Educational dialogue, or dialogic pedagogy, is underpinned by the educational principle presented by Vygotsky (1962, 1978) that an important way in which children learn to think individually is through first learning to reason with others. Vygotsky described language as a cultural tool for cognitive development as well as a psychological tool that mediates this development through reasoning and problem solving. These social sources of individual thinking are important for dialogue because this suggests that interactions, through language, enable the co-construction of new knowledge. This is supported by research that indeed suggests that human intelligence is intrinsically social and communicative (Mercer, 2013).
Shor and Freire (1987) provide the following definition of dialogue:
Dialogue is a means to transform social relations in the classroom, and to raise awareness about relations in society at large. Dialogue is a way to recreate knowledge as well as the way we learn. It is a mutual learning process where the teacher poses critical problems for inquiry. Dialogue rejects narrative lecturing where teacher talk silences and alienates students (Shor and Freire, 1987, p. 11).
Dialogic education involves the opening up of shared dialogic spaces for the co-construction of knowledge in which learners build on each other’s dialogue and ideas. They do this through posing open questions, reasoning, justifying, and critically evaluating (Alexander, 2006, 2008). Differences between perspectives during interactions are considered a source of new insight and meaning (Bakhtin, 1981). This allows learners to leverage others’ points of view to better understand new knowledge, and enables teachers and students to think together and develop relationships that support collaborative learning.
An important distinction here is made between dialogue and talk more generally, where dialogue refers to listening, sharing ideas, justifying contributions and engaging with others’ views (Kershner et al., 2020):
In particular, they explore and evaluate different perspectives and reasons. Relevant questions and contributions are linked between speakers, allowing knowledge to be built collectively within a lesson or over a series of interconnected lessons. (p. 4)
This breaks from more traditional classroom practices of ‘presentational talk’ in favour of ‘exploratory talk’, a distinction made by Barnes (1976), through which learners can come to understand and internalise learning content. Mercer et al. (2019) add that in ‘exploratory talk’, “participants pool ideas, opinions and information, and think aloud together to create new meanings, knowledge and understanding” (Mercer et al., 2019, p. 188). This includes verbal and non-verbal interactions, as well as through the use of visual or technology resources.
To enable effective classroom dialogue, a trusting ethos and supportive classroom environment is needed for learners to feel safe in risk-taking and challenging different perspectives. Explicit opportunities are also needed for multiple students to participate actively and learn together (Howe et al., 2019), which can be enabled through a specific task or activity during a lesson that opens up spaces for participation.
A growing body of international research has emerged over the last five decades that indicates dialogic methods in the classroom lead to improved performance in learners’ content knowledge, text comprehension, and reasoning capabilities (Clarke et al., 2016). Furthermore, evidence indicates that dialogic teaching can increase learners’ capacity for dialogue and reflective thought as well as develop subject-specific knowledge (Alexander et al., 2017; Howe et al., 2019), and critical reasoning skills (Mercer, 2008; Wegerif et al., 1999). In research by Howe et al., (2019), strong links were demonstrated between features of whole-class dialogue and student learning, as well as the importance in developing a supportive and respectful ethos within the classroom. This strengthens the use and outputs of educational dialogue. In addition, specific aspects of dialogue, especially those relating to building on ideas, and questioning and challenging others’ ideas, were linked to learning, with particular importance found in learner elaboration.
Initial research indicates that digital technology can provide valuable support for enhancing the use of dialogue in the classroom (e.g. see Kerawalla et al., 2013) and presents evidence that internet-mediated intercultural dialogue can promote growth in the direction of dialogic open-mindedness through exposing learners to alternative perspectives (Wegerif et al., 2017). Major et al. (2018) similarly argue that “the alignment of classroom-based digital technologies with a dialogic pedagogy seems to suggest the possibility of transformative learning” (p. 1998). They point to 13 studies in particular that report a contribution of digital technologies to collaborative group interactions (for examples, see Kerawalla, 2015; Pifarré & Staarman, 2011; Rasmussen & Hagen, 2015).
Major et al. (2018) identify further affordances of digital technology to enhance the use of dialogue for learning, including learners feeling that they have greater control over their learning through being able to dictate the speed at which they work, as well as online communication increasing participation because of the anonymity it provides. While this research discusses the use of technology for students, it is considered that this could also be applied to teachers as learners within professional development programmes.
While digital technology offers potential pedagogical support, Mercer et al. (2019) caution that “the technology must be used with a dialogic intention, in the context of activities which are well designed to promote collective thinking” (p. 197). This is echoed in most of the literature consulted, which asserts that it is the pedagogy that is paramount, not the technology. For example, Fu et al. (2016) highlight the failure of computer-supported collaborative learning to provide the type of collaborative interactions required for educational dialogue to flourish.
Research regarding digital technology and dialogic pedagogy is in its infancy, and more rigorous research is needed regarding how technology may afford new forms of interaction and dialogue among students as well as teachers pursuing professional development. Indeed, the current evidence base regarding dialogic pedagogy is mainly small scale with outcome-specific studies. Further research is needed to identify the different enabling and inhibiting factors that isolate the critical elements of dialogic pedagogy, in general and for the use of digital technologies more specifically.