






















































Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

From Constructivism to Dialogism in the Classroom. Theory and

Learning Environments

Roseli Rodrigues de Mello 1

1 ) Universidade Federal de São Carlos

Date of publication: June 24th, 201 2

To cite this article: Mello, R.R. (201 2). From Constructivism to Dialogism in

the Classroom. Theory and Learning Environments. International Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1(2), 1 27-1 52. doi: 1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.08

To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System

and to Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Non-Derivative License.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2012.08


IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology Vol. 1 No. 2

June 2012 pp.127-152

From Constructivism to
Dialogism in the Classroom.
Theory and Learning
Environments

Roseli Rodrigues de Mello

Federal University ofSão Carlos, FAPESP - CNPq

Abstract

This paper discusses the move from learning theories from the industrial society to

learning theories from and for dialogic societies. While in the past intra-

psychological elements, such as mental schemata ofprior knowledge, were the key

to explain learning, today theories point to interaction and dialogue as main means

for achieving deep understandings of the curriculum. Concepts arising from

psychology and sociology are essential to understand this new conceptualization of

learning: dialogic learning, which implies a historico-cultural analysis of mind and

the concept of communicative action. This dialogic turn in the explanation of

learning has also found its manifestation in classrooms. The Interactive Groups is

one learning environment grounded in the theory of dialogic learning which leads

to improved academic achievement and coexistence. The article points out some of

the dialogic elements of Interactive Groups which explain those results, illustrating

how the dialogic construction of knowledge can be favored in classrooms

worldwide.

Keywords: interaction, group work, constructivism, dialogic learning,

interactive groups.

2012 Hipatia Press

ISSN 2014-3591

DOI: 10.4471/ijep.2012.08



T

128

(Aubert, Flecha, Garcia, Flecha & Racionero, 2008). Taking educational

approaches mainly grounded in knowledge produced by psychology, we

highlight three schools of thought that have influenced school practices

since the second halfofthe 20th century.

  In the first school of thought we find psychological theories that see

learning as something that results from and depends on “suitable” and

“advanced” models of thinking and behavior, models embodied in the

figure of the teacher or specialist. In this perspective, programming of

the exposure, relationships, materials, and interactions discourages

alternatives of group work or of interaction among peers in the

classroom, except in the form oftutoring. In interactions between peers,

the more advanced student would serve as a parameter for the less

advanced one, and would thus be a source for the other to learn. It is

assumed that the most capable will never benefit from the interaction,

but indeed would run the risk of regressing (Rosenthal & Zimmerman,

1972). Knowledge, understood as originating from a single stable and

authoritative source, passes through the scrutiny of the teacher, a stable

agent of authority, to be learned by each student. Also, it is considered

that all students should reach the same learning port.

he organization of classrooms, since the school became part of

educational systems, has assumed important variations

according to the evolution of societies and learning theories

Figure 1. Vertical diagram ofknowledge-teacher-student relationship.1

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



129IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Later, in a different direction and concerned with the study and

understanding of the processes of signification typical of human

cognition, constructivist approaches began to strongly affect the

organization of schools and classrooms (Lima, 1990). As a whole,

constructivist theories have shown that several sources of knowledge

and different experiences are at play in a classroom, and that the teacher

must stop assuming the role of a filter of knowledge to be conveyed to

the student, or ofan organizer of the learning material to be used by the

individual student, adopting, instead, the role of organizer of the

students’ relationship with knowledge and with each other. Starting from

very different assumptions about intelligence, and thus producing very

dissimilar theories and equally divergent school outcomes, we begin by

discussing two constructivist theories, the Piagetian and the Ausubelian,

which share a common vision of intelligence as something individual,

but which differ from each other in their constitution.

  In Piaget’s constructivist theory, the structures and functions of

human development are universal, occurring in unalterable sequential

stages, with individuals varying only in their pace of learning according

to their interactions with the physical and social environment (Piaget,

1987; Flavell, 1988). This pace can be modified by interaction among

peers whose levels of learning differ from each other (Perret-Clermont,

1980; Perret-Clermont & Schubauer-Leoni, 1981). Also, the starting and

ending points, even at different paces, are common to everyone.

  In the Ausubelian perspective, individual intelligence is determined

by the individual’s social background (including his or her cultural,

racial and gender origins), which would determine his or her greater or

lesser propensity for school learning, since each new lesson learned

depends on existing prior knowledge to which the new lesson can be

linked (Ausubel, 1968; Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1980). Thus,

intelligence is equated with schooled ways of thinking, which posits

socially marginalized groups as groups that are less capable (Valencia &

Suzuky, 2011). It would be up to the teacher or teachers to prepare the

lesson, the training courses, or the instructional material based on two

elements: the student’s level ofprior knowledge and the structure of the

contents to be learned, organizing the classroom based on meaningful

learning by transmission on behalfof the teacher or by discovery. In the



Ausubelian perspective, it is primarily individual programs based on

each student’s prior knowledge which are most valued. Group work

choices may consider the possibility of joining students who share the

same type of origin, experience and levels of ability in the same

classroom, or setting up different classrooms according to ability level.

Considering that students have unequal starting points, it is expected

that the points ofarrival will be unequal as well. All research on ability

grouping has demonstrated such student grouping to be ineffective in

raising the levels of achievement of the less advantaged (INCLUD-ED

Consortiu, 2009; Oakes, 1985).

