Dialogic teaching

A topic in teaching science

The idea of teaching through dialogue goes back at least as far as Socrates and his pupil (disciple) Plato. The Socratic dialogue can be understood as a kind of scaffolding through structured questions. It helps the learner make connections and deductions for themselves by clearing a path by suggesting what it might be relevant to consider. (One aspect of scaffolding is to reduce the 'degrees of freedom' available to the novice to potentially think about.)

Read about scaffolding

Dialogic teaching also links to the idea that enquiry can proceed through a dialectical process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Although that notion is popular in Marxist thinking, it actually reflects the process in which science proceeds (suggesting a hypothesis, critiquing it to suggest a potentially critical test, empirical testing, often leading to a somewhat revised hypothesis, etc.)

Scientists seeking to understand some phenomena will often engage in careful criticism of each other's ideas, and may even disagree just to be a 'devil's advocate'. Usually (if not always) this is done in a spirit of friendship and op-operation whereas all involved understand the roles being played. Often school children are not equipped for this type of enquiry as they tend to associate disagreement with being unfriendly and may lack argumentation skills (perhaps being very positive about what they think is the case, without looking to make a case for their position – which may seem obvious to them – or seeing any point in engaging in detail with other views). Students then may need to be taught the skills of making an argument, listening carefully to others, giving and asking for reasons and evidence, etc. (This is is the basis of teaching argumentation in science lessons.)

The teacher still teaches the scientific account

Dialogic teaching encompasses multiple voices (and so there they exist viewpoints and opinions). It can be seen as a 'constructivist' approach in that it is based on an assumption that testing student thinking, exploring alternative viewpoints, comparing different explanations, and (hopefully) leading learners to appreciate the merits of the scientific account is likely to lead to deeper understanding and retention of learning than simply presenting the scientific account in a vacuum that ignores learners' thinking – which often includes alternative conceptions.

Read about constructivist teaching

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Dialogic teaching does not exclude the authoritative voice

Moritimer and Scott (2003) suggest that effective science teaching moves through phases. There will be phases where the talking is being shared around (in group work or whole class discussion) and phases where the teacher is doing most of the talking. However, there is also a different distinction between phases of dialogic and authoritative teaching.

For example, we might consider a sequence of activities where students work in groups exploring their initial ideas about a topic (perhaps considering a concept map, completing a diagnostic instrument, undertaking the start of a predict-observe-explain activity). This may allow the teacher to find out the range of student ideas, and lead to a teacher led discussion where these different idea are compared and examined. At the end of this phase the teacher may summarise the ideas, and their strengths and weaknesses, reminding students why different alternative ideas were found to be less satisfactory (in terms of empirical evidence, logical coherence, etc.) than the scientific account, and reinforce the scientific account. The student may then be given group-work which asks them to reiterate and apply the scientific account.

This sequence includes:

---

different people talking	different views being elicited
one person doing most of the talking	different views being aired, examined and compared
one person doing most of the talking	the scientific account being given prominence and emphasis
different people talking	the scientific account being discussed and applied

---

Below is a schematic of a hypothetical sequence of lesson episodes taken from 'MasterClass in Science Education'.

Why spend time talking about wrong ideas in class?

There are several reasons why dialogic teaching of science is encouraged:

1. Research shows that students often have alternative conceptions, and if these are not addressed in class they are often likely to dominate student thinking once some time has passed after the scientific view is presented;
2. Science is not about having the right ideas – it is an enquiry process about developing more secure knowledge of the natural world; so authentic science education needs to reflect that process not just its outcomes;
3. Students can learn important transferable life skills about careful listening, making a case, testing evidence and so forth.

---

---

Sources cited:

• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• K.S. Taber (2019) MasterClass in Science Education: Transforming teaching and learning. London, Bloomsbury.