Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning

Abstract

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.

Pedagogical Considerations for Designing Automated Grouping Systems: the Case of the Parabola

“…Inspired by certain philosophers (e.g., Bakhtin, 1984;Buber, 1923), dialogic pedagogy research focuses on the relationships between interpersonal interactions and individual learning. Bakhtininspired approaches (henceforth, dialogic pedagogy) often exemplify learning as a sequence of changes in a learner's perspective that emerges in and through interaction with other people and/or cultural agents (e.g., Asterhan et al, 2020;Teo, 2019;Wegerif, 2011).…”

“…Every student can potentially make a singular contribution to the interaction and learn something in return. Dialogic pedagogy often emphasizes the role of difference (or "otherness") as a driver for learning (Asterhan et al, 2020). Accordingly, dialogic gaps can be seen as emergent differences between incommensurable voices.…”

“…Mutuality interpersonal set-ups require a dialogic gap-bi-directional at the onset of the interaction-so they may have the highest chances to yield learning in terms of developing students' thinking. Bakhtin-inspired dialogic pedagogy often focuses on individual differences that bear the potential for individual learning through interaction (e.g., Asterhan et al, 2020).…”

Change in Classroom Dialogicity to Promote Cultural Literacy across Educational Levels

“…Dialogic teaching involves students asking questions, expressing their points of view, and commenting on each other's ideas [13]. Despite differing approaches to dialogic teaching, there is consensus about the set of principles that characterise it [11][12][13]. A first essential condition is the use of a purposeful, planned discursive activity (such as the use of books or short films, each with lesson plans to stimulate debate about them) since dialogic teaching does not occur randomly or spontaneously.…”

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

“…The current research is divided regarding what this 'effective engagement' entails and what it takes for researchers and educators to achieve it (Asterhan et al 2020;Kim and Wilkinson 2019). On one extreme, there is the non-instrumental view, in which dialogue represents a form of social meaning-making, valuable in itself and not defined by external gains or pre-defined goals (Clarà 2021).…”