Learning Lessons

Volume 2 issue 3 June 2009

Author: E.Barton

Editor: T Carter

“Developing the capacity to pursue new and interesting ideas with fellow educational practitioners

to have a real impact on the lives and life chances of young people”

Dialogic Teaching Extended teacher-student dialogues

in the Secondary English classroom

An English Department research project By Emma Barton and David Greenwood, KEGS.

‘Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside

the head of an individual person, it is born be-

tween people collectively searching for truth, in

the process of their dialogic interac-

tion.’ (Bakhtin, 1981)

Background Since the 1980s when a critical change occurred through the recognition of the importance of talk in the classroom, the activity of speaking has taken on an educational value that can be both measured and assessed. Rather than class-rooms resounding with the powerful voice of the teacher, the education system gradually began to recognise the signifi-cance of the voice of the student. However, even with im-portant advances previously being made within the field of child development research by Piaget (1953), Vygotsky (1986) and Barnes (1992), it was only with the introduction of the Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9 (DFEE) in September 2001 that detailed pedagogical objectives for the monitoring and as-sessment of speaking and listening in secondary schools were outlined. Since this time, speaking and listening has taken on new meaning, within both educational theory and practice, as opportunities for freedom of expression, involve-ment, ownership, flexibility and collaboration within the class-room have been revealed.

The danger within classroom practice is that instruction is dominated by monologism, ‘authoritative discourse’ (Bakhtin, 1984) that essentially restricts open dialogue in its striving for

‘Simply by making noises with our mouths,

we can reliably cause precise new combina-

tions of ideas to arise in each other’s

minds.’ (Pinker)

1. English Department

• Initial pilot

• Cross year extension

2. MEd Research

3. Whole School Teaching and

Learning Project

control. Alexander (2006) identifies the three types of direct instruction within a classroom as rote, recitation and expository, all of which serve to place the teacher firmly in control as it relies on the idea of teacher as ‘owner’ of knowledge. These monologic forms of teach-ing reduce risk in the classroom by potentially closing down discussion that may challenge teachers beyond their comfort zones and prevent questions that may in-terrupt the imparting of knowledge from teacher to stu-dent. Whilst it is recognised that these types of instruc-tion are, on occasion, absolutely necessary within the classroom, consistent monologism restricts cognitive challenge and freedom for both student and teacher. The English Department at KEGS has always encour-aged many different forms of dialogue in the classroom but, over the past year, an innovative and challenging form of dialogue has been explored, following an initial ‘spark’ of excitement when introduced to the work of Robin Alexander.

Emma Barton and David Greenwood engage in dia-logue with three Year 8 students at KEGS.

The Research Publication of King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford

Focus has to be given not just to

the content, but to the quality of

talk.

Inspiration and Action Reading Alexander’s Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethink-

ing Classroom talk (4th edition, 2008) and watching a video

recording used by Alexander himself, during a conference

attended by the Head of English, Dr. David Greenwood, for

teachers from different disciplines (run by the Cambridge

Faculty of Education) was inspiring. It led to focussed re-

flection upon the way in which dialogue is used to enhance

teaching and learning within English lessons, with specific

consideration of Alexander’s ideas of the importance of

questioning as well as engaging with student response to

extend learning.

It was acknowledged that many forms of effective ‘dialogue’

take place during English lessons including:

• pupil paired discussions

• group work

• individual, paired and group presentations

• teacher-led whole-class discussion

• active performance work

• debating

All of which are underpinned with various Assessment for

Learning procedures. Many of these existing forms of dia-

logue are orientated toward appropriate assessment objec-

tives, at all ability levels and in all year groups. Students

understand that during English lessons there is an expecta-

tion of engagement through dialogue of some form, and

they respond very well to this ‘learning through interaction’.

But identifying the different types of dialogue used in Eng-

lish lessons was simply not enough; focus had to be given

not just to the content, but to the quality of talk. As a conse-

quence of this focus upon quality, it was questioned

whether the more recent emphasis upon ‘pace’ in the class-

room had led to a restriction of genuinely open dialogue.

The term pace, found frequently within Ofsted inspection

reports but not explicitly defined, is an important factor

within any discussion of dialogue as the need for teachers

to ensure its presence within lessons, coupled with the de-

sire to engage students in different learning-style activities,

can lead to an understanding of ‘pace’ as ‘speed’ (Eke and

Lee, 2004). It is argued that the encouragement of pace

can lead to rapidity of interaction, leading to a loss of quality

of interaction, potentially even restricting open and collabo-

rative dialogue.

Therefore, despite the existing level of a range of dialogic

methods in the classroom, hard questions were asked: had

too much of an emphasis been put on pace with the encour-

agement of multi-strategy lessons? Had there been a dan-

ger of a shift towards the monologic approach because of

these multi-strategies? Had dialogue lost its meaning with

an increase of IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback), when

rapid student answering and minimal teacher feedback be-

comes too much of the norm? Were student voices really

being heard?

