Turning Classroom Dialogue into a Quality Dialogic Pedagogy - A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
Dialogue is defined as a process where people communicate in words what they are thinking or feeling in a question-and-answer manner in order to produce new ideas for all involved. Classroom dialogue includes all forms of verbal interactions that occur between a child and a teacher, all being a form of pedagogy. Teachers often "think" that are promoting dialogue in their classrooms by asking many questions and "listening" to the children's answers. Also, teachers often tend to lead children to pre-formed conclusions by looking for answers that they want to hear, leaving practically no room for open-ended questions and authentic classroom dialogue. Despite the importance of classroom dialogue, there is a lack of research on intervention programs that can facilitate the promotion of open dialogue by teachers in general and pre-service teachers, in particular. The objective of this study is to evaluate the current state of research-informed knowledge regarding dialogic approaches in preschools and classrooms. The methodological approach consists of a systematic review of the aims of the research done on dialogic approaches that can be found in the literature, the types of research, having as an objective the identification of the dimensions of dialogic pedagogy and the instruments that are most frequently used to assess the outcomes of dialogic pedagogy programs, by examining the current literature. The results of this systematic literature review could be valuable in designing pedagogical intervention programs for teachers working with all ages, especially for pre-service teachers during their training.
Keywords: Classroom dialogue approaches, pedagogy dimensions; pre-service teachers
Introduction
It is generally acknowledged in the field of sciences of education that one of the goals of classroom dialogue is to enable children to take an active part in their learning process. Over the past several decades, researches on classroom dialogue indicate that meaningful learning can be achieved when teachers as well as students take part in the learning process, exploring problems together and finding possible solutions not thought of already (Wegerif, 2007). In addition, when teachers make an attempt to include all of the children in the communication process and support every idea a child claims, dialogue and not just classroom talk does occur (Alexander, 2020). Several studies have targeted improved classroom instruction by the implementation of intervention programs that promote a more open space for children to voice their opinions (e.g. Peled-Elhanan & Blum-Kulka, 2006), or by observing classroom dialogue and later evaluating it with regard to the amount a teacher speaks as opposed to the child (e.g. Mercer, 2019).
Problem Statement
Due to the fact that great importance is given to teacher-child dialogue in classrooms, the effects of this dialogue on future academic skills and abilities, as well as on boosting children's self-confidence, there is a need to identify methods that will aid in achieving quality classroom dialogue. The purpose of the study is to review in a systematic manner the types of classroom dialogue that exists in the literature and identify the instruments used to assess dialogic pedagogy (DP).
Research Questions
In the search for the main key points concerning classroom dialogue, the following research questions were used as guiding elements: 1. What are the aims of the research studies on dialogic approaches in classrooms and preschools?; 2. What types of research have been done on dialogic approaches in classrooms and preschools?; 3. What are the dimensions of DP in classrooms and preschools?; 4. What instruments are most frequently used to assess the outcomes of the DP programs?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to present implications classroom dialogue can have on children in order to improve teaching strategies for teachers and pre-service teachers by using DP-oriented intervention programs.
Research Methods
In order to answer the research questions, the method used was a systematic literature review and analysis of the current research studies published between 2011-2021 in peer review journals. The procedural guideline of Uman (2011) was followed in order to design and report the stages. Cooper (1998) explains that by way of this method, empirical studies on a particular topic are emphasized based on the most current scientific knowledge.
Literature search included the following databases: Elsevier, Eagle search, Science-Direct, Taylor and Francis, Early Childhood Folio, Routledge, Research Gate, JSTOR and Sage. The literature search was based on the following key words and combinations: dialogue, authentic dialogue, dialogue pedagogy, classroom talk and authentic classroom talk. Based on a search of each of the keywords separately, hundreds of articles were found, however the combination of all key words revealed dozens of articles, which were then filtered according to the following inclusion criteria: studies had to be published in English; studies had to be published between 2011-2021 in peer review journals; studies had to allow full text access and studies had to include relevant key words in the research questions.
As a result of the keywords search, 75 studies appeared in the original selection process. After using the inclusion criteria, 49 were selected for further analysis. A number of 6 studies were excluded since they dealt with specific teaching matter such as math, literacy and science. 5 studies were excluded because they dealt with perceptions and beliefs and not the key words in the search. 5 studies were excluded because they targeted specific irrelevant groups such as peer groups, special needs and multicultural classrooms. In the end, 39 articles were included in this review.
The selection process of the studies is illustrated in the flowchart presented below (Figure 1).
