










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

106 
 

 

Dialogic Pedagogies: Defining and Analyzing Four Types of 

Dialogue in Education 

 
 

Ben Kilby   
 
 

Introduction 
 

  
he empirical research on dialogue-based pedagogies shows that they improve student 
outcomes and, thus, teachers should make more use of these methods (Edwards-Groves & 

Hoare, 2012). However deeper analyses about whether certain modes of dialogue are better than 
others is under-researched, resulting in little information about which models best help teachers 
develop effective dialogic learning practices (Howe & Abedin, 2013, p. 325). Some researchers have 
argued that there is a gap in the literature, as there has been little proper exploration of what 
constitutes effective classroom dialogue, with practical examples of how to structure discourse for 
learning lacking in classroom practice (Myhill et al., 2005; Mercer, 2010; Edwards-Groves & Hoare, 
2012; Howe & Abedin, 2013). Edwards-Groves and Davidson (2020, p. 126) suggest that “developing 
a shared language and collective understandings about classroom talk and interaction among teachers, 
and with and among their students, largely remains taken-for-granted in practice.” Howe and Abedin 
(2013) suggest that this leads to a lack of understanding about models of effective dialogue and allows 
poorer forms of dialogic pedagogy to persist. Alexander (2004) shares this concern that the most 
effective kinds of talk in classrooms are not widely practised. Nystrand (1997) also discusses how 
different modes of classroom discussion engender particular epistemic roles for both teachers and 
students, which can constrain their thinking and contribute to disadvantage. In sum, “the quality of 
student learning is closely related to the quality of classroom talk” (p. 29). Therefore, it is vitally 
important that we are able to demonstrate what kind of talk is most effective in the classroom. This 
paper identifies different kinds of dialogue-based pedagogies and, through conceptual analysis, 
articulates the notions of dialogue they assume and the educational implications of these different 
notions of dialogue. Four types of dialogic pedagogy have been identified in the existing literature. 
Although they may go by different names to different people, for consistency, this paper will categorise 
them as Teacher-Directed Dialogue, Mere Conversation, Adversarial Dialogue, and Exploratory 
Dialogue, each of which will be described in its own subsection. 
 
Empirical Evidence for the Value of Dialogic Learning 

 
There has been broad and diverse research undertaken to determine the impact of dialogic 

learning on students, and this comprehensive body of research indicates a significant positive impact. 
Skidmore (2004, 2006) demonstrates how the quality of classroom dialogue is crucial to students’ 
learning, and the meta-synthesis of Hattie (2020) ranks ‘Classroom Discussion’ as one of the teaching 
strategies with the most significant effect on student achievement. Skidmore (2004) claims that not 

T 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

107 
 

only can productive classroom dialogue produce a general rise in achievement, but it can also bridge 
the gap between higher and lower achieving students. Students’ thinking (Mercer & Littleton 2007) 
and literacy (Alexander 2006) have been shown to develop through dialogue when that dialogue is of 
a particular type, which is to say of the nature of Exploratory Dialogue discussed below rather than the 
other three dialogue types (Michaels et al., 2008; Anderson et al., 2011). Students also develop 
meaningful understandings about concepts primarily through talk (Edwards-Groves et al., 2014). For 
example, Swain and Lapkin (1998) demonstrate that shared meanings are better remembered when 
they were produced in dialogic exchange.  
 

Analysing what is typical in classrooms, Alexander (2001) reports that interrogatory whole-class 
talk is the dominant teaching method internationally. This has been the case for over one hundred 
years, since the research of Stevens (1912) reported that teachers predominantly ask questions which 
require students to recall textbook knowledge. Flanders (1970) utilised a systematic observation 
research methodology that led to the ‘two-thirds rule,’ which states that what happens in classrooms 
typically follows the pattern of: two-thirds of the time is dedicated to talk, two-thirds of that time is the 
teacher talking, and two-thirds of teacher-talk is made up of monologic talk and recitation questions. 
This leaves little room for more productive kinds of talk. Galton et al. (1999) replicated this research 
30 years later and found that the two-thirds rules is now closer to three-quarters, and Smith et al. 
(2004) found similar numbers at 74%. Nystrand et al. (2003) found that in 1151 observations, only 
6.69% could be described as dialogic in nature. Further research by Nystrand (1997) also reports that 
recitational patterns of discourse are “overwhelmingly prevalent,” have a negative effect on learning, 
and are associated more strongly with low-achieving classes and students. More recent studies also 
show a similar pattern of teacher dominated talk (Vaish, 2008; Wangru, 2016). In a metanalysis, 
Howe and Abedin (2013, p. 334) find that this pattern is highly visible within most classrooms. The 
most recent research continues to demonstrate that Exploratory Dialogue rarely occurs in classroom 
practice (Davies et al., 2017; Howe & Mercer, 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2017). Nystrand (1997) ponders 
why this approach to teaching continues to be so prevalent when it fails to either improve student 
outcomes or engage student interest. This kind of unproductive talk is what is categorised in this 
thesis as Teacher-Directed Dialogue. 
 