  According to the Piagetian and Ausubelian constructivist theories,

scientific/academic knowledge synthesizes reality, but its apprehension

is determined by the student’s interpretative ability. In other words, the

student grasps and learns knowledge: a) according to the consecutive

and universal stages of development; b) depending on his or her group

of origin and intrinsic motivation; c) through the stage at which he or

she is, and d) in a manner determined by the starting cognitive point. In

this framework, interactions serve to generate cognitive conflict

between peers at the same developmental stage or at the border between

two stages (Ferreiro, 2001). Such interactions serve for adaptation

between peers at similar levels who collaborate with one another, or

between peers at unequal levels to motivate the less advanced through a

more affective than cognitive effect. Overall, both approaches, illustrate

that in the constructivist school ofthought ofpsychology we move from

a vertical diagram of the relationship between knowledge, teacher and

student, to a triangular diagram of relationships, which has been known

as “interactive triangle” (See Figure 2).

More recently, delving deeper into the relationship between know-

ledge and meaning, principally under the influence of the Soviet school,

constructivist approaches of psychology have focused on the study of

the relationship between meaning and sense in learning processes,

which has led constructivist scholars to point to the need to consider

dialogic and communicative perspectives ofinteractions.

Referring to this process, Zittoun, Mirza & Perret-Clermont (2007)

point out that the criticisms ofthe Piagetian theory about the insufficient

attention to the cultural aspects of human development led Piaget

130 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



himself to engage in new studies in different cultures (Piaget, 1966).

Clinical trials about conservation (quantity, mass and volume) became a

focal point in psychology, to verify the universality of the structures of

thought, and were recognized as the most suitable model for the study of

intelligence in different cultures. Under theoretical and methodological

criticisms (Cole & Scribner, 1974), researchers in the so-called

transcultural or intercultural studies area produced a body ofknowledge

that led to the advancement of understanding about psychological

phenomena in relation to cultures which generates specific

significations and meanings. According to Zittoun, Mirza, & Perret-

Clermont (2007), in reference to the methods of investigation and the

results found:

131IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Figure 2. Interactive Triangle ofthe two-way relationship knowledge-teacher-

student.2

The decentration treated by intercultural research thus reveals a

hitherto invisible dimension: the signification of the task is not given

in itself. The person to whom the task is assigned interprets and

(re)constructs it, making use of his “personal culture,” i.e., the

languages, rules and modes of thought which he grew up with and to

which he has access (p. 67).

Each person’s group oforigin and ofcoexistence are thus considered as

sources and archives of knowledge that are deployed in any action of

the individuals, which give meaning to the other, to his expectations and



to his actions, thus enabling him to engage in interactions with the

objects in specific activities, or to communicate with others if the task

requires cooperation in the activity. Unlike Ausubel et. al. (1980), who

consider base cultures as subcultures -therefore less complex and

causing environments in which less gifted intelligences are produced-,

intercultural and transcultural studies have brought fundamental

elements of culture as the context for the successful psychological

development ofindividuals.

  Returning to the Piagetian perspective, the focus of analysis and

understanding lies in the mental structures of the individual, built

through constant interactions with the environment – physical and social

– during his development. The mind of the child is primary and

egocentric and therefore, from this perspective, there is primacy of the

individual in relation to social exchanges and to the cultural

environment.

  In the other position are the sociocultural or historical-cultural

approaches, which consider the human mind as social and cultural

(Vigotski, Luria & Leontiev, 1988). In this perspective, every act of the

child is seen as occurring in an environment built culturally through the

history of humanity (Tomasello, 1999). Thus, social interaction is

constitutive of human development and of the mental processes of

individuals.

Zittoun, Mirza, & Perret-Clermont (2007) organize the productions of

sociocultural or cultural historical approaches, which they call post-

Piagetian, into four distinct perspectives, as follows: (a) one that focuses

on narrations and cultural works (Bruner, 1960, 1983, 1990), (b) one

that focuses on activity as a central concept in the analysis of culture

and mind (Scribner & Cole 1981; James Wertsch, 1991, 2002; Rogoff,

1990, 1995, 1998, 2003; Scribner, 1984), (c) one that focuses on the

semiotic processes (Valsiner, 2000; Abbey, 2006; Lawrence & Valsiner

2003), (d) the one that focuses on dialogic processes, where are grouped

the authors dedicated to the analysis of discursive processes and of

negotiation of understanding and repositioning in group relations

(Pontecorvo, 2004; Clôt, 1999; Rochex,1999; Muller & Perret-

Clermont, 1999).

But what are the consequences of these most recent contributions to

classroom organization and learning processes in school? How do they

132 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



support the social networking that individuals need for their

development? In what follows we will answer this question through

theories related to the concept ofdialogic learning.

In today’s context, the production of academic knowledge is intense as

information is widely disseminated and incorporated into production

systems and social life. The new information and communication

technologies generate networks of creation, diffusion and the

incorporation of knowledge into production processes in real time

(Castells, 1999; Ianni, 2004; Flecha, 2000; Aubert et al, 2008;

Racionero et al, 2012). In the Information Society, having access to

information and knowledge networks, knowing how to select, among

the multitude of accessible elements, analyzing what is found through

critical scrutiny in order to make use of it become essential skills for

effective functioning in many social spheres. Importantly, the

democratization of the Information Society also depends on all students

developing these abilities.

In addition, in current societies there is a growing demand for

dialogue as a way to negotiate different aspects of life, and as a means

to build coexistence in different social spaces. This phenomenon has

been described as the “dialogic turn” of societies (Flecha, Gómez &

Puigvert, 2001). Violence arises when dialogue is prevented, this

augmenting inequalities. Thus, the incorporation of dialogue in the

construction of better alternatives in society is a requirement to ensure

equal rights and a better life for all. The transformation of school

education in the light ofdialogic needs and parameters is the subject of

the next sections ofthis article.

