Systematic quantitative literature review of the dialogic pedagogy literature

Abstract

This systematic quantitative literature review was conducted to analyse and synthesise the extant corpus of knowledge on dialogic pedagogy within school settings, and thus identify theoretical and methodological gaps in the literature, which might suggest new avenues for research. A search of eight databases (2014–2020) revealed an initial pool of 2443 papers, which was reduced to 61 after screening for eligibility. An analysis of the 61 papers was framed around the following questions: What is the dominant mode of classroom discourse (monologic or dialogic) reported in the literature? Where is dialogic pedagogy being researched? Who are the dominant voices in the field? and Which year levels and school subjects have been examined using which methodologies? A key finding of the analysis was the absence of substantial research by Australian or New Zealand authors, specifically where mathematics education is concerned. Similarly, there is little investigation focusing on the early years of schooling. While some education areas have been well researched with regard to dialogic pedagogy, further work is required that focuses on areas such as the early years of schooling; non-science contexts; and the use of qualitative research methods.

1 Introduction

The purpose of this systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) (Pickering & Byrne, 2014) is to analyse the extant literature available (2015–2020 or 2014–2019 depending on search options available) on dialogic pedagogies in school-based education settings (K-12), in order to understand the current major research and theoretical directions in the field, and to identify any gaps in the literature. This SQLR will also form the basis for the first researcher’s PhD thesis literature review. We acknowledge that research involving dialogic pedagogy is constantly evolving; however, this SQLR reflects the state of research up to the year 2019.

2 Literature

In most classrooms, whole-class instruction and interaction is an everyday phenomenon, which allows teachers to undertake their pedagogical practices through discourse (Alexander, 2017). Two types of classroom interaction are evident in the literature which make up two ends of a spectrum for quality classroom talk — dialogic and monologic. Dialogic pedagogy can be characterised as interactions where meaning is constructed through sequences of dialogue, and lines of thinking and enquiry (Alexander, 2017). This type of interaction is described in the literature using terms such as dialogic pedagogy (Mercer, 2013), dialogic practices (Attard et al., 2018), dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2017), dialogicality (Hennessy et al., 2016), or talk moves (Michaels & O'Conner, 2015). These interactions are characterised by trust, compassion, care, reciprocal openness, non-manipulation, appreciation of individuality, and orientation to the other person (Kathard et al., 2015). Dialogic pedagogical practices may include questions posed by either teachers or students that provoke thinking, extended responses with justifications and elaborations, explorations of different perspectives, and critical evaluations of ideas (Edwards-Groves & Davidson, 2017). It is also important to note that dialogic pedagogy has its provenance in classroom discourse studies that include various approaches such as linguistic, observational, and descriptive (Edwards & Westgate, 1994) and multimodal studies (Kress et al., 2006).

It is noted by Mercer (1996) that knowledge and meaning making happen fundamentally in the social processes of language and Chen et al. (2017) similarly suggest that communication through language is an essential means for building students’ knowledge and conceptual understanding. In the classroom, dialogicality encompasses repertoires of interactions between teachers and students that promote participation and where networks of meaning are authentically co-created. It is noted that students who engage in dialogic practices exhibit improved skills in critical thinking, authentic exploratory talk, and overall improved higher order thinking ability (Chen et al., 2017). The advantages of dialogicality in the classroom are identified by a range of researchers (see Alexander, 2017; Littleton & Howe, 2010; Mercer et al., 2009), suggesting that students in such classrooms develop higher cognitive processes, conceptual understanding, the ability to express personal views, and confidence in using a variety of oral discourses. The purpose of dialogicality in the classroom is to continuously co-construct knowledge and meaning through sharing, active listening, critiquing and questioning, problem solving, and integrating contrasting ideas. The role of dialogic pedagogy in the classroom is important because it brings to light awareness of the significance of structured and directed classroom talk, and provokes discussion, debate, and dialogue among students.

Dialogic pedagogy research is relatively rare in education literature, although there are some scholars who have designed analytic structures to investigate classroom discourse and patterns of dialogic interactions. Chen et al. (2017) identified seven dialogic elements through their empirical research, namely, “proposing ideas, disagreeing, explaining, elaborating, refereeing back, resolving, and questioning” (p. 51). However, Mercer (1996) outlined only three forms of talking and thinking: “disputational talk”, “cumulative talk”, and “exploratory talk”. Mercer (1996) clarifies,

The concepts of disputational talk, cumulative talk and exploratory talk are embryonic models of three distinctive social modes of thinking, models which could help us understand how actual talk (which is inevitably resistant to neat categorization) is used by people to think together. (p. 369)

Forming the basis of our knowledge for classroom discourse is the theoretical work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. It is not clear who first coined the term “dialogic pedagogy” as these methods have been gradually evolving since the 1960s and 1970s when the work of both Piaget and Vygotsky (translated and widely available in the late 1970s) gained traction. Kathard et al. (2015) suggest that it was Vygotsky’s work that first laid the foundations of dialogic pedagogy in his descriptions of learning as a social interaction with the accompanying claim that higher order mental functioning developed through these interactions.

Vygotsky claimed that language is the fundamental mechanism for constructing new ways of thinking and knowing, rather than just being a medium for articulating ideas. He argues that “learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalized, they become part of the child’s independent development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). In a further development of Vygotsky’s ideas, Bakhtin highlighted the significance of meaning making and thinking in the social environment (Bakhtin, 1981). Bakhtin then highlights the important role of the teacher who becomes the expert who must connect with their students to make collective meaning. However, Bakhtin also indicates that the construction of dialogue should be considered a task for both teachers and students, as this will better develop mutual understanding.

Monologic pedagogy can be characterised as “command and control”, where the message of the “commander” takes priority in the verbal interaction and the audience’s comments or feedback is expected to merely serve the purpose of furthering the commander’s goals. Monologic interactions are typically associated with one-way communication where audience contribution is negligible. In the classroom, teachers typically take on the commander role, whereby they control interaction and hold authority (Kathard et al., 2015). Other categories of monologic interactions found in the literature are transmissive (Nystrand et al., 2003; Teo, 2016), authoritative (Teo, 2016), and Initiation Reply Evaluation (IRE) (Mehan, 1979). It should be noted that monologic interactions can be appropriate in teaching episodes, for example, when students are required to immediately process information to complete short-term tasks.

Teo (2016) suggests that a strong authoritative presence by the teacher may contribute to the students often marginal role of simply listening and uncritically accepting ideas and information with little to no critical engagement. Teo (2016) indicates further that a teacher’s pattern of talk can stifle student engagement, both behaviourally and cognitively, manufacturing a predominantly transmissive mode of classroom communication. Mehan (1979) identifies a commonly used three-part pattern of communication as “Initiation-Reply-Evaluation” (IRE) (also labelled by some researches as IRF “Initiation-Response-Follow-up”) and labels it as the default pattern of classroom pedagogical talk as it is the dominant structure of most classroom talk. Although the IRE/F pattern of talk has typically been categorised as monologic in nature, Gibbons and Cummins (2002) suggests that it is more complex than this and that there are opportunities with the IRE/F pattern that can be used strategically, by skilled teachers, to yield positive pedagogical outcomes. The differences between dialogic and monologic practices are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 The key practices of monologic and dialogic pedagogy

It is noted in the literature that a successful dialogic interaction would involve moving flexibly along the continuum between monologic and dialogic pedagogical practices (Alexander, 2017, 2018; Reznitskaya, 2012). Although the literature strongly suggests that dialogic pedagogies are seen as a substantial and important aspect of a teacher’s overall repertoire of pedagogical practices, what is evident in the current research literature is that communication is predominantly “monologic” — i.e. controlled by the teacher, and students are passive consumers of knowledge rather than active contributors (Alexander, 2020). It is not suggested in the literature that educators should only adopt dialogic pedagogies, but rather it is recommended that teachers and learners should move flexibly along the continuum of dialogic and monologic interactions as daily classroom tasks, activities, and information are negotiated and shared (Kathard et al., 2015). Nonetheless, the dilemma is that monologic interactions are the dominant classroom interactions observed, and the use of dialogic interactions is limited (Alexander, 2017; Kathard et al., 2015; Nystrand et al., 2003; Wegerif, 2007). Therefore, it appears that dialogic pedagogies continue to be uncommon within educational contexts.

The aim of this article is to report on a SQLR (Pickering & Byrne, 2014) that was used to explore relevant literature; to better understand current, major research and theoretical directions vis-à-vis dialogic pedagogy; and to identify gaps to inform future research. Specifically, it was undertaken to answer the following questions:

• Where, and in what contexts, is dialogic pedagogy research being conducted?

• Who are the most prominent authors in the dialogic pedagogy literature?

• What research methods are employed in dialogic pedagogy studies?

• What interactions (dialogic or monologic) are evident in the literature?

3 Methodology

This study was conducted using a SQLR, an approach designed by Pickering and Byrne (2014), as an explicit method for identifying, selecting, mapping, and analysing existing literature whereby generalisations, emerging trends, and gaps can be more easily and systematically identified within specific disciplines. The technique is used to quantify relevant literature and to also highlight any emergent gaps. A “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) statement flow chart (Moher et al., 2009) was adopted to illustrate the process of this systematic literature search. The PRISMA chart for this study (see Fig. 1) shows how the initial 2445 papers were screened for eligibility resulting in the final set of 61 articles that are discussed in this review.

Fig. 1

PRISMA statement flow chart

The online databases A+ Education, Education database, Emerald, Eric, Griffith University Library Catalogue, Sage, Scopus, Springer, and Taylor and Francis were employed to source peer-reviewed journal articles that fit the inclusion criteria. The journal articles were identified and screened for relevant content using tailored combinations of the keywords (see Table 2).

Table 2 Requisite elements of the SQLR process

The search strings used to locate relevant articles were modified to suit each database’s individual algorithm so that the most accurate results could be obtained. A database search table including tailored search strings is provided in Appendix A. As also shown in Appendix A, refinements were then applied to each database search (where available) which included;

• Peer-reviewed journal articles

• Full-text available

• From the last 5 years (2015–2020 or 2014–2019 depending on options available)

• English

• Dialog* in abstract

We chose the past 5 years as the search time frame because dialogic practice is a dynamic field and recency of publications was a key consideration. From a practical perspective, this keeps the data set manageable (in this research, the 5-year period yielded 2500 articles). Finally, recent SQLR’s (e.g. Bradford et al., 2021) also used a 5-year period. All the articles that were generated from each database search were exported into EndNote. The total number of papers initially collected was 2443. Two more relevant papers were included that were identified through other sources, making the total number of papers 2445. Any duplicates of the 2445 papers were then removed, resulting in 2378 papers for the first screening process, which involved a screening of the abstracts for their relevance (see Table 2). A total of 2268 of the articles showed qualities of the exclusion criteria or did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 110 journal articles remained after this initial screening.

A full-text analysis was then conducted to make sure the articles selected were true to the criteria outlined in Table 2. After the full-text papers were assessed, it was identified that 49 were not eligible, resulting in 61 papers remaining after the second screening. Next, the 61 selected articles were read in full again. To organise and gather data to create a database, the information and options seen in Table 3 were recorded during this process for each paper for future categorisation:

Table 3 Database categories

The data was then inputted into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Graphs and tables were then used to organise the data presented in Section 4.

4 Results and discussion

From the 61 peer-reviewed papers that met the inclusion criteria, broader insight was obtained on what contemporary research reveals regarding dialogic pedagogy in K-12 schools.

4.1 Where is dialogic pedagogy being researched?

Figure 2 shows geographically where peer-reviewed research into dialogic pedagogy is being conducted. Of the 54 peer-reviewed articles that specified a geographic location for their data sample, 23 were collected from Europe (of which 10 were from the UK), 20 were collected from North America (of which 18 were from the USA), nine were collected from Australia/New Zealand, seven were collected from Asia, and two were collected from Africa. Two articles collected data from three or more different continents. The geographic locations of the data samples were separated for the purpose of this article. For example, if a paper collected data samples from Europe, Asia, and North America, all three categories were given a numerical point.

Fig. 2

Geographic location of included published studies on dialogic pedagogy from 2014 to present

This data indicates that most contemporary research relating to dialogic pedagogy has been conducted in Europe (predominantly the UK) and North America (predominantly the USA). Also, although there appears to be limited research being conducted in Australia/New Zealand, relative to population, this region is a significant hub for research.

Some notable features were evident in relation to the school subjects (see Fig. 3) that were of focus in this research (since there were only two studies from Africa, these have been excluded from this discussion). Of all the regions, studies from Asia had the least diversity in school subject focus with 55% focusing on science, and no studies on mathematics or English. Australia/New Zealand also had relatively little diversity in school subject focus with 55% focusing on science and only one study that focused on mathematics. Research from Europe had greater diversity of school subject focus with 45% focusing on science, 35% focusing on mathematics, and 20% focusing on English, but no studies focusing on Humanities and Social Studies (HASS). North America had the highest equality in the diversity of school subject focus with 35% focusing on science, 30% focusing on mathematics, 25% focusing on English, and 5% focusing on HASS. Overall, the data indicates a strong interest in dialogic pedagogy in science education, and limited interest in what might be referred to as Humanities subjects, across the four continents.

Fig. 3

Geographic location and school subject focus. Note: NS, not specified

4.2 Focus of dialogic pedagogy literature in relation to year level?

Figure 4 shows the range of school year levels that were the focus of dialogic pedagogy research as reported in the literature. Five studies were conducted in Kindergarten–Preschool (ages 3–5 years old), 11 in the early primary years (Year 1–Year 3), 22 in upper primary (Year 4–Year 6), 23 in junior secondary (Year 7–Year 9), and 18 in senior secondary (Year 10–Year 12). Two peer-reviewed articles did not specify a year level focus, and approximately half of the articles reported on data collected across multiple year levels. In this article, the K-12 year level groupings were separated. For example, if a paper collected data samples from Years 4–12, it was then noted in all the relevant categories (Year 4–Year 6, Year 7–Year 9, and Year 10–Year 12).

Fig. 4

Year levels investigated

These results indicate that most dialogic pedagogy research is being conducted in the upper years of primary school, and in all of the high school years, and it is apparent that there is a lack of dialogic pedagogy research that focuses on the early years.

4.2.1 Examples of articles from each year level grouping

Teo’s (Teo, 2016) article focused on teacher talk and its potential for inspiring student’s discussion, dialogue, and debate in the upper secondary years (10–12). Using a qualitative methodology, audio recordings and observational data were collected from seven Singapore schools and focused on students aged 16–17 years of age. No specific subject area was noted. The findings highlighted the prominence of monologic styles of communication and found the classroom culture to be “transmissive” in nature, which stifled student participation.

Sutherland’s (Sutherland, 2015) article reports on a year-long intervention in the UK with students in Year 7 to Year 9. Here, a Vygotskyan perspective was taken, which entailed a structured approach to talk, with “ground-rules” and reflection for 110 13–14-year-old students in their English lessons. The researcher employed comparative discourse analysis of audio and video recordings of representative group talk, lesson observations, and sequential teacher and student interviews to explore discursive practices. Sutherland concluded that the intervention “had a liberating effect on the majority of students, enabling experimentation with different forms of dialogic talk and identities” (p. 44).

Alexander (2018) considered the growth of students’ engagement and learning through a randomised control trial (RCT) of a dialogic teaching intervention intended to maximise the power of classroom talk. The study was piloted and trialled in the UK with combined intervention/control cohorts of approximately 5000 4th grade students and 208 teachers across Mathematics, Science, and English disciplines. After analysing video and audio recordings using a mixed method approach, the independent evaluation calculated that after 20 weeks, students in the intervention group were 2 months ahead of their control group peers in tests, while coded video data showed that the changes in both teacher and student talk were prominent and, in the direction, intended.

Muhonen et al. (2016) examined what types of dialogic teaching patterns could be identified and how teachers scaffold children’s participation and shared understanding through dialogic teaching. Thirty lessons from Finnish classrooms (preschool to Grade 2) were recorded using video and audio devices, and then analysed using qualitative content analysis. No specific subject area was noted. The findings reported that two teacher-initiated (characterised by responsibility in maintaining the interactional flow and use of diverse strategies) and two child-initiated (where the teacher served more as a facilitator of dialogue) dialogic teaching patterns were identified.

de Vocht (2015) conducted a study using Bakhtinian concepts, to explore the interactions between children (3.5–5 years old) across multiple subject areas in a New Zealand classroom. The paper adopted a qualitative methodology and focused on the dialogic research approach that was used as the methodological framework, whereby two of the teachers and the researcher engaged in collaborative discussions of selected video recordings of the teacher-child interactions. De Vocht’s findings showed that “the collaborative discussions not only led to more multifaceted understandings of teacher–child dialogue as uncertain and unfinalised, but also to transformative changes in the teachers’ practice with fewer structured, teacher-initiated activities and more open-ended opportunities for children” (p. 317). This clearly demonstrates that there are benefits for students and teachers when dialogic pedagogies are employed.

4.3 What subject area is dialogic pedagogy literature focusing on?

As discussed briefly earlier, we were interested in discovering the subject areas that were the focus for dialogic pedagogy literature. Figure 5 shows that 25 studies focused on Science education, 17 on Mathematics education, and 16 on English education, with a further 11 peer-reviewed articles not specifying a subject focus.

Fig. 5

The school subject focus in dialogic pedagogy literature

What can be concluded from these findings is that there is a considerable interest in dialogic pedagogy research in science. A significant number of studies reported in the literature did not specify a specific subject area, and this could reflect a broader pedagogical focus for these studies, given that many of these studies were undertaken in the earlier years of schooling, where the integration of disciplines is less prominent. Therefore, it could be the case that subjects such as the Arts or Languages are also being investigated.

4.3.1 Examples of articles from each subject focus

Attard et al. (2018) investigated, using a mixed methodology approach, the dialogue in an Australian Year 5 mathematics lesson. Audio data was collected, and the transcripts were analysed using two different analytical frameworks — the Teacher Scheme of Educational Dialogue Analysis (T-SEDA) (Hennessy, 2016) and The Engaging Messages Framework (Munns, 2007). Findings suggested that almost all the exchanges followed the three-part pattern of communication “Initiation-Response-Feedback” (Mehan, 1979) with a high degree of teacher control. Furthermore, there was little evidence that the dialogic pedagogies of the lesson encouraged the development of mathematical processes.

Bansal (2018) investigated the numerous purposes of teacher discourse moves, essential to orchestrate dialogic discourse in a science classroom, focusing on students aged 14–15 years in New Delhi, India. Using a multiple case study design, a discursive move framework was developed to qualitatively analyse the data (video recordings, observations, and teacher interviews) at the utterance level. Iterative examination of the data led to the emergence of overarching goals being pursued for dialogic organisation of talk that can be conceptualised as three components (Foundation, Initiation, and Perpetuation). Findings suggest that teacher utterances enabled the three components to come into play in the dialogic classroom. Specific tools that the teachers used to position themselves as “enablers of talk for thinking” were identified.

Brown (2016) investigated the emergence of argumentation literacy in a Socratic circle (a literacy practice used to provide students opportunities to co-construct meaning through dialogue) in a Year 11 English classroom in the USA. Using a qualitative methodology, video recordings were analysed using discourse analysis. Brown’s findings suggest that, through the use of exploratory talk, three discourse patterns emerged that are in line with argumentation practices: (1) generalisations, (2) communicative struggles, and (3) co-construction of ideas.

Chen et al. (2017) used an extended comparative intervention with six social studies classes of Taiwanese students, using two types of experimental groups. Two classes from each year level (years 1–6) were engaged in dialogic teaching over a 12-week period with the use of different materials (Analects of Confucius or moral dilemma stories), while three further classes served as control groups. Using a mixed methodology, audio data was analysed using ANOVA and the results of a detailed content analysis demonstrated that this dialogic intervention contributed to significant gains in the thinking of exploratory talk.

4.4 What year level and school subjects are the focus of dialogic pedagogy literature?

The intersection of year level and school subject focus was further analysed (see Fig. 6). Of the 61 peer-reviewed articles, 13 were excluded from this section as they either did not specify a year level or did not specify a school subject focus. Where the year levels or school subject focus covered multiple categories within a single article, each category was noted, meaning some are “counted” more than once.

Fig. 6

Year level and school subjects that are the focus of dialogic pedagogy literature

These results draw together some of the previous findings and indicate that Science was the most common focus for dialogic pedagogy research in secondary schools and mathematics was prominent in senior primary school, and identified a lack of literature with a subject-specific focus in the early years of schooling.

4.5 Which authors are most frequently cited in contemporary dialogic pedagogy literature?

During the screening process, the data set for this section was obtain by copying the reference lists of all 61 articles and pasting them into a spreadsheet, which was then sorted so that a frequency of occurrences could be established. Any authors mentioned 15 or more times were retained (see Appendix A). Figure 7 indicates the authors who were most regularly cited in the dialogic pedagogy literature. For readability, Fig. 7 only shows authors that were referenced 20 times or more.

Fig. 7

Authors and the number of papers they were cited in

Each author was awarded a tally for every publication where they were referenced. Where there were multiple authors for one publication, each author was given a tally, meaning that the total is greater than 61. For example, if a reference read “Smith, J., Brown, A., and Jones, B. (2022) Article Title. Journal Title, 50-55.”, Smith, Brown, and Jones would each be given a tally. Across the 61 peer-reviewed articles, there were many authors referenced; however, the work of Mercer was the most prominent (120 references).

Also, of interest was determining which publications were most often cited in the dialogic pedagogy literature (see Fig. 8). For readability, the figure only shows publications that were referenced 10 or more times. The full table with publications that were referenced 5 or more times is available in Appendix C. The most referenced bodies of work, each with a total of 22 citations, were Alexander (2020), and Vygotsky (1978).

Fig. 8

Most cited works

The data presented in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, when considered together, indicate that the most influential authors used in dialogic pedagogy were Mercer and Alexander. Mercer’s work specifically focuses on the value of “talk” and how it influences educational outcomes. He emphasises, through a Vygotskian lens, the use of language to “inter-think” and build “common knowledge”. Alexander’s work focuses on the power of “dialogic teaching” and how it develops students’ thinking, learning, and understanding. An examination of the works that cited Alexander largely noted his five key principles of dialogic teaching. According to Alexander, optimal classroom dialogue includes (1) collective participation with participants reaching shared understanding of task; (2) reciprocal sharing of ideas; (3) a supportive learning environment with participants encouraging each other to contribute while valuing all contributions; (4) cumulative building of knowledge and understanding; and (5) purposeful direction towards a specific goal.

Also noteworthy is Vygotsky’s book “Mind in Society,” which was significant in terms of how often one publication was cited. Vygotsky provides a broader sociocultural theory to underpin dialogic approaches. Although Vygotsky is not directly linked to dialogic pedagogy, the Vygotskyan perspective that language is not just a medium for articulating ideas, but rather is a crucial mechanism for forging new ways of thinking and knowing (Vygotsky, 1981), paved the way for the foundations for dialogic pedagogy. As authors in the field of dialogic pedagogy view learning as a social activity, facilitated through dialogue, the prominence of Vygotsky’s work was anticipated.

4.6 What are the most prominent methodologies used in contemporary dialogic pedagogy literature?

During the screening process, the methodologies used in each paper were noted (see Fig. 9). Of the 61 articles, 21 used mixed methods (2 case studies, 11 descriptive statistics, 3 simple statistics, and 5 complex statistics), and 38 were qualitative. There were no studies that used only quantitative methods and this may reflect the nature of the phenomenon being researched or the ontological approach of the researchers. Regardless of why, this finding does indicate a clear gap for research using quantitative methodologies.

Fig. 9

Methodologies used in the literature. Note: Case Study (includes single and collective), Simple Statistics (includes t-test, teacher perceptions of PD, and effect size), Complex Statistics (include Rasch, ANOVA, and multi-level analysis).

4.6.1 Examples of articles for each type of methodology

Muhonen et al. (2018) used a mixed-methods approach to examine the associations between the quality of educational dialogue and students’ academic performance to investigate the kinds of dialogic teaching patterns in a Grade 6 classroom lessons in Finland. The quality of the educational dialogue in the 158 video-recorded lessons was evaluated using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary (CLASS-S) observational instrument. Multi-level modelling indicated that the quality of educational dialogue was positively associated with students’ academic performance in language arts and physics/chemistry. Subsequent qualitative analysis revealed that teacher-initiated patterns were predominant in both subjects and that physics/chemistry lessons were more typically characterised by high-quality educational dialogue than language arts lessons.

Hansen and Alvestad (2018), in a qualitative study, focused on educational language practices of preschool teachers in Norwegian kindergartens in groups of students aged 1–3. Based on the qualitative analysis of semi-structured teacher interviews, the findings indicate a holistic dialogical approach to educational language practices. Varied social settings and approaches are used for language learning and aspects of planning and assessment are imperative in these kindergartens.

4.7 What are the most common data sources?

The most common data sources used in the articles were video recordings (42), audio recordings (23), observations (14), and interviews (13). Video is likely the dominant data source as it provides an audio recording of the dialogue with the added benefit of providing visual data of the context in which the dialogue takes place. Observations and interviews also proved to be an effective means of collecting data. For example, Sutherland (2015) conducted semi-structured lesson observations of junior secondary classrooms and found the observations helped to add context when unwanted behaviours occurred. Surveys were only used in four mixed-methods studies.

4.8 What interactions (dialogic or monologic) are most observed in the literature?

During the screening process, the findings of each paper were analysed for any reports of the types of observed teacher-learner interactions (see Fig. 10). Of the 61 articles, 32 reported on the types of teacher-learner interactions that were observed and noted. Of these 32 articles, 20 reported that teacher-learner interactions were predominantly monologic in nature, seven reported that teacher-learner interactions were predominantly dialogic in nature, and five reported that teacher-learner interactions were a combination of both dialogic and monologic.

Fig. 10

The most common teacher-learner interaction observed in the literature

Although it is somewhat of a generalisation, it can be seen from these results that the type of teacher-learner interaction most observed in the classroom is monologic in nature. Although opportunities for dialogic interaction exist, these results seem to confirm what Alexander (2017), Nystrand et al. (2003), and Wegerif (2007) report — that monologic teacher-learner interaction is dominant.

4.8.1 Examples of articles for each type of teacher-learner interaction

Jones and Chen (2016) consider how dialogic teaching principles might support an engaging, productive pedagogy for teaching grammar. Using video recordings of 150 Australian students in years 1–6, and a qualitative methodology, Jones and Chen (2016) offer a linguistic account of the dialogic principles as they are enacted in the classroom, and thus provide insights into the intricacies of the principles in action. They “argue for knowledge of classroom talk as a resource for engaging learners with grammar and for fostering the metalinguistic understandings imagined in this curriculum reform” (p. 45).

Kathard et al. (2015) describe how teachers and learners interacted during whole-class instruction along the continuum between monologic and dialogic interaction in classrooms, across multiple subject areas, in year levels 4–6 in Western Cape, South Africa. Using a video observation method, teacher-learner interactions (TLIs) were analysed using mixed methodologies. These researchers used indicators such as authority, questions, feedback, explanation, metalevel connection, and collaboration. The study found some evidence of transitional TLIs; however, monologic interactions were dominant and the absence of dialogic TLIs suggested that collaborative engagement opportunities were unavailable.

Adie et al. (2018) present a focused analysis of teacher and student interaction in feedback conversations, which include both dialogic and monologic elements, to contribute to an understanding of feedback as a dialogic process. Two detailed coding frameworks (one for teacher feedback and another for student feedback) were developed to capture teacher-student interactions in feedback discourse. The codings were used to qualitatively analyse how opportunities were opened or closed for student contribution. Drawing on data from video and audio recordings, and transcripts from six teacher/student pairs in Australian Year 9 in secondary schools in a range of subject areas, this research focussed on discourses used in one-to-one feedback. The findings recognise how the development of student self-regulatory skills was supported in some conversations but not in others. The study demonstrates how the dialogic nature of feedback can influence learning for both student and teacher.

5 Conclusion

This SQLR has shown that the contemporary literature regarding dialogic pedagogy is limited. The literature indicates that mathematics is the second most researched context, after science, and that English and HASS are less researched. In addition, and most relevant to the geographical location of the authors of this article, the findings indicate that there has been a lack of emphasis by Australian or New Zealand authors in investigating dialogic pedagogy in mathematics education (only 11% of the articles being targeted towards this context). A final observation is that there is a lack of literature investigating dialogic pedagogy in the early years of schooling. These findings indicate that, whilst some educational areas have been well researched in terms of dialogic pedagogy, more work remains to be done in terms of (a) the early years of schooling, (b) non-science contexts, and (c) using a more quantitative research approach.

Appendices

Appendix A

Resources	Search type	Search string	Refinements	Results	Refined results	Notes
Library catalogue	Basic	teach* AND (Abstract:(dialogic*)) AND math*	Full text, journal article, peer reviewed/refereed materials, English	404	43	Largest number of relevant papers
A+ Education (via informit)	Advanced	(AB:”dialogic practice”) OR (AB:“dialogic method”) OR (AB:dialogic AB:pedagogy) AND (AB:“early years” OR AB:primary OR AB:secondary) AND teach*	Full text, journal	4	2
Education Database (via pro quest)	Advanced	(dialogic method) AND ab(dialogic) AND ab(“early years” OR primary OR secondary) AND teach*	Full text, peer reviewed, English, journals	19	1
Emerald Fulltext	Advanced	(content-type:article) AND (dialogic method AND (teach*) AND (abstract:“dialogic”) AND (“early years” OR primary OR secondary))	Only content I have access to	33	0
ERIC (via ProQuest)	Advanced	“Dialogic pedagogy” AND teach* AND ab(dialogic) AND (“early year” OR primary OR secondary)	Full text, peer reviewed/refereed materials, English, journal article	11	4
SAGE Journals Online	Advanced	[[All “dialogic method”] OR [All “dialogic pedagogy”]] AND [All teach*] AND [Abstract dialogic] AND [[All “early years”] OR [All primary] OR [All secondary]]	Full text, peer reviewed/refereed materials.	8	0	Limiting the subject to “education” cuts out articles that appear relevant. Therefore, this function was not applied.
Springerlink	Basic	(DIALOGIC OR “DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY” OR “DIALOGIC METHOD”) AND TEACH* AND (“EARLY YEARS” OR PRIMARY OR SECONDARY)	Full text, English, article, education	400	6	Most literature from this database was irrelevant.
Taylor and Francis Journals	Basic	(DIALOGIC OR “DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY” OR “DIALOGIC METHOD”) AND TEACH* AND (“EARLY YEARS” OR PRIMARY OR SECONDARY)	Full text	1564	3	Most literature from this database was irrelevant
			Subject: education

1. Note: the searches were conducted 04/09/19–16/09/19

Appendix B

Authors	Number of times referenced
Mercer, N.	121
Alexander, R. J.	65
Scott, P. H.	60
Mortimer, E. F.	44
Howe, C.	42
Nystrand, M.	42
Osborne, J.	39
Dawes, L.	37
Wegerif, R.	35
Bakhtin, M. M.	33
O'Connor, C.	33
Michaels, S.	32
Littleton, K.	29
Gamoran, A.	28
Vygotsky, L. S.	28
Wells, G.	28
Boyd, M. P.	25
Reznitskaya, A.	25
Resnick, L. B.	24
Seidel, T.	22
Lemke, J.	21
Chin, C.	20
Mehan, H.	19
Anderson, R. C.	18
Bruner, J. S.	18
Borko, H.	17
Gee, J.	17
Cazden, C. B.	16
Graham, S.	16
Hofmann, R.	16
Rojas-Drummond, S,	16
Simon, S.	16
Webb, N. M.	16
Hattie, J.	15
Ruthven, K.	15

Appendix C

Publication	Number of times referenced
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. UK Ltd.: Doalogos.	22
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.	22
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach (London, Routledge).	18
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.	17
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson, Trans., M. Holquist, Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.	14
Cazden, B. C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.	14
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.	14
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.	13
Scott, P. H., E. F. Mortimer, and O. G. Aguiar. 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.	13
Nystrand, M, Wu, LL, Gamoran, A, Zeiser, S, Long, DA. (2003). Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse processes, 35(2), 135–198.	12
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.	11
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.	11
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.	11
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.	10
Michaels, S., C. O-Connor, and L.B. Resnick. 2008. “Deliberative Discourse Idealised and Realised: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy of Education 27(4): 283–297.	9
Mercer, N., Dawes, L. & Staarman, J. K. (2009) Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom, Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.	8
Vygotsky, L. (1981). Thought and language (Rev. ed). A. Kozulin (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.	8
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.	7
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.	7
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C. (2004) Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science, British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.	7
Osborne, J., S. Simon, A. Christodoulou, C. Howell-Richardson, and K. Richardson. 2013. “Learning to Argue: A Study of Four Schools and Their Attempt to Develop the Use of Argumentation as a Common Instructional Practice and Its Impact on Students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50(3): 315–347.	7
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.	7
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, England: Methuen.	6
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.	6
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81e112.	6
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. International Biometric Society, 33(1), 159–174.	6
Littleton, K. and Howe, C., eds., 2010. Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.	6
Mercer, N. (2008), “The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis”, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), pp. 33–59	6
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.	6
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379e428.	6
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 174–193.	5
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.	5
Dawes, L., (2000). Thinking together: a programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham, AL: Imaginative Minds.	5
Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.	5
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445.	5
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.	5
Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.	5
Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.	5
Nystrand, M, & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.	5
Reznitskaya, A. (2012), “Dialogic teaching: rethinking language use during literature discussions”, The Reading Teacher, 65 (7), pp. 446–456.	5
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48, 114–133.	5
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48.	5
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. Journal of Educational Research, 39(1e2), 99e111.	5
van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227–269.	5