Talk-Types in Schools 

 

Teacher-Directed Dialogue 

 

Students are often engaged in talk that is primarily teacher-centred. This involves students in a 
watch-listen-repeat model of learning (Swan, 2006). This type of dialogue allows few opportunities for 
students to actively contribute to the discussion and rarely engages with higher order thinking skills 
(Tinzamann et al., 1990). It is structured to convey factual information to students, is instructive 
rather than investigative, and it embraces authoritative methods of talk such as lecturing and teacher 
questioning (Gillies, 2006; Edwards-Groves et al., 2014). F. Hardman (2020, p. 142) explains that this 
kind of talk consists of “closed teacher questions, brief student answers, superficial praise or criticism, 
rather than diagnostic feedback, and an emphasis on recalling information rather than genuine 
exploration.”  
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

108 
 

This type of dialogue also includes a pedagogical form commonly known as IRF/IRE, standing 
for teacher-initiated question, student response, teacher follow-up or evaluation (Sinclair & Coulthard, 
1975; Mehan, 1979). This form of classroom talk is highly visible and commonplace in education 
worldwide (Edwards & Westgate, 1994; Alexander, 2001), Cazden (2001) even refers to this as the 
‘traditional’ classroom structure. The F/E in the IRF/E pattern only evaluates compliance in rote 
memorisation and repeating information (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; J. Hardman, 2020). Wegerif 
(2020, p. 14) describes Teacher-Directed Dialogue as knowledge that, instead of being connecting to 
living relationships, is something that is stored in books and transmitted into brains. Cazden (2001) 
describes this as a strategy suited to areas of the curriculum that require an understanding only of 
factual knowledge. These are areas of learning that require students to learn and memorise by rote, for 
example, learning that the capital of Australia is Canberra.  
 

Cazden (2001) warns that there is a danger in the prevalence of IRF/E in classrooms reducing 
the curriculum to just those aspects that can be memorised by rote. Rather than using this strategy 
only in the service of learning that is suitable to be learned by rote, the type of learning that occurs is 
determined by what fits the IRF/E pattern. Skidmore (2016a, p. 92) criticises it for being restricted to 
learning that is axiomatic and repeatable. This discourse pattern is not collaborative or interactive and 
can create closed talk and restrict understanding amongst students (Leva, 2015, pp. 8-9). Research has 
demonstrated the constricting effect that this teacher-directed talk has on students’ learning (Edwards 
& Mercer, 1987; Edwards & Westgate, 1994). Cazden (2001) reiterates that this form of classroom 
talk is not suited to deeper learning about complex concepts, and therefore its prevalence marks a 
danger that learning about complex concepts is not being effectively undertaken or is not happening 
at all. Howe (2010, p. 48) even states that open inquiry dialogue is “inconceivable” with Teacher-
Directed Dialogue being used as a pedagogical strategy. Therefore, the prevalence of Teacher-Directed 
Dialogue suggests a lack in the exploration of deep and complex concepts.  
 

Wegerif (2020, p. 23) acknowledges that there are different pedagogies required for different 
learning objectives. The IRF/E sequence of classroom talk may help facilitate certain kinds of valuable 
learning. For instance, where a teacher initiates an IRF/E sequence, they ask a question to which they 
already know an answer and students have the opportunity to test whether their thinking aligns with 
their teacher’s. However, open dialogic talk is a valuable pedagogy across all kinds of learning 
objectives (Scott et al., 2006). Langer (2016) demonstrates that students who are taught the 
‘universally correct’ ways of doing things fail to be able to adapt these procedures to different contexts 
and reapply them creatively. She goes on to argue that everything should be taught with a variety of 
perspectives involving debate, rather than rote learning traditional ways of doing things. The 
justification for this comes from the idea that being taught the best way to do something is 
insufficient. Competing perspectives are required, even if they are inadequate, so that learners can 
better understand why one way is better than another (Phillipson & Wegerif, 2016; Marton & 
Häggström, 2017). This links with research on student metacognition that posits that students benefit 
when they reflect on the ways they think, not just about the correctness of their thinking (Mercer & 
Dawes, 2008; Lefstein, 2010; Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013; van der Veen et al., 2017). On the 
pedagogical value and limitations of Teacher-Directed Dialogue, Alexander (2001) states that IRF/E 
patterns of classroom interaction appear to add pace to the learning by eliciting short responses for 
students, but fail to extend their thinking. Skidmore (2016c) lends weight to this, claiming that an 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

109 
 

over-reliance on IRF/E patterns creates a uniformity in students’ thinking because of the limitations 
set on students’ responses. It reduces knowledge to the successful display of the facts that the teacher 
wants to hear at any given time. Therefore, Teacher-Directed Dialogue is limited in its value in a way 
that more open dialogic talk is not. 
 
Mere Conversation  

 
Approaches that move classroom talk beyond recall and recitation often aim to engage students 

in exploring personal meaning and connection to the concepts under discussion (Mercer & Dawes, 
2008; Leva, 2015). Mercer (1996) describes this as ‘cumulative talk,’ characterised by speakers building 
positively but uncritically on what others have said. He describes it as neither argumentative nor 
collaborative and without serious considerations.  
 

Conversation is important to learning. Brown (2007) describes the notion that learning happens 
independently from explicit instruction by an act of becoming in child development. This suggests 
that students process ideas through their relationships with others, an interactive process that 
mediates how ideas are presented to students, with communal discussion enabling them to form 
connections to ideas in personal and meaningful ways (Fisher, 2009). Markova (2003) states that “to 
be means to communicate, and to communicate means to be for another, and through the other, for 
oneself.” Research also demonstrates that students rarely talk to each other about school-based topics, 
so Mere Conversation is a way to enable that talk to occur (Galton et al., 1980; Galton, 1999). Mere 
Conversation allows students to engage in reciprocal student-to-student interaction which is not 
teacher-directed. Howe (2010, p. 189) states that this talk is more productive than Adversarial 
Dialogue (see next section) and also has fewer opportunities for withdrawal. Leaning on the notion 
from Vygotsky (1978, p. 57) that “all higher functions originate as actual relationships between 
individuals,” Saavedra and Opfer (2012) remark that collaboration is not an outcome but a necessary 
condition for learning, and the model of conversational-discussion-as-learning supports student 
achievement. Vygotsky (1978, p. 57) asserts that the development of children takes place, firstly, on a 
social level between people which he describes as interpsychological, then, secondly, on the individual 
level inside the child, described as intrapsychological. Allowing students to engage socially in cognitive 
processes supports their thinking according to this theory of psychological development. Harris (1998, 
p. 241) simply states that “to children in school, the most important people in the classroom are other 
children.” Therefore, the student-to-student talk that Mere Conversation produces is educationally 
worthwhile, albeit insufficient.  
 

The move from teacher-directed to conversational talk shifts the focus from teacher-centred to 
student-centred discussion in some positive ways, but it is still not representative of the highest quality 
educational dialogue. Howe (2010, p. 79) states that “the expression of contrasting opinions cannot 
be sufficient in its own right to precipitate growth. Children must also resolve differences in a 
productive fashion.” Leva (2015, p. 53) asserts that for classroom talk to be constructive it needs to 
include negotiation and evaluation. If negotiation and evaluation are not features of the discussion, 
then it will be merely conversational idea-sharing, which Leva (2015) says is much more common. 
Alexander (2001) and Edwards-Groves et al. (2014) acknowledge the importance of using the best 
kinds of talk for learning purposes, and while Mere Conversation gets students involved in the talk, it 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

110 
 

does not engage them in deeper levels of thinking. Moreover, where the conversational discussion is 
still controlled by the teacher, even though students are engaging in much of the talk themselves, it 
fails to be collaborative or reflective, which are integral features of productive classroom discussions 
(Stremmel & Fu, 1993; Myhill, 2006). Allport (1954) also suggests that a focus on a shared or 
superordinate goal allows for more productive talk than students merely engaging in free talk. In her 
article ‘Inquiry is No Mere Conversation,’ Gardner (1995) details a model of teacher facilitation of 
classroom dialogue that is not teacher-centred, but at the same time does not allow a completely open 
free conversation dictated to by the idea-sharing of students. Therefore, while Mere Conversation 
provides some additional benefits to Teacher-Directed Dialogue, it fails to constitute all the features of 
the most productive forms of classroom discussion and there is still some work to do to get to a 
conception of best practice in dialogic pedagogy. 
 
Adversarial Dialogue 

 

Adversarial Dialogue is focused on a critical and competitive type of communication. It is 
primarily concerned with sound reasoning and argumentation. This type of dialogue involves 
exposing viewpoints and arguments to extreme opposition, whereby a defender will have to muster all 
the evidence possible to support their view against a real or imagined adversary. This type of dialogue 
is most conspicuous in school debating competitions. Baker et al. (2020) describe how debating 
societies were founded from the tradition of ritualistic religious training. From this tradition comes a 
dogmatic approach to dialogue, where strict adherence to a view is encouraged, and the goal is to 
persuade another person to side with you while doing little critical reflection yourself.  
 

Osborne (2010) claims that reasoned argumentation of the kind present in Adversarial Dialogue 
is pivotal to scientific practice and intellectual inquiry. Indeed, the critical analysis in this form of 
dialogue is valuable in many aspects. Mead (1934) describes how students need to learn not only how 
to persuade specific others, but to argue in terms of ‘what anyone would think.’ This is wherein lies 
the value in Adversarial Dialogue. It has some features of productive dialogue, notably the critical-
analytical aspects. Baker et al. (2020, p. 76) claim that argumentative interactions may have 
educational value because they force students to contest views with reasoned analysis. Students have to 
explain, examine, and construct counterarguments for views that contribute to thinking better than 
discussion that is peaceful and placid, which is more likely to move the discussion towards facile 
acceptance. Dialogue that has the central tenet of providing reasons for arguments has a significant 
positive impact on cognition and student achievement (Kuhn et al., 2008; Crowell & Kuhn, 2014; 
Trickey & Topping, 2015). This kind of reasoned argumentation has been theorised by Kuhn and 
Crowell (2011) as ‘dialogic argumentation’ and by Resnick et al. (2017) as ‘accountable talk’. The 
CABLE project, focused on investigating collaborative argumentation dialogue, has researched this 
kind of talk extensively and found that it has a positive effect not only on student cognition and 
achievement, but also socio-emotional factors as well (Andriessen & Coirier, 1999; Andriessen et al., 
2003; Baker et al., 2013; Baker et al., 2020). Reasoning and justification in dialogue have also been 
shown to provide academic benefits in a number of other studies (O'Connor et al., 2015; van der 
Veen et al., 2017; Muhonen et al., 2018). This critical examination and reasoning is beneficial to 
dialogic learning, and while the argument-focused methods and projects mentioned above are not 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

111 
 

necessarily examples of Adversarial Dialogue in the same way that debating is, there is a risk that being 
too argumentatively focused will lead to Adversarial Dialogue. 
 

Adversarial Dialogue is justified by the claim that any “position ought to be defended from, and 
subjected to, the criticism of the strongest opposition” (Moulton, 1983, p. 153). If that evaluation is 
not adversarial in nature, then it is assumed to be weaker and less effective (p. 154). Alston and 
Brandt (1974, pp. 9-10) suggest that a person engaged in this kind of dialogue is “more adept at 
tearing down than at building up, and he delights in reducing his interlocutors to confusion.” This 
hyper-critical element forces interlocuters to work within a scheme that requires them to tear down 
and criticise ideas; that requires them to constantly think of objections and counterexamples; and that 
requires them to attempt to undermine any and all ideas that are presented for evaluation. Mercer 
(1996) calls this disputational dialogue, characterised by disagreement, individualised thinking, and 
short exchanges of assertions. Freidman (2013) denotes the adversarial mode as consisting of 
objections and counterexamples to which the best responses are refutations, then more objections and 
counterexamples in a cyclical motion of unending competitive attacks where “all that matters is the 
gladiatorial skirmish.” This suggests that the aggressive nature of Adversarial Dialogue creates an 
atmosphere that is inhospitable for anyone who has not been “raised to fight or enjoy combat” (p. 28).  
 