  The dialogic turn of society has also found expression in learning

theories. In this sense, some scholars talk about a dialogic turn of

educational psychology (Racionero & Padrós, 2011). This turn implies,

on the one hand, placing interaction and dialogue at the center ofcurrent

explanations of human learning, and design interactive learning

environments that respond to how people learn in dialogic societies.

133IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Dialogic learning: interaction, intersubjectivity

and learning in the information society



134

An essential view of theories of dialogic teaching and learning is that

mind and cognition develops in social interaction. Vygotsky (1996)

contributes to the understanding that the mind is formed socially,

assuming a movement that is initially interpersonal, and later becomes

intrapersonal. The process of development of each individual takes

place through his relationships with others in his surroundings, with the

more experienced adults in the culture assuming a leading role. Under

the influence of Vygotsky, Bruner (2001) defines culture as “a set of

tools with techniques and procedures to understand his world and deal

with it” (p. 98), or “a way ofdealing with human problems: with human

transactions of all types represented by symbols” (p. 99). In providing

this definition, Bruner can be considered one ofthe leading theoreticians

of the concept of the social mind (Correia, 2003). For him,

communication between individuals in a process of interaction

mobilizes and produces knowledge, because “by making use of

language to achieve their ends, children have more than mastery of a

communication code; they negotiate procedures and meanings and when

they do this, they are learning the path of culture as well as the path of

language” (Alves et. al., 2007, p. 328). Rogoff (1990, 1995, 1998) has

been also central in explaining the role of culture in development; for

her, individual and culture are seen to be in a state of constant

development, dynamically linked and inseparable (Costa & Lira, 2002).

  If intersubjectivity is the basis for the construction ofsubjectivity and

intelligence, then, interaction is a factor driving development. But are all

types ofinteractions equally effective in driving learning? What kind of

interaction leads to deeper knowledge construction?

  Habermas (1987) helps us answer this question. It is in the interaction

between different individuals that share unquestionable knowledge

which belongs to the life world and is taken for granted how knowledge

becomes problematized, enabling individuals to think about and

examine it, and then make deliberate choices about its pertinence. Thus,

when their basic knowledge is questioned, individuals feel themselves

challenged, a process that links knowledge creation and interaction to

identity development.

Theoretical ground ofdialogic learning environments

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



  Each individual is constituted life worlds, whose knowledge he

constitutes and reproduces, but that is called into question when such

knowledge is removed from the general consensus, a situation only

generated by the interaction between different individuals or by

situations that call what is taken for granted into question. When this

occurs, two paths are possible: conflict – if dialogue between the

individuals cannot be established because there is no will to reach

understanding or communicative consensus – or communicative action,

producing new intersubjective knowledge that allows for joint action in

the shared world. Mind, knowledge and action in the world are thus

permanently constituted in the processes of communicative action

(Habermas, 1987).

  The deep relation between knowledge, its context of production, and

its intended use is emphasized by both Habermas (1987) and Freire

(1970, 1997). However, while Habermas is more concerned with the

rational use that is made of knowledge and of techniques and

technologies, Freire focuses more on the question of purpose of the

production. Freire (1970) offers a critical perspective on knowledge to

be produced, taught and learned, based on for and against what and who

such knowledge is created. Habermas (1987) deposits elements of

criticality in the presence of the greatest possible diversity of people

upon analyzing the efficacy and correctness of the application of

concepts, techniques and technologies to different contexts. The

discussion between different individuals, assuming communicative

rationality in the process of argumentation permeated by pretension of

truth, appropriateness and authenticity is the way to achieve deeper

understandings of reality and the result of reaching a state of

intersubjectivity.

  The concept of intersubjectivity is central to both these theoreticians.

Habermas (1987) and Freire (1997) formulated theories that

ontologically understood the individual and the system/s as inseparable.

This perspective is compatible with psychological theories that consider

mind and intelligence as social, understanding the processes of learning

and subjectivity as intersubjective. Habermas (1987) expresses this

inseparability in the theoretical formulation of the relation between life

world and system. Freire (1997) expresses the dialectics between

individuals and systems by conceptualizing objectivity and subjectivity

135IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



in dialectic relationship, or the link consciousness-world as inseparable.

  In Freire (2003), the concept of “unity in diversity” is central and

embodies the notion that dialogue and unity among different people,

unity in the diversity of their origins and life projects, are necessary to

enable individuals to fight for decent living conditions and to respect

different ways of being. The opposite is what produces inequalities

(Freire, 1970). This analysis shows how society and culture are present

in the constitution of identities. Note that Freire (2003) draws attention

to the fact that multiculturalism is not a “natural” process, but a product

of colonialism, domination, and wars. Hence, to be experienced as a

source of knowledge and human enrichment, a political decision must

be made about how to achieve coexistence and the protection of those

that are different (Mello, 2009a). For Habermas (1987), the coexistence

of different cultures, not just side by side but also with one another,

requires communication between them. The author claims the need for

deliberative democracy to ensure the rights of citizens with different

cultural backgrounds to live under the same rights.

  The concept ofdialogic learning (Flecha, 2000; Aubert et. al., 2008)

is strongly underpinned by the aforementioned theories, and joins the

most important interactionist and dialogic contributions from

psychology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy, etc to explain how

people learn best in current dialogic societies. Dialogic learning takes

place when a series of principles, seven, develop in social interaction,

namely: egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation,

instrumental dimension, creation ofmeaning, solidarity and equality of

differences.