Findings
All of the studies reviewed addressed the classroom dialogue topic, however diversity existed in the research population, as well as in the age categories of the participants. In terms of the distribution of studies addressing specific categories of learners and teachers (Table 1), a number of 3 studies dealt with preschools, i.e., daycare and kindergarten children i.e., 4–6-year-olds (Dobber, 2012; Gasparatou & Kampeza, 2012; Miller, 2015), 5 studies dealt with preschool children and their teachers (Efrat, 2015; Piasta et al., 2012; Rasku-Puttonen et al., 2012; White et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2020).
A number of 6 studies dealt with primary school children i.e., 3rd-6th grade students (Alexander, 2018; Boyd & Markarian, 2015; Howe et al., 2019; Reznitskaya et al., 2012; Segal & Lefstein, 2016; Segal et al., 2017), 3 studies dealt with primary school teachers (Abd-Kadir & Hardman, 2007; Chafi et al., 2014; Vrikki et al., 2019). 2 studies dealt with primary school children and their teachers (Hardman, 2019; Muhonen et al., 2017). One study dealt with preschool and primary school children (Muhonen et al., 2016). A number of 6 studies dealt with secondary school teachers (Davies et al., 2017; Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018; Lehesvuori, 2013; Van De Pol et al., 2017; Sedova, 2021; Šeďová et al., 2014). Three studies dealt with secondary school children and their teachers (Gillies, 2016; Lee, 2016; Pehmer et al., 2015). One study dealt with primary and secondary school children (Fisher & Larkin, 2008), one with university students studying education (Hajhosseiny, 2012), one with pre-service teachers (Abd Elkader, 2016), and one with university students, teachers and mentors (Edwards-Groves, & Hoare, 2012).
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the aims of the research done on dialogic approaches in classrooms and preschools?
Generally, all of the studies focused on dialogic approaches (Table 2), some of them having their attention on the investigation of specific aspects teaching process involving the communication teacher-student.
Research Question 2: What types of research have been done on dialogic approaches in classrooms and preschools?
There were several types of research approaches in classrooms and preschools identified in the studies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed ones; Table 3). The research variables targeted by these studies are presented in Table 4.
Research Question 3: What dimensions of dialogic pedagogy are found in classrooms and preschools?
The following dimensions of DP were identified in the studies (Table 5).
Research question 4: What instruments are most frequently used to assess the outcomes of the dialogic pedagogy programs?
The instruments frequently used were found in the articles presented in Table 6.
Conclusion
The current paper presents a systematic review of studies addressing the dialogic approaches in preschools and classrooms. The variables that have guided the review refer to the goals for researching the topic, the types of research done, the dimensions of dialogic pedagogy and the instruments used to assess dialogic pedagogy. The findings of this systematic review reveal that there is a need for more pedagogical intervention programs in preschools and classrooms in order for teachers of all ages to understand how to create a more open equal dialogic spaces, where children's interests and needs are at the center of the classroom dialogue. Furthermore, the results could be valued in designing intervention programs in kindergartens, schools and even higher education.
The current study also presents some potential methodological and conceptual problems. Even though there was only one study on pre-service teachers included in the analysis, the review showed that there is a need for intervention programs at pre-service teaching level, so that teachers entering the classroom can be more aware of the effects that classroom dialogue. An additional problem found was that some of the studies refer to only one dimension such as marginalized children, without taking into account other dimensions, such as teacher child pattern effects on classroom dialogue.
An important conclusion of this study refers to the significance of addressing all of the DP dimensions when training teachers. Not all teachers seem to understand the importance of including marginalized students' opinions into classroom dialogue in order to promote their self-confidence and self-worth. A teacher that is trained in communication techniques such as helping learners think, speak, listen, learn effectively, has the ability to empower them in the direction of classroom participation. Due to globalization, cultural diversity is a part of every classroom worldwide; therefore, teachers' awareness of this diversity as being an asset in terms of teaching will facilitate an inclusive climate, in which all students can engage and learn to respect others. Training in DP can allow teachers to broaden their knowledge on patterns they set for open spaces for children to voice their thoughts. Last but certainly not least is the fact that training teachers to reach the conclusion that classroom talk is much more than just words, i.e., it represents a significant way of the implementation of student's ideas into the lessons taught and learned.
References
Abd Elkader, N. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy and educating preservice teachers for critical multiculturalism. Sage Open, 6(1), 2158244016628592. DOI:
Abd-Kadir, J., & Hardman, F. (2007). The discourse of whole class teaching: A comparative study of Kenyan and Nigerian primary English lessons. Language and Education, 21(1), 1-15. DOI:
Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598. DOI:
Alexander, R. J. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.
Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 272-296.
Chafi, M. E., Elkhouzai, E., & Arhlam, A. (2014). The Dynamics of Classroom Talk in Moroccan Primary School: Towards Dialogic Pedagogy. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(5), 99-114.
Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (Vol. 2). Sage.
Davies, M., Kiemer, K., & Meissel, K. (2017). Quality Talk and dialogic teaching-an examination of a professional development programme on secondary teachers' facilitation of student talk. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 968-987. DOI:
Dobber, M. (2012). The role of dialogue and polylogue during an inquiry process in primary education. Vol. XX. In: A. Baucal, & J. Radišić, (Eds.), Patchwork. Learning Diversities. Book of Abstracts. Conference Proceedings (pp. 121-126).
Edwards-Groves, C., & Hoare, R. (2012). 'Talking to learn': focusing teacher education on dialogue as a core practice for teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 82-100.
Efrat, M. (2015). "I Found it! I Found it!" A Child's Chance Discovery as a Basis for Learning Using the Kindergarten Multi-dialogical Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 173-179. DOI:
Fisher, R., & Larkin, S. (2008). Pedagogy or Ideological Struggle? An Examination of Pupils' and Teachers' Expectations for Talk in the Classroom. Language and Education, 22(1), 1-16. DOI:
Gasparatou, R., & Kampeza, M. (2012). Introducing P4C in kindergarten in Greece. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 33(1), 72-82.
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 178-189. DOI:
Hajhosseiny, M. (2012). The Effect of Dialogic Teaching on Students' Critical Thinking Disposition.9 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1358-1368. DOI:
Hardman, J. (2019). Developing and supporting implementation of a dialogic pedagogy in primary schools in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102908. DOI:
Hofmann, R., & Ruthven, K. (2018). Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 496-514. DOI:
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher-Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 462-512. DOI:
Lee, R. (2016). Implementing dialogic teaching in a Singapore English language classroom. RELC Journal, 47(3), 279-293. DOI:
Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science: Challenging classroom realities through teacher education. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research, (465).
Mercer, N. (2019). Language and the joint creation of knowledge: The selected works of Neil Mercer. Routledge.
Miller, D. D. (2015). Preschool Teacher Language and Children's Language Acquisition.
Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 143-154. DOI:
Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 25-37. DOI:
Pehmer, A.-K., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). How teacher professional development regarding classroom dialogue affects students' higher-order learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 108-119. DOI:
Peled-Elhanan, N., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2006). Dialogue in the Israeli Classroom: Types of Teacher-Student Talk. Language and Education, 20(2), 110-127. DOI:
Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Wiggins, A. K., Turnbull, K. P., & Curenton, S. M. (2012). Impact of professional development on preschool teachers’ conversational responsivity and children's linguistic productivity and complexity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 387-400. DOI:
Rasku-Puttonen, H., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Siekkinen, M. (2012). Dialogical patterns of interaction in pre-school classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 138-149. DOI:
Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 288-306. DOI:
Sedova, K. (2021). Is dialogic teaching sustainable? Portrait of a teacher three years after completing a teacher development programme. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 9, A37-A59. DOI:
Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., Sedláček, M., & Šalamounová, Z. (2014). On the Way to Dialogic Teaching: Action Research as a Means to Change Classroom Discourse. Studia paedagogica, 19(4), 9-43. DOI:
Segal, A., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Exuberant, voiceless participation: An unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities? L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, (Special issue International Perspectives on Dialogic Theory and Practice).
Segal, A., Pollak, I., & Lefstein, A. (2017). Democracy, voice and dialogic pedagogy: The struggle to be heard and heeded. Language and education, 31(1), 6-25. DOI:
Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(1), 57.
Van De Pol, J., Brindley, S., & Higham, R. J. E. (2017). Two secondary teachers’ understanding and classroom practice of dialogic teaching: A case study. Educational Studies, 43(5), 497-515. DOI:
Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85-100. DOI:
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. Springer.
White, E. J., Redder, B., Bennett, S., De Manser, B., Geddes, C., & Hjorth, C. (2018). Pedagogical dialogues with 2-year old's in “preschool” settings: What do they look like? Early Childhood Folio, 22(2), 14-19.
Yin, Q., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Blending constructivism and instructivism: A study of classroom dialogue in Singapore kindergartens. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(4), 583-600. DOI:
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
31 May 2023
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-962-7
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
6
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-710
Subjects
Education, reflection, development
Cite this article as:
Shapir, B., & Rusu, A. S. (2023). Turning Classroom Dialogue into a Quality Dialogic Pedagogy - A Systematic Literature Review. In I. Albulescu, & C. Stan (Eds.), Education, Reflection, Development - ERD 2022, vol 6. European Proceedings of Educational Sciences (pp. 435-444). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epes.23056.39