Two secondary teachers’ understanding and classroom practice of dialogic teaching: a case study

Dialogic Teaching (DT) is effective in fostering student learning; yet, it is hard to implement. Little research focused on secondary teachers’ learning of DT and on the link between teachers’ understanding and practices, although these two are usually strongly intertwined. Using a wide range of evidence, this case study systematically investigated and compared two secondary teachers’ understanding and practice of DT during their participation in a continuing professional development programme (CPDP). The CPDP appeared effective to some extent. The History teacher’s understanding of DT, i.e. being a co-learner, appeared highly effective in implementing DT, whereas the Mathematics teacher’s understanding of DT, i.e. creating a democratic learning environment, seemed only effective to some extent. Focusing on both teachers’ understanding and practice when developing DT seemed fruitful in explaining differences in practice. Future research could further explore to what extent understanding DT as being a co-learner facilitates professional development.     

From divergent evolution to witting cross-fertilisation: the need for more awareness of potential inter-discursive communication regarding students' extended historical writing

History education stakeholders in England have consistently judged that some students find formal historical writing prohibitively difficult due to the demands of constructing an extended argument. While policy makers have agreed students need support in their historical writing, recurring themes in centralised resourcing have been wastage, incoordination and replication. Furthermore, two concurrent but largely disconnected discourses have developed and promulgated initiatives relevant to students’ extended historical writing: ‘genre theorists’ and the ‘history teachers’ extended writing movement’. Despite certain goals held in common participants in the two discourses have tended to talk past one another with concomitant issues in resourcing. Unsystematic, cross-fertilisation between the discourses has led to cycles of genre theory being collectively discovered, forgotten, and rediscovered by history teachers with knowledge not being built cumulatively. Furthermore both discourses have independently developed similar initiatives in a form of convergent evolution resulting in duplication of labour. Finally, divergent evolution has occurred where genre theorists have advocated approaches that are increasingly redundant for history teachers’ requirements. A more activist stance is therefore required to ensure meaningful inter-discursive communication between genre theorists and the history teachers’ ‘extended writing movement’ to ensure efficacy in developing approaches to improving students’ extended historical writing.