  Egalitarian dialogue assumes that the statements and propositions of

each participant are considered given the value of their contributions

and not depending on their status in relation to age, profession, gender,

social class, educational level, etc. This makes possible, for example,

that the guide of a non-expert adult becomes acknowledged in the

classroom as central to enhance all children’s school learning (Tellado

& Sava, 2010). Additionally, in environments designed upon the notion

ofdialogic learning, participants are often allowed to use their cultural

intelligence (Flecha, 2000), that is, the set of academic, practical, and

communicative abilities, to engage in knowledge construction. But this

occurs in learning environments where three conditions are favored and

136 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



met: a) interactive self-confidence, b) cultural transfer (ofnon-academic

abilities to academic settings), and c) dialogic creativity (new

knowledge resulting from dialogue that capitalizes on everyone’s

abilities).

  Importantly, by sharing different points of view and ways of solving

problems through dialogue guided by validity claims, , transformation

occurs at two levels: intrapsychological and interpsychologial.

Intrapsychological because though dialogue existing knowledge gets

transformed and expanded. Interpsychological because what is shared

mentally is the result of the addition of every person’s knowledge in

dialogue with the knowledge of the others, which generates a new state

of mind. Overall, dialogic learning is aimed at transformation, personal

and socio-cultural, and not to adaptation.

  Transformation requires emphasis on the instrumental dimension of

dialogue as a means for knowledge making. Such instrumental

dimension refers to those aspects of school knowledge which are

required to trespass the doors of socio-economic access to the

Information Society (Apple & Beane, 2007). Also, in a society where

social change is constant, it is easier to see more processes of loss of

meaning (Habermas, 1987). Participation in dialogic learning emerges

as an important instrument for the creation of meaning (Elboj &

Puigvert, 2004). Faced with multiple possible choices of how to live, it

is difficult to design a single project for all groups or people, and it is

difficult for the school to know which values to foster. But usually

dominant groups impose their views and discourses, also in schools, and

this generates crises ofmeaning. However, in dialogues where different

points of view emerge and are acknowledged on the ground of

argumentation, individuals come to know more possibilities and thus

choose more freely and critically. Such process creates more oppor-

tunities for gaining greater coherence between dreams and actual life.

This in turn relates to the principle of solidarity. In dialogic learning

environments participants share their knowledge for the benefit of all

members ofthe group.

Egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, the

instrumental dimension, creation of meaning and solidarity are also

accompanied by the principle of equality of differences or, as Freire

(2003) posed it, “unity in diversity”. This principle breaks with the

137IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



inertia that cultural relativism imposes on people from different cultural

groups, turning traditions into a mold to which their members must

conform (perpetuating not only the relations of power and dominance

within their own cultures but also the relations ofpower ofthe dominant

culture upon the others). Through dialogic learning, each person builds

new understandings about life and the world and reflects about his or

her culture and that ofothers, thus gaining greater freedom to choose his

way of living and relating to others, as well as creating respect for

different modes ofliving (Giddens, 1995).

  The seven principles of dialogic learning are related among them,

despite each exists on its own as well. In each, meaning, life

experiences, emotion, cognition, culture, and other elements come

together, involving different people with whom students interact. This,

again, differentiates dialogic learning from prior conceptions ofteaching

and learning. From the perspective of dialogic learning, the network of

interactions and relationships that is formed around each student should

be seen as a powerful learning generator of learning, which is no longer

stable and merely triangular, as it was conceptualized in the

constructivism approach. Students’ developmental trajectories are

embedded in complex networks that must be understood and taken into

account in schools’ organization, including that of the classroom, as a

space that fosters intersubjectivity. Such constellation of spaces for

students’ learning and development that dialogic learning environments

need to take into account can be represented as follows:

138 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



Interactive Groups is an inclusive and dialogic type of classroom

organization and student grouping (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009)

that illustrates how the dialogic turn of societies has reached the

classroom. When a classroom is organized in interactive groups,

teachers create three or four small groups of students depending on the

total number of students in the class. The criterion for group

composition always is for the maximum heterogeneity in terms of

mastery level, ability, culture, race, ethnicity, language, gender, life

styles, etc. While meeting this criterion, the grouping is conceptually

driven, with teachers making ongoing changes depending on subject

areas, lessons within every subject, social relations among students, and

suggestions from volunteers. Family and community members

participate in the classroom promoting dialogue and solidarity in the

139IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Figure 3. Contexts ofinteraction, learning and development.3

Interactive groups: dialogic classroom organization



groups with the objective that all students reach the highest learning

teachers create three or four small groups of students depending on the

total number of students in the class. The criterion for group

composition always is for the maximum heterogeneity in terms of

mastery level, ability, culture, race, ethnicity, language, gender, life

styles, etc. While meeting this criterion, the grouping is conceptually

driven, with teachers making ongoing changes depending on subject

areas, lessons within every subject, social relations among students, and

suggestions from volunteers. Family and community members

participate in the classroom promoting dialogue and solidarity in the

groups with the objective that all students reach the highest learning

objectives. One community volunteer is placed in each group. This

allows for the classroom teacher to manage the whole classroom

dynamics while the students are working, or she or he can become an

extra support in one of the groups. The activities in each group are

approximately 20 minutes long, and after that time, each group moves to

the next table and works on a different activity with a different adult. In

some classrooms, it is the adult who moves rather than the students. The

tasks in the groups are short and usually there is a thematic connection

between them, with each focused on a different dimension of the lesson

topic.

