Moira Henderson – Dialogue Teaching: Desirable but ‘Doable’ into Today’s Classrooms? Nystrand et al 1997, 72 - “What ultimately counts is the extent to which Instruction requires students to think, not just report someone else’s thinking.”
Overview - the big debate During the 21st century, more so than ever before, the quality of classroom discourse has been a hot topic of discussion in school reform. Most would agree with Murname and Long 1996 that the new ‘basic skills’ required for high wage jobs include “the ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing” and “the ability to work in groups with persons of various backgrounds.” This is seen as developing individual capital for a healthy economy and societal capital for healthy communities. Few would disagree with the premise that verbal communication skills are crucial to success in academic life and beyond. However, rather regretfully, oracy in the UK still doesn’t have the status that oracy has in other countries where it is equal to reading and writing. Organisations such as the University of Cambridge, Voice 21 and the APPG are aiming to challenge and remedy this state of affairs. This is another area of inquiry which will not be explored here. According to Lyle 2008, the dominant discourse in today’s schools is monologic which reflects behaviourist/absolutist assumptions - “knowledge is transmitted to learners by authority figures through unambiguous use of language.” Learning involves “passively and unselectively receiving and producing knowledge known by experts in its original, objective form.” This, of course, presupposes a power imbalance between the student and teacher and which sees the teacher as the source of knowledge and authority in which the typical discourse follows the IRF pattern i.e. ‘Initiation - response - feedback.’ Here the teacher asks a question (usually closed) to which the student responds before the teacher corrects any misunderstandings or comments. It does not encourage cognitive thought nor the exploration of ideas in a cumulative and coherent manner, rather the correction and transfer of knowledge. In addition, in many contemporary classrooms, “teachers do most of the talking.” R J Alexander 2005 p.2. Barnes (1969) comments that it is largely through teacher’s talk that “the students’ talk is facilitated, mediated, probed and extended … or too often, inhibited.” Dialogic teaching, on the other hand, is a discourse that uses an inquiry dialogue wherein open questions are discussed through a collaborative effort to reach a sound and rational conclusion. This is more a reflection of sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning and reflects as evaluatist classroom in which students come to see knowledge as “the product of a continuing process of examination, comparison, evaluation and judgement … of different perspectives.” (Anderson 1977, Mead 1962, Piaget and inhelder 1969, Vygotsky 1962, Wertsch and Bivens 1992.) It is representative of the thinking in academic communities which encourages exploration, evaluation and rational argument about proposed theses. R J Alexander who has written much about developing dialogic teaching comments that this approach reflects the “intimate and necessary relationship between language and thought” and the power of spoken language to enable, support and enhance children’s cognitive development.” It is an approach that links back to the desire to educate young students who are articulate, expressive, thoughtful members of society who bring individual and societal ‘capital’ to our world. So what should a dialogic classroom look like? This is a classroom in which: ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢
Power relations are flexible between student and teacher Classrooms are seen as a ‘learning community’ Students are encouraged to ask questions, participate in turn and to evaluate and build on answers Open-ended questions invite disciplinary inquiry Teachers assume a ‘scholarly ignorance’ and don’t supply answers to students Teachers treat students as “potential sources of knowledge and opinion” - Nystrand et al 2003 p.140 239