While this argumentation has in Adversarial Dialogue value, there are also many drawbacks. 
This type of dialogue is espoused as being the pinnacle of rational reasoning and argumentation 
insofar as it demands that all ideas presented by speakers are subject to rigorous critical analysis. 
However, where it falls short is in not allowing a collaborative exploration, whereupon building and 
strengthening ideas through dialogic processes is valued as highly as the critical deconstruction of 
those ideas through dialogue. This criticality leads to narrow perspectives dominating dialogue. 
Wegerif and Scrimshaw (1997) show that when a child dominates the discussion other children tend 
to withdraw, become quiet and subdued, or participate marginally. This narrowness of ideas and 
marginalisation of other students due to the lack of collaborative discourse is where Adversarial 
Dialogue fails to be adequately productive as a dialogic pedagogy. It fails to be conducive to diverse 
and pluralistic dialogue in a way that contributes to progress in ideation and thinking (cf. Golding, 
2010). 
 
Exploratory Dialogue as Exemplary Dialogue 

 
Exploratory Dialogue is presented in this section to be the most productive form of classroom 

discussion. The concept of Exploratory Talk comes from Barnes (1992, 2008), but has undergone 
many additions and reviews since then. The use of this concept also refers to what is known as 
‘thinking aloud’. Exploratory Dialogue, rather than Talk, emphasises the interactive nature of the 
communication, rather than the individualised notion of ‘thinking aloud.’ There are a variety of terms 
used to address the features of classroom interaction that is being labelled here as Exploratory 
Dialogue. These include Dialogic Instruction (Nystrand, 1997), Dialogic Enquiry (Wells, 1999), 
Dialogic Teaching (Alexander, 2001), Accountable Talk (Resnick et al., 2017), Inquiry Dialogue 
(Reznitskaya & Wilkinson, 2017), and Quality Talk (Wilkinson et al., 2010). In this thesis, 
Exploratory Dialogue will be the commonly used term to describe a specific kind of classroom 
interaction that draws on many different theories and will be explained in this section in full.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

112 
 

 
In terms of structure, Wegerif (2020, p. 21) describes three moves within Exploratory Dialogue: 

opening, widening, and deepening. Opening involves enabling space for relationships within the 
participants in the dialogue that makes it possible to “shape the attention of the other.” This move 
opens a question, problem, or idea that allows ideas, perspectives, and beliefs to shape the dialogue. In 
a way, it is a specific version of a prompt. It is specific in that it is a prompt that enables this divergent 
pluralistic dialogue. An example is: ‘eating meat is wrong’. This opening move creates the space for 
divergent opinions within a pluralistic discussion. Speakers can discuss their agreement or 
disagreement and reasoning in response. The second move is widening. This widens the concepts in 
the discussion by actively seeking out a diverse range of perspectives through asking what everyone 
thinks. This widening involves incorporating views from outside the perspectives of the specific people 
in the dialogue. For example, in a class with no indigenous students, an imaginative or speculative 
perspective of what an indigenous voice might have to say about the topic could be considered. The 
third move is deepening. This is a deepening of the way in which the topic is reasoned about. This 
might look like students identifying assumptions that have been made in the dialogue so far, such as 
‘we are assuming that non-human animals have inner lives in the same way as humans when we claim 
that we should not eat them’. The widening move aims to expose students to a breadth of 
perspectives, while the deepening move aims for them to explore the depth within those perspectives. 
 

These moves contrast with the previous three dialogue types. Teacher-Directed Dialogue does 
not aim at either breadth or depth through widening or deepening moves. The teacher wants the 
singular correct answer so that the class can memorise it and move on. Mere Conversation may have 
some breadth, but no depth. It fails to deeply and critically analyse perspectives and only involves the 
sharing of opinions. It also does not consider perspectives from outside the dialogue, such as the 
indigenous perspective example mentioned earlier. Adversarial Dialogue does not have the breadth, 
because each side of the argument has their narrow position as fixed and immovable. There may be 
multiple perspectives within the discussion as a whole (i.e., two opposing sides), but this is not breadth 
in the same way because there is no purposeful consideration for other perspectives, nor is it the case 
that speakers are open to changing their minds. As for depth, there is only one-sided depth. The aim 
of Adversarial Dialogue is to persuade your way to victory, therefore there is a deep critical analysis, 
but it is only of the oppositional view and not of one’s own view. 
 

Barnes (1992) uses the Vygotskyian concept of inner speech to suggest that learning should be 
transformational rather than merely additive. By this, he means that dialogue should produce a 
transformation in a learner that facilitates an inner dialogue based on the ideas that are presented by 
others during discussion. This inner dialogue is what counts as critical thinking and is specifically 
developed in conversation with others. In contrast, Teacher-Directed Dialogue is merely additive 
because it gifts students with new knowledge, but not a way to apply, contextualise, or modify that 
knowledge in innovative ways. Nystrand (1997) similarly says that Exploratory Dialogue builds a 
completely different kind of relationship between teacher and student, whereby the teacher’s role is to 
structure talk in order to facilitate students’ production of knowledge, and the students’ role is to 
think, not simply to remember. In this way, students’ knowledge is being moulded and transformed as 
the dialogue progresses, rather than merely adding fact upon fact to a bank of ‘things’ that students 
‘know’.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

