Analyzing the Educational Value of Classroom Dialogue: Expert Perspectives and Conditions for Student Learning

• In Event: What Is the Value of Classroom Talk?

Abstract

Objectives
Our main aims were (a) to investigate the relationship between dialogic approaches and student learning outcomes on national standardized tests and reasoning capability and (b) to explore whether the beliefs of experts in the field about dialogic features that predict learning gains, match actual predictors emerging from our statistical analyses.

Perspective
Recent interdisciplinary work shows the promise of dialogic pedagogy for classroom learning (e.g. Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke, 2015; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016). However, multiple conceptualizations and terminologies abound in the field and a coordinated message for policy and practice concerning productive forms of classroom dialogue is needed (Author, 2013a; Schwarz & Baker, 2017). Our recent work attempts to identify, represent and operationalize commonalities amongst key theorists. The Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis (SEDA) (Author, 2016) contains 33 codes representing features of productive dialogue of emerging consensus involving shared reasoning, attunement to others, exploring different ideas and knowledge co-construction (e.g. Author, 2013b).

Methods and data
SEDA was subsequently reformulated and condensed into a new version for the purposes of an ESRC-funded project (http://tinyurl.com/ESRCdialogue). A 12-category scheme suitable for capturing classroom dialogue with teacher present (with whole class, small group or individual) emerged after extensive reliability testing. Adaptation from SEDA retained the core principles of productive educational dialogue, but introduced a greater emphasis on argumentation and “nondialogic invitations”. Additionally, rating scales captured more global dimensions of interaction in relation to lesson aims, reflecting on learning process, monitoring, focusing on talk rules and student participation.

The new scheme was used to analyze 144 video-recorded lessons across 72 teachers of students aged 10-11 in England, including state-funded schools in areas of high deprivation. Turn level coding and whole-lesson ratings of lessons in English, mathematics and science were used to create indices of dialogicality.

We also solicited independent evaluations from six expert scholars, representing a range of theoretical perspectives and unfamiliar with the scheme, on a sample of five transcripts varying in coded dialogicality. Each expert rank ordered the transcripts in terms of how productive they considered these lessons for supporting children’s learning.

Results
Regression analyses examined the relationships between dialogicality and student outcomes. Findings are illustrated through excerpts from coded transcripts that vary along the dialogic/nondialogic spectrum. We also report on the degree of match between the experts, rationales given, criteria and priorities used, how their rankings related to that derived from our coding. Implications for the theoretical constructs underpinning our scheme are discussed.

Scholarly Significance
This work makes theoretical, empirical, methodological and practical contributions to the field of dialogue research. It provides a large, rich dataset and rigorous analyses serving to pinpoint the kinds of classroom talk that are – and are not – associated with student learning. It suggests how predictors of learning through dialogue map onto scholarly thinking and practice. It offers a valid and reliable, theory-informed tool that can be tested across a wide range of educational contexts. Finally, establishing the forms of optimal dialogue for learning has significant implications for teacher education.

Authors

• Sara Hennessy, University of Cambridge

• Neil McKay Mercer, University of Cambridge

• Christine Howe, University of Cambridge

• Maria Vrikki, University of Cambridge

• Lisa Wheatley, University of Cambridge