Dialogic teaching and learning in theory

A strong consensus has emerged over five decades of research into classroom interaction. First, there is general concern with the dominance of traditional teacher-led talk, which typically follows a three-part structure: teachers initiate a topic, primarily by asking closed questions; pupils respond with brief answers; and teachers evaluate pupil responses.

This Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) cycle positions teachers (and textbooks) as the sole
legitimate sources of knowledge. Pupils’ main task is to recall and recite for evaluation what they have previously read or been told (1). Consequently, IRE has been criticised as detrimental to pupils’ independent thinking and learning.

Second, there is significant support for dialogic teaching and learning as an alternative. Dialogic approaches have grown out of the work of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), a Russian psychologist who
argued that thinking originates in social interaction — that talk between people becomes internalised as individual cognition.

From this perspective, if we routinely push pupils to provide justification for their arguments, question assumptions and clarify concepts, they will internalise these processes as habitual ways of thinking. Talk is thus a powerful tool for learning and cognitive development, but it has to be the right kind of talk.

How does dialogic teaching and learning work in practice?

In dialogic classrooms, teachers elicit a range of pupil ideas, including those that are only half-formed or emerging, and in doing so, they bring multiple (and potentially conflicting) perspectives into play. Teachers probe pupil responses, pushing them to extend and clarify their thinking. In turn, pupils listen carefully to the teacher and to each other, and with their teacher’s support, they build on, challenge or clarify others’ claims and offer alternative explanations.

Throughout, teachers and pupils remain committed to factual accuracy and to disciplinary
standards, and they work hard to develop coherent lines of inquiry (see Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Connor and Lauren Resnick on ‘Accountable Talk’ and Robin Alexander’s principles of dialogic teaching).

Teachers thus need a repertoire of talk moves (2) that help children to articulate and deepen their reasoning, orient and listen to one another, and build on or critique each other’s claims (3). However, dialogue involves more than a shift in interactional style. Dialogue is a particular stance towards knowledge, one that is open to alternative perspectives and critique (4).

In dialogic classrooms, the thinking process is valued over a correctly stated “right” answer (Resnick et al. 2018). Dialogue is also a relation, based on mutual respect, inclusivity and solidarity – see Lefstein and Snell 2011 and 2014 on multiple dimensions of dialogue (5). These relational aspects are crucial to creating a ‘safe space’ within which pupils feel able to contribute.

Within this safe space, speakers must be able to elaborate their thinking using whatever language they find most comfortable (6). For many, this will be their local dialect. For most, it will involve hesitation, half-formed statements and the occasional use of “like.” When teachers create this environment, virtually all pupils participate (7, 8).

What are the benefits of dialogic teaching and learning?

Schools under pressure to raise scores on standardised assessments may feel that they cannot
devote time to developing classroom talk, but research has shown that dialogic approaches can
enhance children’s learning and raise achievement across the curriculum, including on standardised tests (9, 10, 11).

Some pupils retain this advantage for two to three years following a dialogic teaching
intervention, and under certain conditions, they may transfer gains across academic domains (120. For example, pupils who participate in dialogic teaching and learning in their science lessons do not only do better on standardised tests of science, but on tests of mathematics and English too (13, 14).

This suggests that dialogic discussion can support the growth not only of specific disciplinary knowledge but also broader capacities to reason, process and solve new problems (15), which children can put to use in other subjects, and indeed, in other aspects of their lives. A large-scale dialogic teaching intervention across primary schools in England found that gains in mathematics achievement were greatest for students eligible for free school meals, thereby underlining the potential for dialogue to have a significant impact in underprivileged communities (16).

There are other benefits too. Pupils who experience dialogic teaching and learning will develop their oral language skills, gain confidence and build relationships (by becoming more patient and
attuned to others’ perspectives). They will develop argumentation and public speaking skills and
come to understand norms of rational deliberation. Dialogue can also help to re-energise disengaged pupils and empower marginalised groups by affording young people the opportunity to make their voices heard (17).

What are the barriers to dialogic teaching and learning?

Several challenges confront teachers who want to foster dialogic talk in their classrooms. First,
competing with the proven benefits of dialogue are demands for teachers and pupils to speak in
ways deemed to conform to “standard English.” Here, it is taken for granted that there is a “correct” way to speak as well as write, which leads to overt correction of pupils’ spoken language and other modes of language policing that inhibit dialogue (18).

These ideas are institutionalised and reproduced in Ofsted reporting and other policy mechanisms (19). In contrast, in a dialogic classroom, teachers and pupils understand that speech is situated within specific contexts and interactions, and thus what counts as “good”, “standard” or “acceptable” spoken language will vary from one situation to the next, between different groups of speakers, and over time. Language variation is a resource that we can exploit as we make choices in interaction, not a problem to be eradicated (20, 21).

Second, teachers’ perceptions of pupils (and pupils’ perceptions of themselves) can be a barrier to dialogue. Research has shown that teachers often believe that only some pupils – the high achievers and those from privileged social backgrounds – are capable of participating effectively in dialogic discussion, and this has an impact on the questions they ask and the level of structure and control they apply (22). The result is that dialogic teaching is often limited to pupils who are high achieving and/or already advantaged by the education system, even though we know that all pupils can benefit from dialogue.

Finally, dialogic teaching and learning requires a skilled teacher who is able to use their professional judgement to balance different dimensions of dialogue – productive talk moves, robust but respectful critique, and relations of solidarity – from one classroom context to the next. There is no “best practice” approach (23). These skills can be honed through guided reflection on video recordings of real classroom practice (as advocated in Lefstein and
Snell 2014). Dialogue thus requires investment in teacher professional development.

Hear Professor Julia Snell speak at The Speaking Summit 2026.