  In the groups, students help each other and engage in dialogues to

deepen the understanding of the content knowledge they are working

on. The teacher is in charge of the classroom management, solves

volunteers’ and students’ questions when necessary, and sometimes

provides extra help for struggling students.

  Schools involved in the Learning Communities project (Mello,

2009b), a project of educational and social transformation, apply a

series ofSuccessful Educational Actions (SEAs), among which we find

the Interactive Groups. All these schools have shown to raise the

academic achievement of their students as well as to improve social

relations organizing the classrooms into interactive groups (INCLUD-

ED 2006-2011). There are more than a hundred schools working as

Learning Communities in Spain, and there are also schools as learning

communities in Brazil and Paraguay. In this article, the organization and

learning processes in interactive groups are explored through the case of

three Brazilian schools.

140 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



Three municipal primary schools in medium-sized towns in the interior

of the state of São Paulo, which had been transformed into Learning

Communities, participated in a survey carried out from 2007 to 2009 to

determine the impact of the educational project on their practices

(Mello, 2009b). The study was conducted with the participation of 34

professionals (teachers, coordinators and principals), 10 volunteers

(women of various educational levels, ages and cultural backgrounds),

and 50 students (9 and 10-year-old girls and boys from different cultural

backgrounds).

141IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Method

Participants

Procedure

Based on the communicative methodology of research (Gómez,

Puigvert & Flecha, 2011), interviews were held with all the participants

individually and in focus groups. The interviews (I) explored the

participants’ experiences, analyses and points of view regarding the

processes and outcomes of learning and interaction in interactive

groups. Transcripts of the interviews were coded by school (S1, S2 and

S3), by category of the participant (professional – P –, student – s –, or

volunteer – v –) and by number of participants (professionals: 1-34;

students: 1-50, and volunteers: 1-10). In the two sessions of the focus

groups (FG_1 and FG_2), conducted with each category ofparticipants,

the focus of the discussion was how interactive groups contribute to

learning and to improve the relations of coexistence in the classroom.

Finally, the paragraphs ofeach transcript of the interviews and the focus

groups were numbered (§1-98) and, following the communicative

methodology, they were assigned to two analytical dimensions:

transformative (t.e.) and exclusionary (e.f.).



Results

142

In terms of simple frequencies, the analysis ofall paragraphs (a total of

681, distributed as follows: 250 from students, 348 from professionals

and 83 from volunteers) led to the identification of 581 paragraphs

about transformative dimensions of learning or living together in

interactive groups, while 89 paragraphs indicated exclusionary

dimensions.

With respect to the transformative dimensions, four categories

emerged: improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 128; p.: 195; v.: 59),

improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 91; p:122; v: 14), learning

while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 29; p: 2; v: 10), and

changes in self-concept (s; 4; p: 0; v: 0). As for the exclusionary

dimensions, two themes emerged: insufficient number of volunteers (s:

2; p.: 18; v.:0), and inappropriate behavior of some adolescents in their

role ofvolunteer (s.: 0; p.: 9; v.: 1).

The analysis of the data collected through the discussion groups, led

to 791 paragraphs, distributed as follows: 112 from students, 535 from

professionals, and 145 from volunteers. In terms of simple frequencies,

the analysis of the paragraphs, led to the identification of663 fragments

about transformative dimensions on learning or living together in the

classroom, and 128 indicated exclusionary dimensions. With regard to

transformative dimensions, the 4 categories that emerged in the

interviews were the same as those from the analysis of the interviews:

improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 86; p.: 149; v.: 121),

improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 24; p: 343 ; v: 21), learning

while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 7; p: 16; v: 0 ), and

changes in self-concept (s: 0; p: 0; v: 2). As for the exclusionary

dimensions, the same two themes that emerged in the interviews arose

here too: insufficient number of volunteers (s: 2; p.: 18; v.:0), and

inappropriate behavior ofsome adolescents in their role ofvolunteer (s.:

0; p.: 9; v.: 1).

Interactive groups have two main objectives: to accelerate learning

and to improve relations of coexistence in the classroom. As the data

analyzed shows, both objectives are strongly emphasized by the

participants, who added two other benefits related to the guide by a an

adult who is more experienced in the culture of reference: the partici-

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



pants’ improved self-concept, and the possibility of teaching and

learning at the same time. Exclusionary dimensions had to do with the

need for more volunteers to promote supportive interactions in the

interactive groups.

To illustrate the qualitative part of the results of the study, in what

follows, we highlight a series ofexcerpts from interviews with different

categories of participants regarding the transformative dimensions that

interactive groups bring to classroom insteractions. In the following

quotation, a teacher highlights how interactive groups enhance learning

processes and academic performance and, as a result, ultimately,

students’ learning is accelerated:

143IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

In terms of simple frequencies, the analysis ofall paragraphs (a total of

681, distributed as follows: 250 from students, 348 from professionals

and 83 from volunteers) led to the identification of 581 paragraphs

about transformative dimensions of learning or living together in

interactive groups, while 89 paragraphs indicated exclusionary

dimensions.

With respect to the transformative dimensions, four categories

emerged: improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 128; p.: 195; v.: 59),

improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 91; p:122; v: 14), learning

while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 29; p: 2; v: 10), and

changes in self-concept (s; 4; p: 0; v: 0). As for the exclusionary

dimensions, two themes emerged: insufficient number of volunteers (s:

2; p.: 18; v.:0), and inappropriate behavior of some adolescents in their

role ofvolunteer (s.: 0; p.: 9; v.: 1).