All of these questions led to a consideration of a change in

the way dialogue was used in order to create more mean-

ingful critical interaction within the classroom. The decision

was made that extended teacher-students dialogues were

to be added to the department’s teaching and learning rep-

ertoire which, as a consequence, would potentially reduce

the number of strategies used during certain lessons, and

possibly lead to less pace in general. It was important to

concentrate upon the quality and the content of classroom

talk, and to give space for increased opportunities for more

dialogue to become ‘cumulative’ – the notion of teachers

and students working together to build upon their own and

each other’s ideas – arguably the most important, and the

most challenging, of Alexander’s 5 ‘principles’ of Dialogic

Teaching:

• Collective

• Reciprocal

• Supportive

• Cumulative

• Purposeful

Cumulation is the most difficult principle as it relies upon a

variety of skills: to receive and review what has been said;

to think laterally; to judge what to offer by way of individu-

ally-tailored responses to students; to progress students

learning with appropriately challenging questions. It offers

opportunities for different levels of learning, particularly

those at the top, synthesis and evaluation according to

Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), to be successfully blended

through dialogue. This combination of skills is challenging

even for the most experienced of teachers, but when

achieved, it is potentially a very powerful teaching and

learning tool.

It was strongly felt that cumulation would be most success-

fully achieved through the use of extended teacher-student

dialogue as it offers a variety of positive outcomes through

which student ideas can be developed. This extended dia-

logue, of course, reaches far beyond a simple yes/no dia-

logue (although it is recognised that this type of ‘closed’ ex-

change does have its place in the classroom). It allows for

more in-depth responses that build upon student ideas; it

involves reasoning, hypothesizing and ‘thinking aloud’; it

results in lengthier exchanges during which challenging

questions are posed and considered; and it encourages

‘wait time’ in which the student feels comfortable enough

not to feel hurried to give a superficial response.

‘...a form of talk in which both

student and teacher are mutually

engaged and challenged through

open, purposeful and cumulative

discussion.’

‘A long answer is not enough: it’s

what happens to the answer that

makes it worth uttering.’

Putting Extended Dialogue into Practice The pilot of this new method of dialogue took place with a

shared AS/A2 class of 14 students with 6 boys and girls

new to the Sixth Form. Extended teacher-student dialogues

occurred numerous times with the same class, choosing

different students each time (Emma was completing AS

work on Donne’s Songs and Sonnets before moving to

Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure for A2, and David was

finishing AS work on Miller’s Death of a Salesman before

turning to Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner).

Both teachers had several lessons filmed, using teacher-

student dialogues alongside other strategies, enjoying the

opportunity to engage in far more meaningful talk with stu-

dents. The recordings were watched and evaluated to-

gether, with specific focus upon questioning as well as on

the students’ responses and how successfully these were

built upon during the extended dialogues in order to move

students’ learning forward.

Typically the following types of ‘open’ prompts and ques-

tions were used:

• ‘Talk to us about …’

• ‘Why…?’

• ‘What do you think …?’

• ‘Help us to evaluate …’

• ‘How is this shown …?’

• Can you explain …?

• What questions do you now have …?

Observations of each others’ lessons also took place, using

adjusted criteria, to concentrate either on questioning or the

development of student response.

Capturing the Results A total of 7 of the students involved were interviewed, in two

different focus groups, on different days, with recordings

made – a total of 30-35 minutes’ feedback. Several DvD

recordings were also shared and discussed with the rest of

the English Department, as well as teachers involved with a

cross-school Dialogic Teaching Group, meeting under the

auspices of the Cambridge Faculty of Education. Interim

conclusions were identified, notably, that these extended

dialogues:

• had to involve reasoning, hypothesising and ‘thinking

aloud’;

• needed to last for long enough to make a difference;

• had to include more ‘wait time’ (for both students and teachers);

• were perhaps best done with 3-5 students overall in the middle of a longer lesson, e.g. following pair or group discussions; presentations; prior to writing; prior to a whole class ‘plenary’.

Student Feedback From the student feedback received so far, the following

have been among the positive responses to the uses of ex-

tended student-teacher dialogues:

• Questions allow for any answer on a particular theme

or idea.

• Develops one person’s ideas respectfully.

• “It’s nice to see quiet students being coaxed along

almost by the questions that the teacher has asked.”

• Encourages individual interpretations of literary texts.

• “Promotes confidence”.

• Encourages ‘deeper’ learning and recall, particularly

helpful for exams.

Ongoing considerations/issues: As part of the subsequent reflection process, the following issues are continuing to be considered:

• Does the order of students matter?

• How long to (dare to) sustain the extended dia-

logues?

• When to interject?

• Where to position within lesson – “in medias res”?

• Recognising (teacher and student) that ‘wait time’

does not mean ‘failure’.

• Find the ‘still point of the turning world’ – go with the

‘flow’.