113 
 

Bakhtin (1981, p. 293) distinguishes between what is being described here as Teacher-Directed 
and Exploratory Dialogue through an understanding of the ownership of ideas and concepts. In 
Exploratory Dialogue, students are able to take ideas and concepts and make them their own; utilise 
and deploy them for purposes suited to the context and in unique and creative ways. He claims that 
this kind of dialogue reveals “newer ways to mean” (p. 346). “If an answer does not give rise to a new 
question from itself, it falls out of the dialogue” (p. 168). This directly contrasts with Teacher-Directed 
Dialogue where the teacher already has the answers and is not interested in new interpretations, 
questions, or understandings. Skidmore (2016b, p. 31) discusses this idea from Bakhtin by stating that 
when students are limited to an understanding of a concept that asks them to reproduce it in an 
identical form to which it was presented to them, the concept remains someone else’s and not a 
genuine psychological tool that they can use. Only when students are able to construct new meaning 
from a learned concept, incorporating their point of view, questioning the interpretation, or 
presenting something new can we be confident that they have a strong grasp on the concept in a way 
that demonstrates an emerging understanding of the domain of knowledge that they are studying. 
Thus, in Exploratory Dialogue, instead of teachers telling students what they need to know and 
remember, they stimulate thinking with ideas that launch students into knowledge construction using 
reasoning, perspective sharing, and critical analysis (Stein et al., 2008). Exploratory dialogue challenges 
students’ thinking with speculative and process questions that encourage them to reflect, reason, 
explore, and re-examine ideas. Speculative questions encourage more depth, and might include, ‘can 
you give me an example?’, ‘are there any other connections to [previous idea]?’, or ‘do your reasons 
support your conclusion?’. Process questions address the procedure of the inquiry and might include, 
‘do you agree or disagree?’, ‘could you explain in your own words?’, or ‘what do you mean by that?’. 
This kind of dialogue empowers students to participate in a pluralistic dialogue and construct 
meaning for themselves through owning the ideas and concepts under discussion.  
 

Mere Conversation focuses on perspective sharing and Adversarial Dialogue focusses on 
criticising ideas, Exploratory Dialogue moves beyond these towards dialogue as a form of knowledge 
construction (Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2005; Edwards-Groves et al., 2014) (Fisher, 2009). 
Personal meaning and ideas can be constructed and shared, but more so, the meaning and the 
thinking behind them is shared through dialogue, enabling the construction of group understanding 
(Leva, 2015). The collaborative nature of the dialogue exposes students to multiple perspectives, while 
also building mutual understanding through the process of thinking together and thinking 
collaboratively (Mercer & Dawes, 2008; Fisher, 2009; Boyd & Galda, 2011). This enables knowledge 
construction as students are actively processing the exchange and there are opportunities to connect 
ideas through dialogue (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Stremmel & Fu, 1993; Konings et al., 2005; Osberg 
& Biesta, 2008; Myers & Nulty, 2009; French, 2012). This kind of talk encourages students to socially 
construct understandings (Nachowitz & Brumer, 2014), and in order to do this they must build on 
each idea shared rather than merely hearing them out or searching for criticisms to tear them down 
(Edwards-Groves & Hoare, 2012).  
 

Producing effective classroom discussion is not as simple as monitoring who talks and how 
much. Instead, the extent to which students are treated as epistemic agents (co-constructors of 
knowledge) is a greater predictor for quality dialogic learning and improved student outcomes 
(Skidmore, 2016c). Pauli and Reusser (2015) demonstrate a positive association between co-



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

114 
 

constructing knowledge and student attainment in mathematics. Research has long demonstrated the 
importance of active dialogue to cognitive development (Trevarthen, 1979; Bråten, 1988; Resnick et 
al., 2018). Common features of Exploratory Dialogue include an open exchange of ideas, joint inquiry 
and construction of knowledge, multiple voices, and respectful classroom relations (Littleton & 
Mercer, 2013; Haneda, 2017; Khong et al., 2019; J. Hardman, 2020). 
 

A key benefit of Exploratory Dialogue is that students reformulate knowledge in various contexts 
due to the diversity and pluralism in the dialogue. Students test and apply their understanding of new 
concepts so that they become familiar with their use. Skidmore (2016b, p. 33) contrasts this with 
Teacher-Directed Dialogue, suggesting that when instruction takes place using recitational methods, 
the knowledge acquired by the students is static and gets quickly discarded outside of the specific 
context in which it was learned. In Exploratory Dialogue, students move away from the recitation and 
reproduction questioning that takes place in Teacher-Directed Dialogue (Young, 1991). Curricular 
content is retold from the students’ perspectives and applied and contextualised in various ways. The 
teacher talks with, rather that talks at, students, emphasising the varying perspectives and ideas that 
the students have to offer (Skidmore, 2016b, p. 35). Alexander (2001) distinguishes between dialogue 
and conversation by suggesting that dialogue utilises purposeful questioning, structure, and the 
pursuit of shared inquiry goals. He suggests that dialogue is the main way in which teachers are able to 
remove themselves from the habit of treating students as empty vessels and allows them to see 
students as competent thinkers in their own right. This is the kind of teaching that is “collective, 
reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful” (p. 29).  
 

One of the ways that Exploratory Dialogue aims to achieve purposeful meaning making is by 
attending to the individuality of student voices in the discussion. It emphasises different and unique 
voices interacting with each other in pursuit of knowledge and understanding, but never being 
reducible to a single authoritative voice (Skidmore, 2016b, p. 34). Wells (1999, p. 174) describes the 
meaning potential of shared language, which allows students to work towards achieving goals within 
their discursive social interaction. In an educational context, these goals are generally going to be skill 
development and a greater conceptual understanding of a topic. Alexander (2001, p. 527) details how 
this common understanding is achieved through joint activity and shared conceptions. It incorporates 
the social conversation with the cognitive inquiry to demand a specific kind of talk emerge. More than 
responding with perspective sharing, Exploratory Dialogue affords students the time and space to 
think for themselves in relation to others, augmenting understanding (Leva, 2015). Hedges and 
Cullen (2005) describe this as intersubjectivity, where a cognitive, social, and emotional exchange 
occurs between members of a learning community. These exchanges facilitate the communal 
interaction in dialogue to further the knowledge and understanding of all speakers. Vygotsky (1978) 
uses the notion of thinking as internalised self-talk, and thus, dialogue with others enables this 
internal thinking dialogue to become reasoned through the communal exchange (Stahl et al., 2014). 
Carless et al. (2011, p. 397) also delineate how the most successful interactive exchanges require 
shared and negotiated meanings and expectations. It is a process of shared inquiry into a concept of 
learning that takes place in the form of a dialogue (Wells, 1999; Linell, 2009). The concept of 
polyphony, or multiple voices and perspectives as part of a dialogue is important to Exploratory 
Dialogue (Bakhtin, 1984). Through this multiplicity of voices comes the notion of an epistemological 
framework that is used to construct shared knowledge through dialogue with a specific group (Mercer, 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

115 
 

2000). Skidmore (2016a, p. 95) explains that the richer one’s discursive space, “the wider this person’s 
access to whatever forms of life the society and its culture have to offer and the greater her ability to 
collaborate with others.” By this, he means that the greater diversity in dialogues that a person can 
participate in will open up their minds to a wider array of ideas, perspectives, and beliefs. This is of 
benefit in an educational context because a goal in education is to broaden the minds of students so 
that they can see, think, and create beyond their limited classroom context.  
 

Following Bakhtin (1984, p. 26), Exploratory Dialogue should be “profoundly pluralistic.” This 
connects with Wegerif’s idea of widening. In practical terms, this means ensuring that the discussion 
does not focus too much on trying to come to a universal consensus or find the ‘correct’ answer. 
Pluralistic views on topics are encouraged, and the value in the dialogue comes from the 
understandings and interpretations between diverse viewpoints. “If one is open in a dialogue and 
listens closely, there is no final position but always a voice from outside the current consensus 
knocking on the window with a new perspective, asking to be heard” (Wegerif, 2020, p. 18). Skidmore 
(2016b) says that this is the idea of “no single viewpoint being superior to any other.” The teacher 
must provide the space for plurality to emerge, encouraging divergent thinking for interaction within 
the discussion. This interaction allows the consideration of multiple perspectives. The emphasis is 
placed not on the view in and of itself, but on ensuring that the reasoning a student uses to justify a 
particular view is made explicit (p. 39). This contrasts with Teacher-Directed Dialogue where the 
teacher is looking for a specific correct answer. Instead of searching for specific answers, Exploratory 
Dialogue seeks the reasoning behind any answer. It is through this examination of reasoning that 
learning can develop in an effective way. This is the case even where there is, in fact, a single correct 
answer. For example, where a student says that 1 + 1 = 3. The focus is not on the incorrect answer of 
3, but on the reasoning that led the student to think that the answer was 3. A critical communal 
examination of the reasoning will not only reveal an error in reasoning but also address potential 
misconceptions in student thinking. This is something Teacher-Directed Dialogue cannot do, as this 
form of interaction will state that this is the incorrect answer and restart the IRF/E sequence with 
another student until the correct answer is achieved. Visible student reasoning in discussion adds 
meaning, purpose, and contextuality to discussions, exploring uncertainties and original ideas. It 
enables students within the dialogue to evaluate, decide, and apply their own criteria to analyse the 
knowledge in question. 
 

Conclusion 

 
The importance of classroom dialogue for student achievement and wellbeing is well known. 

This paper contributes to the depth of understanding in the different kinds of dialogic pedagogy that 
teachers can employ. Notably, the role of Exploratory Dialogue is emphasised as having a strong 
positive impact on students. This kind of dialogic engagement provides teachers with an avenue to 
empower their students toward becoming critical, creative, caring, and collaborative thinkers, as well 
as good human beings. 
 

In practice, the pedagogical work required of teachers is to be aware of the ways that they 
structure talk for optimal student learning and engagement. Being sensitive to the pedagogical moves 
that are inclusive to all students is necessary for high achievement. This collaborative discussion 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

116 
 

should still be critical, analytical, and full of disagreement, making it a productive academic dialogue. 
But it does not have to be competitive and argumentative. There are many pedagogical models that 
teachers can access to ensure this efficacy, including Dialogic Instruction (Nystrand, 1997), Dialogic 
Enquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic Teaching (Alexander, 2001), Accountable Talk (Resnick et al., 2017), 
Inquiry Dialogue (Reznitskaya & Wilkinson, 2017), and Quality Talk (Wilkinson et al., 2010), and 
Philosophy for Children (Murris et al., 2016). Teachers should also be aware of those features of 
other, less effective, dialogue types so that they can avoid falling into those traps. Dialogic pedagogy is 
of lesser quality when it is in fact monologic and teacher-directed, when it is more conversational 
ideas-sharing without criticality, and when it is strongly adversarial without collaboration or reflection. 
These dialogue types will fail to provide the most beneficial classroom experience. Teachers should be 
accountable for how effective their teaching is to enable all students to participate, succeed, and excel. 

 
 

References 
Alexander, R. J. (2001). From Conversation to Dialogue. Blackwell.  

http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Lessons-for-the-chattering-
classes.pdf.  

Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. Dialogos.  
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison Welsley.  
Alston, W. P., & Brandt, R. B. (1974). The Problems of Philosophy (2, Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.  
Anderson, N., Chapin, S., & O’Connor, C. (2011). Classroom Discussions: Seeing Math Discourse in 

Action. Scholastic Math Solutions.  
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Kluwer Academic Publishers.  
Andriessen, J., & Coirier, P. (1999). Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing. Amsterdam University 

Press.  
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Affective Learning Together: Social and Emotional 

Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. Routledge.  
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2020). Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning. 

In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on 
Dialogic Education. Routledge.  

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four 
Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. University of Texas Press.  

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). Manchester 
University Press.  

Barnes, D. (1992). From Communication to Curriculum (2 ed.). Penguin.  
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory Talk for Learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring 

Talk in Schools. Sage.  
Blumenfeld, P., C, Soloway, E., Marx, R., W, Krajcik, J., S, Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). 

Motivating Project-based LearningL Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning. 
Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.  

Boyd, M., P, & Galda, L. (2011). Real Talk in Elementary Classrooms: Effective Oral Language Practice. 
The Guilford Press.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

117 
 

Bråten, S. (1988). Dialogic Mind: The Infant and the Adult in Protoconversation. In M. E. Carvallo 
(Ed.), Nature, Cognition and System I. Theory and Decision Library. Springer.  

Brown, C. P. (2007). ‘It’s More than Content’: Expanding the Conception of Early Learning 
Standards. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 9(1).  

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing Sustainable Feedback Practices. Studies 
in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407.  

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2 ed.). Heinemann.  
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-Year Intervention 

Study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381.  
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.  

Edwards-Groves, C., Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2014). Classroom Talk: Understanding Dialogue, Pedagogy 
and Practice. PETAA.  

Edwards-Groves, C., & Davidson, C. (2020). Metatalk for a Dialogic Turn in the First Years of 
Schooling. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of 
Research on Dialogic Education. Routledge.  

Edwards-Groves, C., & Hoare, R. L. (2012). Talkig to Learning: Focussing Teacher Education on 
Dialogu as a Core Practice for Teaching and Learnig. Australasian Journal of Technology 
Education, 37(8), 82-100.  

Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating Classroom Talk (2 ed.). Falmer.  
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the 

Classroom. Routledge.  
Fisher, R. (2009). Creative Dialogue: Talk for Thinking in the Classroom. Routledge.  
Flanders, N. (1970). Analysing Teaching Behaviour. Addison-Wesley.  
Freidman, M. (2013). Introduction. In K. Hutchinson & F. Jenkins (Eds.), Women in Philosophy: What 

Needs to Change? Oxford University Press.  
French, G. (2012). The HighScope Approach to Early Learning. In M. Mahuna, M & M. Taylor 

(Eds.), Early Childhood Education and Care: An Introduction for Students in Ireland (pp. 127-134). 
Gill & McMillan.  

Galton, M. (1999). Commentary: Interpreting Classroom Practice around the Globe. In R. J. 
Alexander, P. Broadfoot, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from Comparing: New Directions in 
Comparative Educational Research. Symposium Books.  

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, T. (1999). Changes in Patterns of Teacher 
Interaction in Primary Classrooms. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 23-37.  

Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary Classroom (the ORACLE Project). 
Routledge & Kegan Paul.  

Gardner, S. (1995). Inquiry is No Mere Conversation. Analytic Teaching, 16(2).  
Gillies, M. (2006). Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviours During Cooperative and Small-group 

Learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287.  
Golding, C. (2010). "That's a better idea!" philosophical progress for philosophy for children The University of 

Melbourne]. Melbourne.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

118 
 

Haneda, M. (2017). Dialogic Learning and Teaching across Diverse Contexts: Promises and 
Challenges. Language and Education, 31(1), 1-5.  

Hardman, F. (2020). Embedding a Dialogic Pedagogy in the Classroom: What is the Research Telling 
Us? In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of 
Research on Dialogic Education. Routledge.  

Hardman, J. (2020). Analysing Student Talk Moves in Whole-Class Teaching. In N. Mercer, R. 
Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic 
Education. Routledge.  

Harris, J. R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. Bloomsbury.  
Hattie, J. (2020). Visible Learning Meta: Global Research Database. In Corwin.  
Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2005). Subject Knowledge in Early Childhood Curriculum and Pedagogy: 

Beliefs and Practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 66-79.  
Howe, C. J. (2010). Peer Groups and Children's Development: Psychological and Educational Perspectives. 

Wiley.  
Howe, C. J., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom Dialogue: A Systematic Reivew Across Four Decades of 

Research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 325-356.  
Howe, C. J., & Mercer, N. (2017). Commentary on the Papers. Language and Education, 31(1), 83-92.  
Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., & Gillies, R. M. (2019). Key Issues in Productive Classroom Talk and 

Interventions. Educational Review, 71(3), 334-349.  
Konings, K., D, Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merrienboer, J., J. (2005). Towards More Powerful Learning 

Environments Through Combining the Perspectives of Designer, Teachers, and Students. 
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 645-660.  

Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The Discursive Practice of Participation in an 
Elementary Classroom Community. Instructional Science, 33, 213-250.  

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young 
Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545-552.  

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the Computer: A 
Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported Environment. 
Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.  

Langer, E. J. (2016). The Power of Mindful Learning. Hachette.  
Lefstein, A. (2010). More Helpful as Problem than Solution: Some Implications of Situating Dialogue 

in Classrooms. In K. Littleton & C. J. Howe (Eds.), Educational Dialogues: Understanding and 
Promoting Productive Interaction. Routledge.  

Leva, M. (2015). Supporting Student Learning with Discussion and Dialogue University of Victoria]. British 
Columbia.  

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories 
of Human Sense-Making. Information Age Publishing INC.  

Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. Routledge.  
Markova, I. (2003). Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge University Press.  
Marton, F., & Häggström, K. (2017). Teaching Through Variation. In R. Huang & Y. Li (Eds.), 

Teaching and Learning Mathematics Through Variation. SensePublishers.  
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.  
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organisation in the Classroom. Harvard University Press.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

119 
 

Mercer, N. (1996). The Quality of Talk in Children's Collaborative Activity in the Classroom. Learning 
and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.  

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge.  
Mercer, N. (2010). The Analysis of Classroom Talk: Methods and Methodologies. British Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.  
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The Value of Exploratory Talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson 

(Eds.), Exploring Talk in Schools. Sage.  
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative Discourse Idealised and Realised: 

Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 
283-297.  

Moulton, J. (1983). A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method. In S. Harding & M. B. 
Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Reality (Vol. 161, pp. 149-164). 
Springer.  

Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2018). 
Quality of Educational Dialogue and Association with Students’ Academic Performance. 
Learning and Instruction, 55, 67-79.  

Murris, K., Haynes, J., & Gregor, M. J. (2016). The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophy for 
Children. Routledge.  