The analysis of the data collected through the discussion groups, led

to 791 paragraphs, distributed as follows: 112 from students, 535 from

professionals, and 145 from volunteers. In terms of simple frequencies,

the analysis of the paragraphs, led to the identification of663 fragments

about transformative dimensions on learning or living together in the

classroom, and 128 indicated exclusionary dimensions. With regard to

transformative dimensions, the 4 categories that emerged in the

interviews were the same as those from the analysis of the interviews:

improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 86; p.: 149; v.: 121),

improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 24; p: 343 ; v: 21), learning

while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 7; p: 16; v: 0 ), and

changes in self-concept (s: 0; p: 0; v: 2). As for the exclusionary

dimensions, the same two themes that emerged in the interviews arose

here too: insufficient number of volunteers (s: 2; p.: 18; v.:0), and

inappropriate behavior ofsome adolescents in their role ofvolunteer (s.:

0; p.: 9; v.: 1).

Interactive groups have two main objectives: to accelerate learning

and to improve relations of coexistence in the classroom. As the data

analyzed shows, both objectives are strongly emphasized by the

participants, who added two other benefits related to the guide by a an

adult who is more experienced in the culture of reference: the partici-

When I first started working with the interactive group activity, I

already felt the difference in the classroom. I could see that the

students were faster in performing a given activity. I noticed that the

activities proposed through the interactive groups accelerated the

students’ learning. (S2-I-p13, §21 ).

The characteristics of interactive groups make possible that students

who otherwise would be left behind, in interactive groups engage in the

same learning processes as higher achievers do and end up reaching the

same curricular objectives. This perception is possible thanks to the

support that students receive by peers and volunteers in every group:

I have students who do not produce in some group or individual

activities, but in the interactive group – I don’t know if it’s because

there’s someone there that helps a lot – it isn’t is a presence of

coercion, but a helpful presence, which is there to really help! So

their interaction with the group is really cool! (S1-I-p1, §1).

The same teacher completes her statement by pointing out the

remarkable increase in the pace of children’s learning. In interactive

groups children work more and complete learning activities that in a

regular classroom usually take the double period oftime:



144

For example, the activity that I taught, which I knew took half an

hour, the children now perform in ten minutes. Sometimes I couldn’t

believe they were able to do everything. (S1-I-p1, §2)

In addition, in the interactive group, individual learning is seen as a

responsibility of the whole group. Therefore, when one student finds

some difficulty in understanding the content knowledge, everyone gets

committed to help him or her. In this process, teaching and learning take

place simultaneously:

The idea ofgroup work is that the activity has been completed when

everyone has succeeded, when everyone has finished it, and not when

only one has done so, that’s when they begin to understand the

mechanism of the interactive group, right? And they begin to succeed

in carrying out the activity. That’s when they begin to feel capable.

And as they increase their pace, they become more and more capable!

At this point, they wait the group day eagerly, because they know

that, on that day, they will do everything with the others. (S2-I-p4,§7)

As shown in the quotation above, as a student reaches the curricular

objectives and is aware of her or his success thanks to the interactive

groups, he or she improves his or her academic self-concept, and starts

believing that it is possible to do it and to do it successfully with the

help of peers and adults. But the gains are for everyone. In interactive

groups, everyone benefits from the interaction because learning is

intersubjective but also because interactions build upon the existing

diversity among all participants. In this regard, the evidence collected

shows that the higher the group’s internal diversity, the greater and

deeper the learning of every individual that is part of it, from both the

intellectual and the human and social standpoint. Benefiting from

Vygotsky’s (1978) theoretical formulation about learning occurring

through the mediation ofmore experienced individuals of the culture, in

the Interactive Group, the volunteer himself contributes cultural

diversity and instrumental knowledge, and also benefits from the

interactions with the students. For example, some volunteers develop

more motivation to learn contents of the school curriculum as they later

teach that knowledge to the students, despite that is not required from

volunteers:

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



The responsibility for learning is shared by everyone in the classroom,

but with different roles. It is up to the teacher, the professional with

pedagogical knowledge, to assume the commitment of planning the

content and activities to be worked on in interactive groups, to explain

to the volunteers the activities in the groups, and guide them and solve

their questions when it is necessary. The classroom teacher is the one

who ensures the correct development of the whole classroom dynamics,

encouraging mutual support and respect among the children, youths

and/or adults. A fundamental point of which the volunteer takes care of

is the way in which the activity is carried out jointly, so that when any

student experiences difficulty in solving a given activity, the others also

focus on helping him. This encourages role exchanges, in which

students can both teach their classmates and learn from them, thereby

learning, through egalitarian dialogue, to share efforts and act with

solidarity (Elboj et. al., 2001). Children perceive this solidarity in the

volunteers, appreciate their unique support, and acknowledge their

positive influence in students’ learning:

Teacher also see as strength for children’s learning the fact that

volunteers bring to the classroom new abilities, new knowledge, and

new role models. The following quotation illustrates how for teachers

diversity among adults in interactive groups is a source of instrumental

learning:

145IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

I relearned what I was forgetting, because you also learn by teaching.

I would consult the books in the school’s library collection, and

whenever there was something I didn’t know I would stay there until

I learned it so that I could pass it on to the students. (S2-GF1-v1, §3)

Each volunteer teaches in a different way, and they all help us to learn

things that we often did not know. We like volunteers because they

help us carry out the activities and because they want us to be

smarter. (S3_I_s35, §2).

