Connecting

 Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  1  

Taylor  Lowe,  260603576  

EDES  350  -­‐  Classroom  Practices    
November  8th,  2017    
 
Implementing  Dialogic  Instruction:  Secondary  III  ELA  
 
1.  Classroom  Context    
 
  Over  the  last  seven  weeks  I  have  had  the  privilege  of  being  placed  at  an  

alternative  secondary  school.  This  is  a  unique  educational  environment  in  that  it  is  

incredibly  small,  with  only  about  40  students  in  attendance.  The  students  who  

attend  this  alternative  secondary  school  are  in  grades  nine  through  eleven;  usually,  

they  attend  because  they  struggled  to  succeed  in  a  traditional  school  environment.  

Ultimately,  this  school  respects  student  independence  and  provides  a  learning  

community  in  which  students  are  encouraged  to  grow  academically,  personally,  and  

culturally.  Given  the  low  student  population,  class  sizes  are  quite  small  with  

approximately  nine  to  sixteen  students  in  each  class.  The  secondary  III  class  I  will  be  

speaking  about  is  comprised  of  fifteen  lively  and  unique  students.  They  come  from  a  

variety  of  socioeconomic  backgrounds  and  tend  to  vary  greatly  in  terms  of  academic  

ability.  With  no  less  than  three  class  clowns,  this  group  of  students  keeps  me  

challenged  on  a  daily  basis.  Their  behaviour  can  become  off-­‐task  quite  easily,  

however  many  students  are  excited  to  learn  and  engage  in  class  debates  -­‐  most  

students  are  quite  eager  to  share  their  opinions.  There  are  no  students  with  EIP’s  in  

this  class  but  there  are  several  students  with  anxiety  and  attendance  can  be  erratic.    

2.  Vignette    

  Given  the  culture  of  the  secondary  three  class  and  the  pedagogical  goals  of  

my  host  school,  I  decided  dialogical  instruction  would  work  well  in  my  English  
Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  2  

Language  Arts  class.  I  designed  a  lesson  that  focused  heavily  on  dialogic  teaching  in  

which  students  would  view  various  video  clips  and  discuss  as  a  class  whether  the  

featured  characters  fit  the  anti-­‐hero  or  villain  archetypes.  I  would  give  the  students  

a  handout  to  read  together  at  the  beginning  of  class,  defining  and  giving  examples  of  

the  two  archetypes.  Additionally,  students  would  fill  out  a  worksheet  while  viewing  

the  video  clips,  based  on  the  class  discussion.  I  curated  a  large  collection  of  video  

clips  that  were  culturally  relevant  to  my  students,  hoping  this  would  help  get  

discussion  flowing.  As  students  arrived  I  greeted  them  individually,  hoping  to  

establish  a  friendly  rapport.  Before  beginning  class  I  reintroduced  myself  and  made  

a  point  of  learning  each  student’s  name.    

  I  began  class  by  handing  out  an  information  sheet  describing  villains,  anti-­‐

heroes,  and  the  difference  between  these  two  archetypes.  As  students  took  turns  

reading  from  the  handout,  I  paused  to  elaborate  and  check  for  understanding.  I  also  

asked  students  to  give  examples  from  movies  or  books  that  they  had  read.  This  

initial  activity  served  two  purposes:  it  helped  students  to  develop  the  foundation  

knowledge  for  the  following  activity  while  also  allowing  them  to  become  

comfortable  talking  to  me  and  to  each  other  in  a  learning  context.  Next  I  handed  out  

the  response  sheets  and  explained  the  activity  to  the  class.  On  the  response  sheet  

students  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  they  felt  the  character  in  each  film  clip  was  

an  anti-­‐hero,  a  villain,  or  neither,  and  to  give  their  justification.  I  asked  students  to  

base  their  responses  around  class  discussions,  but  to  form  their  own  opinions.    

  It  took  about  two  video  clips  before  students  seemed  to  feel  comfortable  and  

confident  discussing  their  opinions.  I  tried  my  best  to  encourage  students  to  talk  by  
Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  3  

asking  helping-­‐questions  and  praising  students  for  giving  responses.  I  also  never  

refuted  student  answers.  Instead,  I  invited  other  students  to  respond  to  their  peer’s  

statements.  After  the  second  video  clip,  discussion  really  picked  up.  I  could  tell  

students  were  beginning  to  trust  me  and  to  understand  that  there  were  no  wrong  

answers  in  this  exercise.  Almost  every  student  (but  not  all)  voluntarily  shared  his  or  

her  responses  to  at  least  one  video  clip.      

  Once  discussion  started  flowing,  I  became  merely  a  moderator.  Several  

confident  students  lead  (and  at  times  dominated)  the  discussion.  There  were  even  

several  points  where  students  began  to  debate  the  archetype  of  the  character  in  a  

film  clip.  These  debates  actually  ended  up  getting  rather  heated  and  I  had  to  step  in  

as  many  students  were  yelling  over  each  other.  At  one  point  I  had  to  ask  students  to  

close  their  eyes  and  put  their  heads  on  their  desks  in  meditation  for  a  few  moments  

to  re-­‐establish  peace.  However,  for  the  most  part,  discussion  was  on  topic  and  (I  felt)  

very  profitable  for  my  students.  When  I  graded  the  response  sheets,  I  saw  that  most  

of  my  students  had  met  the  lesson  objectives;  they  had  a  very  good  understanding  of  

anti-­‐heroes  and  villains  and  were  able  to  formulate  educated  opinions.    

3.  Dialogic  Instruction:  What  and  Why?    

  Dialogic  instruction,  on  a  very  basic  level,  refers  to  teaching  that  is  based  in  

meaningful,  authentic  conversation  both  between  student  peers  and  between  

students  and  educators.  In  his  chapter  titled,  “Dialogic  Instruction:  When  recitation  

becomes  conversation”,  Nystrand  describes  two  types  of  teaching:  monologic  and  

dialogic  (1997).  Monologic  teaching  is  often  based  in  recitation,  that  is,  closed-­‐ended  

questions  with  expected  short,  precise  answers  (Nystrand,  1997).  By  contrast,  
Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  4  

dialogic  instruction  “highlight[s]  the  role  that  intersecting  multiple  voices  play  in  

individuals’  learning  and  the  development  of  their  understandings”  (Nystrand,  

1997,  p.10).  It  does  this  by  giving  students  space  to  authentically  express  their  own  

knowledge  and  opinions  in  the  classroom  under  loose  guidance  from  an  educator.  

Nystrand  argues  that  effective  teaching  combines  both  monologic  and  dialogic  

instruction,  but  focuses  more  on  the  latter.    

  I  decided  to  implement  dialogic  instruction  into  my  secondary  three  ELA  

class  for  several  reasons.  Firstly,  this  group  is  very  talkative,  and  can  easily  become  

off-­‐task.  Nystrand  states,  “good  discourse  facilitates  learning…by  promoting  

students’  engagement  with  their  studies”  (1997,  p.28).  I  hoped  that  dialogic  

instruction  would  help  maintain  student  focus  by  allowing  for  opinionated,  

constructive  talk.  Secondly,  as  a  student  teacher,  I  am  not  very  confident  in  my  

ability  to  give  long  lectures.  When  I  try  to  plan  a  lecture-­‐based  lesson,  I  feel  like  I  am  

memorizing  a  script  and  putting  on  an  act.  I  constantly  fear  that  I  am  going  to  run  

out  of  things  to  say.  I’ve  also  found  that  as  a  student,  I  don’t  enjoy  passively  listening  

to  a  professor  lecture.  I  much  prefer  (and  learn  more  from)  class  discussions,  

debates,  and  group  activities.  My  last  reason  for  implementing  more  dialogic  

instruction  is  that  thirty-­‐three  percent  of  my  students’  marks  come  from  

participation.  Thus,  I  needed  to  find  a  way  to  generate  participation  marks  -­‐  

something  that  would  be  more  difficult  to  do  during  a  monologic  lesson.    

 
Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  5  

4.  Analysis  of  Application    

  Overall,  I  would  say  my  application  of  this  theory  was  successful.  My  students  

were  engaged  and  most  of  them  achieved  the  outlined  objectives.  I  also  noticed  that  

I  felt  much  more  comfortable  in  my  role  as  a  moderator/facilitator  than  I  have  

previously  as  a  lecturer.  I  was  not  focused  on  filling  time  and  space  with  my  voice  

(this  is  something  that  gives  me  stress),  but  rather  I  relied  on  my  students  to  do  so.  

This  allowed  my  students  to  take  on  an  active  role  in  their  learning  which,  in  turn,  

helped  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  off-­‐task,  disruptive  behaviours,  which  made  

classroom  management  easier  for  me,  being  a  new  teacher.    

  Further,  dialogic  discourse  allowed  and  encouraged  my  students  to  take  a  

position  on  the  issues  being  discussed.  Nystrand  states  “discourse  is  dialogic  not  

because  the  speakers  take  turns,  but  because  it  is  continually  structured  by  tension,  

even  conflict,  between  the  conversants”  (1997,  p.8).  This  sentence  accurately  

depicts  the  scene  of  my  classroom  during  this  particular  lesson.  Not  only  did  my  

students  form  strong  opinions  about  the  true  archetype(s)  of  the  characters  we  

observed,  they  challenged  each  other’s  opinions  and  engaged  in  heated  debate.  This  

was  very  encouraging  for  me.  I  was  able  to  see  that  my  students  truly  understood  

villain  and  anti-­‐hero  archetypes  and  that  they  were  passionate  about  accurately  

classifying  these  well-­‐known  movie  and  television  characters.  I  feel  my  students  

learned  a  great  deal  from  each  other  by  listening  to  and  examining  each  other’s  

points  of  view.  In  this  way,  my  students  were  able  to  construct  their  own  knowledge  

about  these  two  archetypes.    

Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  6  

  One  pitfall  in  my  application  of  this  theory  is  that  certain  students  tended  to  

dominate  the  discussion.  While  my  stronger  students  flourished  during  this  

exercise,  several  of  my  weaker  students  struggled  to  find  their  place  within  the  

discussion.  Nystrand  states  that  in  a  dialogic  exchange,  the  “teacher  frames  and  

facilitates  the  activity  and  can  respond  at  any  time,  but  keeps  utterances  and  

intervention  to  a  minimum”  (1997,  p.26),  additionally,  he  says  that  there  should  be  

“minimal  teacher  selection  of  students”  (1997,  p.27).  During  my  implementation  of  

this  theory,  I  tried  to  keep  true  to  these  suggestions.  In  doing  so,  my  shyer  students  

(who  tend  not  to  speak  unless  called  upon)  remained  silent  for  most  of  the  activity.  

While  I  certainly  feel  that  it  was  valuable  for  my  students  to  be  able  to  respond  to  

each  other  and  to  speak  at  will,  this  seemed  to  encourage  my  talkative  students  to  

speak  even  more  (effectively  dominating  the  discussion),  while  my  shyer  students  

spoke  even  less.  Thus,  not  all  of  my  students  benefited  equally  from  this  type  of  

instruction.  

5.  Implications  in  my  Own  Teaching  Practice  and  Relevance  to  Colleagues    

  Upon  examination,  I  will  continue  to  use  this  theory  in  my  classes,  though  I  

will  slightly  tweak  my  implementation  given  that  my  shyer  students  didn’t  benefit  

as  greatly  from  this  style  of  instruction  as  my  more  talkative  students  did.  In  order  

to  prevent  this  in  the  future,  I  will  consider  using  a  random  selection  process  (such  

as  pulling  names  out  of  a  hat)  to  choose  starting-­‐speakers  for  each  sub-­‐topic.  In  this  

way,  my  shyer  students  would  be  encouraged  to  participate  more  while  I  could  

avoid  intervening  too  much  during  the  actual  discussion.  Though  Nystrom  

recommends  that  teachers  avoid  choosing  speakers  (1997),  I  think  it  is  necessary  to  
Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  7  

do  so  with  this  particular  group  of  students  because  they  vary  so  greatly  in  terms  of  

personality  and  ability.  I  realize  that,  in  choosing  student  speakers,  I  need  to  be  

careful  to  not  stall  productive,  explorative  conversation.  This  is  why  I  would  only  

select  students  to  begin  conversation  on  new  subtopics.  I  believe  this  is  the  least  

disruptive  way  in  which  I  can  encourage  all  of  my  students  to  participate  in  these  

discussions.    

  Reflecting  on  my  application  and  exploration  of  this  theory,  I  would  highly  

recommend  dialogic  instruction  to  my  colleagues  for  a  variety  of  reasons.  Firstly,  

dialogic  instruction  may  help  to  cut  down  on  preparation  time,  consequently  taking  

some  of  the  pressure  off  of  (particularly  new)  teachers.  It  can  be  exhausting  trying  

to  fill  an  entire  period  when  teaching  in  lecture  format.  During  a  dialogic  lesson,  

students’  voices  occupy  the  majority  of  class  time,  thus  the  teacher  does  not  need  to  

prepare  an  hour-­‐long  presentation  (often  accompanied  by  detailed  PowerPoints)  for  

each  class.  Secondly,  dialogic  instruction  fosters  student  debate  and  disagreement,  

which  helps  all  students  to  gain  a  more  nuanced  perspective  of  the  issues  being  

discussed  in  class.  In  doing  so,  dialogic  instruction  encourages  students  to  become  

critical  thinkers  and  to  communicate  their  views  effectively.  Lastly,  in  my  

experience,  dialogic  instruction  is  helpful  in  keeping  students  engaged  and  on-­‐task,  

thereby  reducing  disruptive  behaviour  and  promoting  real  learning.  Ultimately,  I  

feel  this  theory  could  be  applied  in  nearly  any  classroom,  and  that  a  wide  variety  of  

students  (and  teachers)  could  benefit  from  its  application.    

 
 Connecting  Theory  to  Practice:  Dialogic  Teaching   Lowe  8  

Works  Cited  

Nystrand,  M.  (1997).  Dialogic  Instruction:  When  recitation  becomes  conversation  In  

Opening  dialogue:  understanding  the  dynamics  of  language  and  learning  in  the  

English  classroom.  New  York:  Teachers  College  Press.