Myers, N., M, & Nulty, D., D. (2009). How to Use (five) Curriculum Design Principles to Allign 
Authentic Learning Environments, Assessments, Students’ Approaches to Thinking and 
Learning Outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565-577.  

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, Talk, Talk: Teaching & Learning in Whole Class Discourses. Research Papers 
in Education, 21(1), 19-41.  

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R. (2005). Talking, Listening, Learning: Effective Talk in the Primary 
Classroom. McGraw-Hill Education.  

Nachowitz, M., & Brumer, N. (2014). Teaching the Talk, Not the Text. Voices from the Middle, 22(1), 
15-21.  

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the 
English Classroom. Teachers College Press.  

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in Time: 
Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse. Discourse 
Processes, 35(2), 135-198.  

O'Connor, C., Michaels, S., & Chapin, S. (2015). ‘Scaling Down’ to Explore the Role of Talk in 
Learning: From District Intervention to Controlled Classroom Study. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. 
C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socialising Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue. 
American Educational Research Association.  

Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2008). The Emergent Curriculum: Navigating a Complex Course Between 
Unguided Learning and Planned Enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 313-328.  

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learning in Science: The Role of Collaborative Critical Discourse. 
Science, 328, 463-466.  

Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2015). Discursive Cultures of Learning in (everyday) Mathematics Teaching: 
A Video-Based Study on Mathematics Teaching in German and Swiss Classrooms. In L. B. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

120 
 

Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socialising Intelligence through Academic Talk 
and Dialogue. American Educational Research Association.  

Phillipson, N., & Wegerif, R. (2016). Dialogic Education: Mastering Core Concepts Through Thinking 
Together. Routledge.  

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (2017). Accountable Talk: Instructional Dialogue 
that Builds the Mind. In. Geneva: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the 
International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S. N., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next Generation Research in 
Dialogic Learning. In G. E. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of 
Teaching and Learning. Wiley.  

Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the 
Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133.  

Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2017). The Most Reasonable Answer: Helping Students Build Better 
Arguments Together. Harvard Education Press.  

Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century 
Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.  

Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The Tension Between Authoritative and 
Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning Making Interactions in High 
School Science Lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631.  

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers 
and Pupils. Oxford University Press.  

Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The Dynamic of School Development. Open University Press.  
Skidmore, D. (2006). Pedagogy and Dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 503-514.  
Skidmore, D. (2016a). Classroom Discourse: A Survey of Research. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami 

(Eds.), Dialogic Pedagogy: The Importance of Dialogue in Teaching and Learning. Multilingual 
Matters.  

Skidmore, D. (2016b). Dialogism and Education. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic 
Pedagogy: The Importance of Dialogue in Teaching and Learning. Multilingual Matters.  

Skidmore, D. (2016c). Pedagogy and Dialogue. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic 
Pedagogy: The Importance of Dialogue in Teaching and Learning. Multilingual Matters.  

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive Whole Class Teaching in the 
National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 403-419.  

Stahl, G., Cress, U., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2014). Dialogic Foundations of CSCL. International 
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 117-125.  

Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Productice 
Mathematical Discussion: Five Practices for Helping Teachers Move Beyond Show & Tell. 
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340.  

Stevens, R. (1912). The Question as a Measure of Efficiency in Instruction: A Critical Study of Classroom 
Practice (Vol. 48). Columbia University, Teachers College Press.  

Stremmel, A. J., & Fu, V. R. (1993). Teaching in the Zone of Proximal Development: Implications for 
Responsive Teaching Practices. Child & Youth Care Forum, 22(5), 337-350.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 2 (2021) 

  
 

121 
 

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French 
Immersion Students Working Together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.  

Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative Learning in Mathematics. 
http://www.intranet.ebc.edu.mx/.../aprendizaje_colaborativo_130212.pdf. 

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social 
Context. Cambridge University Press.  

Tinzamann, M., B,, Jones, B., F,, Fennimore, T., F,, Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is 
the Collaborative Classroom. http://www.methodenpool.uni-koeln.de/koopunterricht. 

Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and Cooperation in Early Infancy: A Description of Primary 
Intersubjectivity. Before Speech: The Beginning of Interpersonal Communication, 1, 530-571.  

Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2015). The Role of Dialogue in Philosophy for Children. In L. B. 
Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socialising Intelligence through Academic Talk 
and Dialogue. AERA.  

Vaish, V. (2008). Interactional Patterns in Singapore’s English Classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 
19(4), 366-377.  

van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017). The Effect of Productive 
Classroom Talk and Metacommunication on Young Children’s Oral Communicative 
Competence and Subject Matter Knowledge: An Intervention Study in Early Childhood 
Education. Learning and Instruction, 48, 14-22.  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard 
University Press.  

Wangru, C. (2016). On Teacher Talk From the Perspective of Dialogue Theory. Cross Cultural 
Communication, 15(5), 38-46.  

Wegerif, R. (2020). Introduction to the Theory of Dialogic Education. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. 
Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education. Routledge.  

Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (1997). Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Multilingual 
Matters.  

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge 
University Press.  

Wilkinson, I. A. G., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., Nelson, K. (2017). 
Toward a More Dialogic Pedagogy: Changing Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Through 
Professional Development in Language Arts Classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 65-82.  

Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, K. P. (2010). Developing a Model of Quality Talk about 
Literary Text. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing Reading Researchers to Life: Essays 
in Honor of Isabel L. Beck. Guilford Press.  

Young, R. (1991). Critical Theory and Classroom Talk. Multilingual Matters.  
 

Address Correspondences to: 
Ben Kilby  
Monash University, Department of Education, Melbourne, Australia 
Email: Benjamin.kilby@monash.edu  

http://www.intranet.ebc.edu.mx/.../aprendizaje_colaborativo_130212.pdf
http://www.methodenpool.uni-koeln.de/koopunterricht
mailto:Benjamin.kilby@monash.edu