It was also acknowledged that some students were simply

not used to sharing their ideas in a more sustained way in

the classroom and so confidence would need to be built

over time in order for them to feel comfortable with ex-

tended dialogue.

Moving Forward

English Department Extension Since the pilot, all members of the English Department

have been experimenting with extended dialogue across all

three Key Stages, using it to enhance student leaning

within a variety of different topics. Recordings have been

made, shared and discussed within departmental meetings,

an exciting form of reflection that will be continued into next

year.

Whole School Teaching and Learning Group Another interesting development has been to work with

other departments – namely Maths, Geography, Science,

Design and Technology, and Physical Education – through

regular ‘Dialogic Teaching’ sessions led by Emma (as part

of a wider Teaching and Learning Group within the school).

Those involved in these sessions have been keen to en-

gage in discussion of Alexander’s ideas, as well as incorpo-

rating new dialogic methods within their own teaching prac-

tice. Some have also recorded (film and audio) their ex-

tended teacher-student dialogues to share with others in the

group and discussion from this has been stimulating and

positive. It is hoped that other departments will continue to

use and reflect upon the varied dialogic methods shared

within these sessions.

Researching Practice MEd Emma’s Researching Practice MEd at the Faculty of Edu-

cation, Cambridge University, incorporates this dialogic

practice within her research, specifically with a focus on its

impact upon Year 8 writing – both analytical and creative.

Practice has suggested that students are able to engage

successfully in dialogue, particularly extended dialogue

and, as a consequence, are able to develop new ideas ver-

bally with relative confidence. However, whilst writing may

‘float upon a sea of talk’ (Britton, 1970), the transition from

dialogue to writing can be challenging for students, particu-

larly when these ephemeral ideas need to be critically re-

flected upon and captured within written work.

The research so far has focussed upon using dialogue to actively reflect upon ideas generated at the planning stage of the writing process. Extended teacher-student dialogues have taken place with three different students, an enthusi-astic focus group that has been keen to explore and reflect upon their ideas before committing them to writing. During these dialogues, students were encouraged to not just ex-plain, but to justify their thoughts, to take part in critical re-flection through challenging cumulative dialogue. The data from this research has been captured through a variety of different methods, including: teacher-student in-terviews, questionnaires, audio recordings, and stimulated recall with the small focus group. The student questionnaire, completed by all students within the Year 8 class before the extended student dialogues occurred in class, asked for views on both creative and analytical writing, giving students the opportunity also to comment upon the place of talk within their own writing. The questions on dialogue required students to answer using a Likert scale as well as adding further comments in an ’Explanation’ box. Specifically the questions on dialogue were as follows: 1. To what extent do you talk through a piece of writing

before starting it? 2. To what extent do you find it useful to talk through a

piece of writing before starting it? Out of 26 responses the following data was collected: To Question 1: Always: 2 Often: 5 Occasionally: 13 Never: 7 To Question 2 Always: 3 Often:12 Occasionally: 7 Never: 4 (1 did not know) These initial results suggest that the majority of students occasionally take part in some sort of dialogue before start-ing to write specific pieces of work. However when they do, the majority of student find this a helpful activity.

Two student comments from the additional box are given below:

Student feedback received from the focus group after the extended dialogues took place in lessons has been fasci-nating – a few of their comments, derived from audio re-cording, are outlined below:

• it gave a “clear structure for writing in my head”

• “it helped me to think through my ideas fully”

• the questions that were asked gave new ideas “that I hadn’t previously thought of but they still allowed me to come up with them on my own”

• it helped to view the work as another reader would, rather than as the author

• “it made me think out me ideas to their full potential”

• after the dialogue “my ideas were fully formed and ready to write”

Conclusion Our exploration of the benefits of extended dialogue has been exciting. An opening up of classroom theory and practice to reveal a potentially new and powerful teaching and learning strategy can be a challenge, regardless of age or experience, but the very positive response from those involved has encouraged progression, to build upon the learning of the student as well as that of the teacher. Dia-logic Teaching encourages sharing of ideas, respecting differences, moving forward collectively and therefore it should be acknowledged here that teacher-teacher dia-logue is just as vital as teacher-student dialogue. As practi-tioners, engagement will continue during critical, reflective and active discussion, to explore both positive and negative experience in order for our own learning to be furthered. The voice of the student within this development in class-room practice continues to be heard but takes on even more importance as teachers and students engage to-gether in cumulative and meaningful dialogue.

References Alexander, R. (2006). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethink-ing Classroom Talk. Dialogos UK Ltd. Bakhtin, M.M., (1981). The Dialogic Imagination, University of Texas Press Bakhtin, M.M., (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. University of Michigan Press. Eke, R. and Lee, J. (2004). ‘Pace and differentiation in the Literacy Hour’ in The Curriculum Journal, 15 (3) Pinker, S. (2000). The Language Instinct, Penguin