I think the interactive group is important for students because it

ensures the presence of other people in the classroom. The presence

of more people allows for a certain degree of diversity in the

classroom. The idea that only the teacher teaches is out. Thus,



Also, according to teachers, the presence ofmore and diverse adults in

the classroom also creates opportunities for the development of

interactive confidence grounded in solidarity bonds, also necessary for

learning:

146

children learn new things with new people, because each one has his

particular way, a language, and a different way ofteaching.

(S3_I_p31,§22).

The students quickly create bonds with volunteers. They miss a

volunteer when he doesn’t come or stops coming. When, for whatever

reason, the interactive group is not held, they miss it. The students

learn to trust these people. (S3_I_p31,§23)

Conclusions

In the Information Society, where both the production of knowledge

and its impact on the forms ofproduction and reproduction ofhuman

life assume the form of networks among individuals, groups, and

institutions, learning takes place intensely in different locations and in

the interaction among different people. Given these social changes

that have increased the use of communication as a means for solving

problems together, the psychological theories that see the formation

of the mind in social, historical and cultural processes are more

appropriate to support the development ofsuccessful school practices

(Bruner, 1960, 1983, 1990; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Wertsch, 1991,

2002; Rogoff, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2003; Valsiner, 2000; Muller &

Perret-Clermont, 1999).

In this regard, one of the most influential approaches in teaching

and learning is Dialogic Learning (Flecha, 2000; Freire, 1970; Wells,

2001), which builds upon the strengths of previous theories of

learning but surpasses them in merging the most important dialogic

contributions from different disciples in view of reaching a deeper

understanding of how people create knowledge together. Among

other central differences with Piagetian and Ausubelian perspectives,

in the dialogic learning perspective, the main aspect to take into

account when designing instruction is not prior knowledge but where

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



we want to bring the students, their zone of potential development

(Vygotsky, 1978). Also, in dialogic learning, we move from interaction

based on the constructivist triangle (Piaget, 1966, 1987a), which

advanced with respect to previous models of teacher-student vertical

relationship regarding knowledge (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1972) to

interactions with multiple others. In line with Vygotskian theory, in

order to achieve the potential level of development, learning

environments need to be reorganized to foster interaction among peers

with different level of competence and with more adults. Interactive

Groups is a learning environment which responds to these needs.

The results of the research discussed here (Mello, 2009b) reveal that

participation in interactive groups guided by adults and youth from the

community, who join the classroom to promote interaction among

diverse peers regarding curricular activities, favors instrumental

learning, improves respectful coexistence in the classroom, strengthens

the academic self-concept of the participants, as well as creates the

conditions for learning and teaching simultaneously. These results are

consistent with other research on processes of dialogic learning in

interactive groups (Racionero, 2011) and its outcomes in comparison to

non-inclusive and non-dialogic classrooms (INCLUD-ED Consortium,

2009).

Overall, the review of the literature and the findings about the

perceptions on learning in interactive groups inform us about the need

and benefits for transforming school learning environments to make

them align with the current tendencies and claims regarding how people

learn and develop. While cooperative classrooms represented a step in

this regard in relation to more traditional classroom organizations, other

learning environments more in line with new learning realities, such as

interactive groups, move a step further by means of diversifying

interactions with adults from the community and benefiting from their

unique contributions as guides ofchildren’s meaning making processes.

On the ground of these findings, schools should open their doors, and

that of their classrooms, to make social tendencies reform learning

environments using the evidence of existing research about successful

learning environments to ultimately improve all children’s learning and

achievement.

147IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



148

Abbey, E. (2006). Perceptual uncertainty ofcultural life: becoming

reality. In Valsiner, J.; Rosa, A. R. (Eds.). Handbook of

sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Alves, A.C.S; Dias, M.G.B & Sobral, A.B.C. (2007). Faz-de-conta e

Teoria da Mente. Psicologia em Estudo, Maringá, 12( 2), 325-334.

Apple, M.W., & Beane, J. (Eds.) (2007). Democratic schools: Lesson in

powerful education (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Aubert, A., Flecha, A., García, C., Flecha, R., & Racionero, S. (2008).

Aprendizaje dialógico en la sociedad de la información.

Barcelona: Hipatia.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ausubel, D.P.; Novak, J.D. e Hanesian, H. (1980). Psicologia

educacional. Rio de Janeiro: Interamericana.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process ofeducation. Cambridge, Mass.;

London, UK: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1983). In search ofmind: essays in autobiography. New

York, NY: Harper and Row.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts ofmeaning. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J. (2001). A cultura da educação. Porto Alegre: Artmed.

Castells, M. (1999). A sociedade em rede. Vol. I. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e

Terra.

Clôt, Y. (1999). Avec Vygotsky. Paris: La Dispute.

Cole, M. & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. A psychological

introduction. New York: John Wiley.

Correia, M.F.B. (2003). Aconstituição social da mente. Estudos de

References

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

1 This figure illustrates the conductist perspective ofinteraction in the classroom.
2 This figure illustrates the Ausbelian perspective ofinteraction in the classroom.
3 Source: Aubert et. al. (2008). Dialogic learning in the information society, p. 88.
Barcelona: Hipatia.

Notes



Psicologia, 8(3), 505-513.

Costa E. V. & Lyra, M.C.D.P. (2002). Como a Mente se Torna Social

para Barbara Rogoff? AQuestão da Centralidade do Sujeito.

Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 15(3), 637-647.

CREA. (2006-2011). Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in

Europe from Education. 6th Framework Programme, European

Commission.

Elboj, C., Puigdellívol, I., Soler, M., & Valls, R. (2002). Comunidades

de aprendizaje. Transformar la educación. Barcelona: Graó.

Elboj, C., & Puigvert, L. (2004). Interaction among ‘other women’:

Personal and social meaning. Journal ofSocial Work Practice, 18

(3), 351-364.

Ferreiro, E. (2001). Com todas as letras. São Paulo: Cortez.

Flavell, J. H. (1988). A psicologia do desenvolvimento de Jean Piaget.

São Paulo: Livraria Pioneira Editora.

Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing Words. Lanham, M.D: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Flecha, R., Gómez, J., & Puigvert, L. (2003). Contemporary

Sociological Theory. New York: Peter Lang.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy ofthe oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1997). A la sombra de este árbol. Barcelona: El Roure

Ciencia.

Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogia da esperança – um reencontro com a

pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha R. (2011). Critical Communicative

Methodology: Informing real social transformation through

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235-245.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory ofcommunicative action. Vol.II.

Lifeworld and system: A critique offunctionalist reason. Boston:

Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1999). La inclusión del otro. Barcelona: Paidós.

Ianni, O. (2004). A era do globalismo. Rio de Janeiro.

INCLUD-ED Consortium. (2009). Actions for success in schools in

Europe. Brussels: European Comission.

Lawrence, J.& Valsiner, J. (2003). Making personal sense. An account of

basic internalisation and externalisation processes. Theory &

Psychology, 13(6), 723-752.

149IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



Lima, E. (1990). O conhecimento psicológico e suas relações com a

educação. Em Aberto, 9 (48), 2-24.

Mello, R. R. (2009a). Diálogo y escuela en Brasil: Comunidades de

aprendizaje. Cultura y Educación, 21 (2), 171-282.

Mello, R.R. (2009b). Comunidades de Aprendizagem: aposta na

qualidade da aprendizagem, na igualdade de diferenças e na

democratização da gestão da escola. São Paulo: FAPESP & CNPq.

Muller, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1999). Negotiating identities and

meanings in the transmission ofknowledge: analysis of

interactions in the context ofa knowledge exchange network. In:

Bliss, J., Säljö, R., Light, P. (Ed). Learning sites, social and

technological resources for learning, (pp. 47-60). Earli:

Pergamon.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping tracking: How schools structure inequality.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1976). Vers une approche des relations entre

l’enfant, l’école et la vie à travers l’etude de la communication,

Cahiers de la Section des Sciences de l'Education Université de

Genève 2, 3-13.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive

development in children. London: Academic Press.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L. (1981). Conflict and

cooperation on opportunities for learning. In Robinson, W. P.

(Ed.). Communication in development, (203-233). London:

Academic Press.

Piaget, J. (1966): Nécessité et signification des recherches comparatives

en psychologie génétique. International Journal ofPsychology, 1,

3-13.

Piaget, J. (1987a). Seis estudos de psicologia. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-

Universitária.

Pontecorvo, C. (2004). Thinking with others: the social dimensions of

learning in families and schools. In: Perret-Clermont, A.-N. et al.

(Ed.). Joining society: social interactions and learning in

adolescence and youth. (pp. 227-240). New York/Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Racionero, S., & Padrós, M. (2010). The Dialogic Turn in Educational

Psychology, Revista dePsicodidáctica, 15(2), 143-162.

150 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism



Racionero-Plaza, S. (2011). Dialogic Learning in Interactive Groups.

Interactions that foster learning and socio-cultural transformation

in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Defended at

the University ofWisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.

Rochex, J.-Y. (1999). Le sens de l’experience scolaire. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de France.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:

Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and

apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Ed.),

Sociocultural studies ofmind, (pp. 139-163). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Universtity Press.

Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon,

D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Ed), Handbook ofchild psychology:

Cognition, perception and language, (pp. 679-744). New York:

Wiley, 2.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature ofhuman development. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., Goodman T. C., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together:

Children and adults in a school community. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Rosenthal, T. L. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Modeling by

exemplification and investigation in training conservation.

Development Psychology, 6(3), 392-401.

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology ofliteracy. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. Cambridge. MA:

Harvard University Press.

Tellado, I., & Sava, S. (2010). The role on nonexpert adult guidance in

the dialogic construction ofknowledge. Journal of

Psychodidactics, 15(2), 163-176.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins ofhuman cognition.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Valencia, R., & Suzuky, L. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority

students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment

issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London/Thousand

151IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



Oaks: Sage.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher

psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1996). Teoria e método em Psicologia. São Paulo:

Martins Fontes.

Vygotsky L. S., Luria, A.R. & Leontiev, A. N. (1988). Linguagem,

desenvolvimento e aprendizagem. São Paulo: Editora da

Universidade de São Paulo.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice

and theory ofeducation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices ofthe mind. A sociocultural approach to

mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices ofcollective remembering. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Zittoun, T.; Mirza, N. M. & Perret-Clermont, A. (2007). Quando a

cultura é considerada nas pesquisas em psicologia do

desenvolvimento. Educar, Curitiba, 30, 65-76.

152

Roseli Rodrigues de Mello is Associate Professor in the

Department ofTheories and Pedagogical Practices at the Federal

University ofSao Carlos, Brazil. She is also director ofNIASE

(Nucle Investigação e Ação Social e Educativa).

ContactAddress: Rod. Washington Luis, 235 - São Carlos, Brazil

(13565-905). E-mail: roseli@power.ufscar.br

Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism




