapidly growing research on adolescent literacy into updated practice recommendations.

The demand for evidence-based instructional practices has driven a large supply of research on adolescent literacy. Documenting this supply, Baye, Inns, Lake, and Slavin’s 2019 article in Reading Research Quarterly synthesized far more studies, with far more rigorous methodology, than had ever been collected before. What does this mean for practice? Inspired by this article, I investigated how this synthesis compared with the 2008 U.S. Institute of Education Sciences practice guide for adolescent literacy. I also include two contemporary documents for context: Herrera, Truckenmiller, and Foorman’s (2016) review and the U.K. Education Endowment Foundation’s 2019 practice guide for secondary schools. I first examine how these documents define adolescent, reading, and evidence, and propose more inclusive definitions. I then compare their respective evidence bases, finding that the quality and quantity of evidence have dramatically changed. Only one of the 34 studies in the 2008 U.S. practice guide met Baye et al.’s inclusion criteria in 2019, and the average sample size in Baye et al.’s studies was 22 times as large as those in the 2008 U.S. practice guide. I also examine the potential implications for a new practice guide’s instructional recommendations and comment on the expansion of research in technology, disciplinary literacy, and writing—topics scarcely covered in the 2008 U.S. practice guide but which have been extensively researched since then. Finally, I call for revision of the U.S. practice guide and the establishment of standing committees on adolescent literacy to help educators translate the latest research findings into updated practices

Engaging Struggling Adolescent Readers to Improve Reading Skills

This study examined the efficacy of a supplemental, multicomponent adolescent reading intervention for middle school students who scored below proficient on a state literacy assessment. Using a within-school experimental design, the authors randomly assigned 483 students in grades 6–8 to a business-as-usual control condition or to the Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention (STARI), a supplemental reading program involving instruction to support word-reading skills, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, and peer talk to promote reading engagement and comprehension. The authors assessed behavioral engagement by measuring how much of the STARI curricular activities students completed during an academic school year, and collected intervention teachers' ratings of their students' reading engagement. STARI students outperformed control students on measures of word recognition (Cohen's d = 0.20), efficiency of basic reading comprehension (Cohen's d = 0.21), and morphological awareness (Cohen's d = 0.18). Reading engagement in its behavioral form, as measured by students' participation and involvement in the STARI curriculum, mediated the treatment effects on each of these three posttest outcomes. Intervention teachers' ratings of their students' emotional and cognitive engagement explained unique variance on reading posttests. Findings from this study support the hypothesis that (a) behavioral engagement fosters struggling adolescents' reading growth, and (b) teachers' perceptions of their students' emotional and cognitive engagement further contribute to reading competence

Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching

Dialogue, as a communication form characterized by its commitment to inclusiveness and rationality, has long been advocated by educators as a mechanism for helping students become better thinkers. Unfortunately, numerous claims about the educational potential of participating in dialogue have not resulted in substantial changes in classroom practices. Studies have consistently shown that in today\u27s schools the dominant discourse remains largely monologic. In this article, we present a testable theory of change that suggests how sociocultural processes in a dialogic classroom influence students\u27 development.We identify and discuss three learning outcomes of dialogic teaching, including epistemological understanding, argument skills, and disciplinary knowledge. We then critically review empirical research related to the proposed theory, highlighting unsolved questions, inconsistencies, and directions for future studies. Finally, we focus on the implications of the proposed integrated theory and reviewed research for teachers and their language use in a classroom

Editorial

.

Analyzing Argumentation In Rich, Natural Contexts

The paper presents the theoretical and methodological aspects of research on the development of argument- ation in elementary school children. It presents a theoretical framework detailing psychological mechanisms responsible for the acquisition and transfer of argumentative discourse and demonstrates several applications of the framework, described in sufficient detail to guide future empirical investigations of oral, written, individual, or group argumentation performance. Software programs capable of facilitating data analysis are identified and their uses illustrated. The analytic schemes can be used to analyze large amounts of verbal data with reasonable precision and efficiency. The conclusion addresses more generally the challenges for and possibilities of empirical study of the development of argumentation

Comparing Student Experiences with Story Discussions in Dialogic Versus Traditional Settings

The authors examined the testimonials of 60 elementary school students about their experience during class discussions of assigned readings. They randomly assigned 12 classrooms to 2 treatments: Philosophy for Children (P4C) and Regular Instruction. P4C is an alternative educational environment that places dialogue at the center of its pedagogy. Ten students from each classroom were interviewed. According to the results, significantly more P4C students stated that they enjoyed expressing disagreement with peers, taking on new responsibilities, and explaining their thinking to others. More P4C students complained about the difficulties with getting the floor to speak, and suggested that changes are needed to better balance group participation. The authors discuss these findings and suggest implications for research and teaching