![]()
Dialogic space: intersections between dialogic teaching and systemic functional linguistics
Jennifer Hammond
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to foster dialogue between proponents of Alexanderâs notion of dialogic teaching and those working with educational linguistics â in particular those working with systemic functional theory. To this end, the article begins by highlighting important points of alignment between dialogic teaching and systemic theory: their shared emphasis on learning as a social and cultural construct; the priority they accord to language in education and its role in mediating learning; and their shared emphasis on the nature of positive educational interventions. Major sections of the article, however, address two issues identified by Alexander as posing particular challenges in the implementation of dialogic teaching: the difficulty of achieving a âperfect marriageâ between pedagogical form and content; and the need for students to have opportunities to talk to learn as well as learn to talk. Discussion of these issues draws on recent research into the needs of English as an Additional Language students, and the nature of pedagogical practices designed to address those needs, to explore the possible contribution of systemic theory. While the article is written from the perspective of someone more familiar with systemic theory than dialogic teaching, it highlights points of similarity and difference between the two perspectives in their approaches to education and suggests an ongoing dialogue which is likely to be mutually beneficial.
Introduction
This article is conceived as a dialogue between dialogic teaching (Alexander 2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2012) and systemic functional linguistics (Christie and Martin 2007; Halliday 1978; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, 2014). It is situated within a substantial body of sociocultural research that, in recent years, has focused attention on the role of talk in learning (Boyd and Markarian 2011; Mercer, Dawes, and Kleine Staarman 2009; Mercer and Littleton 2007; Myhill 2006; Myhill and Warren 2005; Nystrand 1997, 2006; Skidmore 2006; Wells 1999). A common thread in this work is an emphasis on the importance of dialogic interaction between teacher and students, where students have opportunities to engage in extended in-depth exploratory talk about substantial curriculum knowledge. As Nystrand (1997) and others have argued, there is evidence that opportunities for students to engage in classroom talk that is characterised by authentic teacher questions, where studentsâ responses are incorporated into subsequent questions, and where students are treated as genuine participants in knowledge construction, have a positive impact on studentsâ learning. There is also evidence that opportunities for students to engage in talk that is genuinely exploratory support deep learning (Mercer, Dawes, and Kleine Staarman 2009; Myhill 2006). Different researchers have framed their focus on dialogic interaction within classrooms in slightly different terms: dialogic inquiry (Wells 1999); dialogic instruction (Nystrand 1997, 2006); dialogic teaching (Alexander 2008a, 2008b); dialogic pedagogy (Skidmore 2006); dialogic stance (Boyd and Markarian 2011). However, as Skidmore (2006, 510) argues âwhat the various dialogic approaches have in common is a well articulated case for valuing the character of classroom discourse as one of the most important influences of studentsâ experiences of learning in schoolsâ. What they also have in common is the argument that opportunities for extended and in-depth dialogic talk about curriculum concepts play a pivotal role in supporting studentsâ thinking and learning, and in opening up genuine opportunities for learning.
Implementation of school programmes where classroom discourse could be considered genuinely dialogic, however, presents significant challenges. A number of researchers point to the persistence and dominance of restrictive patterns of classroom interaction (Myhill and Warren 2005; Nystrand 1997), most notably the sequence of Initiation, Response, Feedback (IRF) exchanges. While, as Wells (1999) argues, there is a place in classroom interactions for IRF sequences, where this is the dominant pattern of classroom discourse, there are limited opportunities for more dialogic classroom interactions that are likely to support studentsâ deep learning. As Howe and Abedin (2013, 341) note, a recurring theme in research into classroom dialogue is that teachers find it extremely difficult to promote exploratory talk in classrooms.
In this article, I aim to address the role of talk in learning by exploring the possible contribution of a more linguistic âtakeâ on the notion of dialogic interaction. As a way of focusing discussion, and in line with the theme of the special focus issue, I frame discussion of this notion primarily in relation to Alexanderâs work on dialogic teaching. I also approach the topic as someone who has worked over a number of years with systemic functional theory and its educational implications. Thus my interpretation of linguistic âtakeâ is very much shaped by my understandings of systemic linguistics.
Dialogic teaching and systemic theory
There are many points of alignment between dialogic teaching and systemic theory. Most obviously, these include the location of talk in social and cultural contexts; the priority accorded to language in education; a shared emphasis on learning as a social and cultural construct; and an emphasis on the role of language in mediating learning. Educators working within the two perspectives relate to similar âfellow travellersâ â including Vygotsky (1978) and neo-Vygotskian theories of learning (Bruner 1983, 1990) but also those who have worked with the metaphor of scaffolding (Maybin, Mercer, and Stierer 1992; Mercer 1994; Wells 1999). Proponents also share a deep concern with the impact of education on studentsâ lives. Alexanderâs work, for example, reveals his very robust engagement with (UK) policy and curriculum developments and the active political stance he has taken in regard to these developments. Australian educators working with systemic theory have a similar history of active engagement with policy and curriculum developments (Christie and Martin 2007; Derewianka 2011). While obviously educational activism is not restricted to systemicists or to those working with dialogic teaching, their proposals regarding what constitutes positive interventions have much in common. They share an assumption that education is about more than facilitating studentsâ development. As Alexander (2012, 6) writes: education is about intervening and accelerating development, not merely âfacilitatingâ it, otherwise why do we need schools. Systemicists engaged for many years in debates around the need for more active intervention in language and literacy education would strongly agree with these words.
In addition to points of agreement, the two perspectives bring different strengths to a potential dialogue.
Like other proponents of dialogic approaches, Alexander makes a powerful case for the importance of talk in learning. He (2008b, 92) writes:
Alexander (2008b, 10) addresses, not only the importance of talk, but the importance of talk that can support studentsâ developing abilities to think and learn even more effectively than they do. He (2008a, 112) argues programmes that include such talk, that are dialogic, and that âprovide the best chance for children to develop the diverse learning talk repertoire on which different kinds of thinking and understanding are predicatedâ, share five characteristics. Thus, dialogic teaching is:
collective: teachers and children address learning tasks together, whether as a group or as a class, rather than in isolation;
reciprocal: teachers and children listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative viewpoints;
supportive: children articulate their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over âwrongâ answers and they help each other to reach common understandings;
cumulative: teachers and children build on their own and each othersâ ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and enquiry;
purposeful: teachers plan and facilitate dialogic teaching with particular educational goals in view.
While there is a strong tradition of analysis of classroom discourse and classroom interaction within systemics, most notably through the work of Christie and colleagues (Christie 2002; Christie and Derewianka 2008), this tradition has tended to prioritise the demands faced by students in their engagement with curriculum knowledge and in their academic literacy development. Recent work within systemic theory addresses ways in which classroom talk mediates educational knowledge; however, the emphasis here lies particularly in the nature of cumulative knowledge building and curriculum-specific uses of literacy (Martin and Maton 2013). The priority within dialogic teaching that is accorded to talk in learning, and to articulation of what classrooms would look like that appropriately prioritise talk in learning, constitutes a significant contribution to a potential dialogue with systemic theory. Conversely, while there is an extensive emphasis on the conduct and ethos and content of classroom talk within dialogic teaching (Alexander 2008a, 118), there appears to be relatively little detailed focus on the nature and demands of different kinds of language interaction. The emphasis within systemics on close analysis and teaching of academic language and literacy thus offers a potential contribution to understanding and implementation of dialogic teaching â for example, in implications of different interactional patterns for âcoherent lines of thinking and enquiryâ (Alexander 2008a, 9) within classrooms, and in implications for students of greater metalinguistic awareness.
My purpose in this article is to address ways in which systemic theory might complement dialogic teaching (and other dialogic approaches). While I consider a dialogue between these perspectives as mutually enriching, as previously indicated, my own perspective is as someone more familiar with systemic linguistics. In pursuing this purpose, I draw on research that my colleagues and I completed in recent years that focused on the education of English as an Additional Language (EAL) students who were beyond the initial and obvious stages of learning English and who were located in mainstream Australian schools (Gibbons 2008; Hammond 2008, 2014; Hammond and Gibbons 2005). It was (and is) our contention that, while many of the cognitive and linguistic demands faced by these students may be shared by their English-speaking peers, the double challenge of learning academic English, while also learning through English, places special demands on them. It is also our contention that pedagogical practices designed to provide students with equitable access to education, while important for all students, are critical for EAL students. Our research thus prioritised procedures for planning and implementing programmes that were designed to identify and address EAL studentsâ needs.
In the article, I highlight two areas where my colleagues and I specifically drew on our understandings of systemic theory. In an attempt to engage with the notion of dialogic interaction, and in particular with dialogic teaching, I have framed my discussion of these areas in response to specific pedagogical challenges identified by Alexander in his writing about implementation of dialogic teaching. These are as follows:
In framing the discussion of these areas in response to some of Alexanderâs writings, I hope to promote further interaction between those working with dialogic approaches in education and those working with educational linguistics.
Towards a marriage of pedagogical form and content
The relationship between pedagogical form and educational content has long been debated in education. Questions about choice of pedagogical forms that require, for example, whole class, group and individual participation, and the relationship of these pedagogical forms to studentsâ educational achievement, have concerned teachers as well as researchers for many years (Freeman 2002; Shulman 1987). At issue here is the relationship between what teachers plan, do and say in classrooms, and the extent and nature of learning that is thereby facilitated (or not). At issue also are the kinds of interactions between teacher and students that become possible within different organisational structures, and the extent to which they support studentsâ learning of curriculum content. Further, in his discussion of dialogic approaches, Skidmore (2006, 511) argues âa number of major independent investigations have drawn attention to the manner in which different patterns of classroom talk afforded different structures of opportunity for students to participate in the construction of knowledge within the curriculumâ. In focusing on form and content, we are thus addressing the relationship between how classroom interactions are planned and organised, what curriculum content and knowledge is being taught; and how that content and knowledge is mediated through patterns of classroom talk.
In line with other proponents of dialogic approaches, the relationship between pedagogical form and content is given considerable prominence by Alexander in his writing on the implementation of dialogic teaching â most notably in his 2008 publications (Alexander 2008a, 2008b). Here he explains that while educational interventions in two major research sites resulted in positive changes that facilitated more genuine, thoughtful and extended dialogue, they also raised a number of dilemmas. Some of these dilemmas are related to organisational matters of whole class and group dialogues, others related to changing patterns of classroom discussion, and some addressed the nature of dialogic talk itself (for example, is extended talk dialogic talk). But of the various dilemmas, Alexander (2008a, 50) identified the relationship between form and content as being the toughest to get right, and of coming âto the heart of the challenge of transforming talk from recitation into dialogueâ. He (2008a, 51) argues âof all the dilemmas of dialogic teaching, therefore, we suggest that the ultimate one is how to achieve the perfect marriage of pedagogical form and contentâ.
Alexander (2008a, 50; 2008b, 118) elaborates the challenge of achieving this perfect marriage in terms of implementation of the five key principles of dialogic teaching. He (2008a, 118) writes:
