In his recent book, “A dialogic teaching companion”, Alexander (2020) believes that his

previous book, “Towards dialogic teaching”, needs further updates with more inclusive
adaptation. This decision was made as he claims that the field of dialogic teaching has vastly
expanded, accumulating fresh evidence and opening new lines of enquiry. His stance of
dialogic teaching has evolved as well after developing this approach over the years.
Underpinning his large-scale independent randomised control trial involving numerous
teachers during 2014-2017, he validated that dialogic teaching helps them to set out ‘lively’
professional development strategies. With added confidence in its broader application in
education pedagogy, he authors this book with the spirit of Bakhtin’s dialogue, reflecting his
unfinished journey of exploring the riches and possibilities of classroom talk.
On this occasion, I wish to present important information from this book concisely and
organized, using bullet points to highlight key details.
1. Dialogic teaching has positive impacts on teaching and learning. It utilizes the power
of talk to actively engage students in their learning process and support teachers in
their practice. Engaging in dialogue stimulates students' thinking and interest,
deepens their understanding, expands their ideas, and helps them develop
evaluative arguments. In addition, dialogic teaching allows teachers to effectively
assess their students' needs, devise learning activities, and assist students through
challenges. Therefore, dialogic teaching is suitable for all parties since talk builds
knowledge, social relations, mutuality and education.

2. Alexander (2020) strongly argues that talk is the 'heart' of dialogic teaching. Through
talk, students learn about the world, and teachers learn about their students. He adds
that dialogic teaching is more than just 'classroom talk,' where questions-answers
and listen-repeat routines are primarily encountered in classroom conversations.
Dialogic teaching, in his view, relishes and rejoices all forms of language through
expression, articulation, communication, discussion, and argumentation

3. His research on classroom talk aims to explore alternatives to the defaults or

disguised recitation of IRF/IRE by creating a conceptual and practical framework for
dialogic teaching. He integrates the framework with the teacher and student’s talk
repertoire, validated by evidence and guided by the procedure.

4. In Chapter 2, he presents evidence that talk is not merely incidental to teaching and
learning but an essential component that requires skills and understanding to apply.
He mentions several important points in this chapter as follows:
a. Children construct meaning not only from the interaction between what they
newly encounter and their existing knowledge but also from verbal interaction
with others (parents, teachers, peers). This interaction is critical for children's
understanding and for their identity and self-sense development.
b. Children's learning requires external intervention. Alexander (2020) challenges
the idea of a child as a ‘lone scientist’, which believes that children can learn
alone by manipulating objects and materials. He supports Vygotsky's idea that a
child’s cognitive development requires engagement with spoken language with
other people. In this view, he sees that in learning to talk, children talk to learn.
c. Neuroscience research supports the Vygotsky’s ideas that schooling requires
both conscious effort and direct intervention rather than the ‘wait and see’
developmental facilitation.
 d. Of all the tools for educational intervention, talk is perhaps the most persuasive
and powerful tool. It mediates the cognitives and cultural spaces between
teacher and learners at any ages, among learners themselves, and between
what they already know and have to know. Therefore, teacher’s principal task is
to create interactive opportunities and appropriately engineer the mediation.
e. In this book, Alexander (2020) focuses on the extent and the use of teacher’s
repertoire rather than whether the teacher is active or passive. It means that
dialogic teaching needs teachers to mediate the students’ learning. It does not
emphasise teacher as the central of learning (teacher-centred/active) or as
merely learning facilitator (student-centred/Passive), but how teachers actually
work to arrange lessons.
f. Alexander (2020) emphasises that his proposed approach prefers the inclusive
‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’. Education has been plagued by dichotomies of
one kind, such as traditional or progressive, teacher-centred or student-centred,
instruction or discovery, etc.
g. A number of studies, such as the study of Lauren Resnick, Christa Asterhan, and
Sherice Clarke, concluded that students who experienced structured dialogic
teaching performed better in standardised tests (When I read this, I wondered
why they used standardised tests to measure students’ knowledge and the
effectiveness of dialogic teaching). Some students could' retain’ their knowledge
for years, while others could transfer it to different domains.

5. In chapter 3, he explores definitions, conceptualisation and argumentation of

dialogue approach. Several points are discussed in this chapter as follows:

a. Despite the positive assumptions that dialogic teaching improves students’

learning, as supported by research evidence, further and larger empirical
research is suggested to determine the effectiveness of dialogic teaching with
all kinds of students in various settings and subject matters.

b. More efforts are required to train teachers who are willing to use dialogue as
a significant component of their teaching. (These two points can be
considered as the rationale/gaps in my research.)

c. According to Alexander (2020), the term ‘dialogue’ needs to be defined

stipulatively based on the context of dialogic teaching. He argues that we
cannot merely refer to ‘conversation’ as the synonym of dialogue since
conversation is qualified by some adjectives like ‘ casual’, ‘lively’, and ‘
aimless’. However, as ‘dialogue’ used to mean the exchange of ideas, we can
use lexical family or hierarchy to define ‘dialogue’. First, ‘dialogue’ as a
conversation is used to qualify ‘what kind of conversation’ and ‘to what end
this conversation will be directed’. Second, dialogue as a discussion is used
when the talk suggests more investigation or examination. When the
discussion is considered and attentive, it is called deliberation where the
speaker carefully weighing the ideas. And when the deliberation requires
reasons and evidence to build, assess or to defend a case, it is called
argumentation.

d. Alexander (2020) has treated argumentation as a form of dialogue, whether it

is voiced or silent. Therefore, in dialogic teaching, Alexander (2020) views
 dialogue and argumentation as contingent rather than synonymous. However,
in line with Kim and Wilkinson (2019), Alexander (2020) states that various
scholars interpret dialogic teaching differently (Kim & Wilkinson, 2019).

e. Alexander (2020) mentions that ‘dialogic’ is usually associated with teaching,

pedagogy and education. However, these three terms cannot be treated as
synonymous. According to Alexander (2020), teaching is the intentional act of
bringing about learning, typically within educational institutions, but with a
more nuanced understanding guided by specific goals, values, and
assumptions. Further, he argues that pedagogy requires deliberate attention
and reflection, not just as a routine task during teacher training or professional
development programs, but as an integral part of daily educational practice.
Pedagogy is not just about what teachers do in the classroom—it also
encompasses the why behind those actions, reflecting on the purposes,
values, and beliefs that guide teaching decisions (the what and why). Then,
he identifies education as the broadest of the three circles (teaching,
pedagogy and education). It includes technical or functional systems
alongside values like law, right, justice, democracy and religion. Alexander
(2020) reminds us that education, at its core, is expressed through pedagogy
(the methods and principles of teaching) and is enacted through teaching (the
practical, everyday activity in classrooms).

f. Alexander (2020) claims that he uses ‘dialogic teaching’ term during his
research since this term is more ‘user-friendly’. However, although the key
term of this book is ‘dialogic teaching’, he claims that this book as a whole is
equally about dialogic pedagogy and education since it advances a view of
teaching that attends ideas, values and evidence for practice. (I am now
thinking about the term I will use for my research, whether it is dialogic
teaching or dialogic approach).
6. In Chapter 4, he discusses the development and initiatives that have expanded and
enriched the evidence and debate about classroom talk

7. In Chapter 5, he examines the complex relationship between oracy and literacy (the
spoken and the written) which is important for practical implications but is
insufficiently investigated. Some important notes in this chapter are as follows:

a. Alexander (2020) makes a clear distinction between oracy teaching (oral

development) and dialogic teaching (oral pedagogy). He says that oracy
focuses on student talk that does not always receive or require a response,
whereas dialogue is reciprocal in trajectory, pedagogical in intent, and
requires equal attention to teacher and student talk.

b. Alexander (2020) highlights the complex and underexplored relationship

between oracy and literacy. He criticizes how oracy is often positioned as
secondary to literacy in educational discourse. While literacy is frequently
associated with economic growth, social advancement, and intellectual
capabilities, oracy is often relegated to the realm of non-cognitive skills like
workplace communication. This creates a skewed hierarchy between the two,
positioning literacy as more intellectually valuable.
 c. However, Alexander (2020) emphasizes the strong and interdependence
relationship between oracy (spoken language) and literacy (reading and
writing). He argues that oracy serves as the foundation for literacy, meaning
that students' ability to engage in meaningful spoken dialogue enhances their
reading and writing skills.

d. Through dialogic teaching, where classroom discussions and dialogue are

central, students can develop critical thinking, comprehension, and
articulation of ideas. These skills directly translate to literacy because
students who are better able to express themselves orally tend to be better
readers and writers

e. Alexander (2020) suggests that oracy and literacy are not separate, isolated
skills but rather reinforce each other. Rich oral discussions in the classroom
provide students with vocabulary, ideas, and structures that they can later use
in their writing. Similarly, reading and writing activities enhance students' oral
language by exposing them to new language patterns and ideas that they can
bring into dialogue.

f. He also highlights that the interaction between oracy and literacy is essential
for cognitive development. Oral discussions allow students to process and
reflect on their ideas, deepening their understanding, which then informs how
they read and write

8. In chapter 6, he identifies the evidence that shows how dialogic teaching makes
differences to students’ understanding and learning. Some important notes are as
follows:

a. He acknowledges that while reciprocal and dialogic classroom talk is

essential for cognitive development and learning, the research is less clear
about which specific features of dialogic pedagogy exert the greatest
influence on learning outcomes. He uses a metaphorical ‘ingredient X’ of
dialogic teaching that makes this particular approach effective in students’
learning.

b. Alexander (2020) argues that this ‘ingredient X’ is the teacher’s move that
extend the classroom dialogue, such as encouraging students to elaborate
more ideas. These moves are particularly the teacher’s ability to handle the
third-turn (the follow up response after a student answers) that can either
open up students’ thinking or close it down. He emphasizes that feedback
from the teacher should aim to generate further questions, thus fostering
deeper cognitive engagement. (During my classroom observations few weeks
ago, this move attracted my attention the most. Usually, in IRE/IRF patterns,
the teacher would say ‘good, ‘excellent’, ‘fantastic’, etc after the students
answer the question and then the dialogue stopped. However, in my
observation, I saw that the teacher responded the students answer with ‘long
and elaborative feedback’ and then invited the other students to give
comment, evaluate or responses. The dialogue did not stop in the third-turn,
but continued to gather ideas from students).
 c. To support his argument, he refers to several large-scale projects findings
(EEF) which reveal the importance of metacognitive strategies—encouraging
students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning—as a significant
contributor to improving learning outcomes.

9. In chapter 7, he presents the latest version of approach to classroom talk reform that
he calls Dialogic teaching. However, his aims in providing the set of repertoires are
not to dictate teachers to follow and believe that this is the ‘one right way’ to handle
classroom talk. He emphasises that teachers need to use their own judgement about
how these repertoires can be effectively used in their particular teaching context.

a. The core of the chapter presents a framework for dialogic teaching, which has
evolved from earlier versions used in various educational projects. This
version includes eight dialogic teaching repertoires, which guide teachers on
how to incorporate dialogic principles into their teaching practices. These
repertoires focus on essential elements like classroom culture, organization,
student and teacher talk, questioning, discussion, and argumentation.

b. The framework is in sections as follows:

1. Purpose
The framework is designed to identify and explain the nature,
dimensions, and elements of the approach to dialogic teaching
presented in this book. It is both descriptive and prescriptive,
conceived as a comprehensive pedagogy rather than just a strategy
for managing specific talk situations like group work.
2. Distinctive Features
There are six segments of distinctive features within the framework of
dialogic teaching.
● Definitions
Alexander (2020)s stresses that dialogue and dialogue
teaching are not synonymous/interchangeable. He defines
dialogue as a structured oral exchange to handle information,
ideas and opinions. Dialogic teaching is a pedagogical method
that uses dialogue to foster deeper thinking and learning,
● Stance
This segment outlines the rationale behind dialogic teaching
and explains why it is a valuable educational approach. The
stance reflects the belief that learning is interactive and that
understanding is built through discussion and shared inquiry.
● Justifications
Alexander (2020) summarizes the educational arguments and
for choosing talk; talk for thinking, talk for learning, talk for
mastery, talk for communicating, talk for relating, talk for
acculturation, talk for democratic engagement and talk for
teaching.
 ● Principles
Alexander (2020) provides six (previously five) principles as
guidance to apply repertoire and assess the quality of dialogic
teaching. The six principles are collective, supportive,
reciprocal, cumulative, purposeful and deliberative. (In my
previous reading and assignment, there are only five
principles: collective, supportive, reciprocal, cumulative and
purposeful).
Collectivity, supportiveness, and reciprocity characterise the
classroom culture where dialogue is most likely to prosper.
Reciprocity and deliberation bridge the talk’s context and
content, for they reflect and steer the relationship between
ideas and people. Cumulation attends more specifically to the
content and trajectory of talk, transforming it from conversation
into a dialogue of meaning and moves. It demands
simultaneous professional skill, subject knowledge and insight
to understand each of his/her students. The final principle,
purposefulness, reminds the teacher that classroom discussion
differs from everyday social discussion because it contains
educational end/goals
● Repertoires
The repertoires encompass different teaching moves and
strategies, such as organizing interaction, questioning,
extending students’ ideas, and managing discussions. These
repertoires provide a flexible toolkit for teachers to adapt to
various classroom contexts. in other words, teachers can draw
on these teaching strategies depending on the classroom
context and students' needs. (I assume that the repertoire is
the ‘ingredient X’ of Dialogic Teachinf)
● Indicators
Alexander (2020) refines previous frameworks by introducing
15 broad indicators (previously 61) that help assess the quality
of dialogic teaching. These indicators focus on key aspects
such as interaction patterns, student engagement, and the
development of coherent lines of inquiry.
c. Alexander (2020) explains the three-group repertoire of dialogic teaching,
which organizes the various forms of classroom talk into distinct categories:

1. Culture and Organization (Repertoires 1 and 2): This group focuses

on creating a productive classroom culture that supports dialogic
interaction. It includes principles around classroom culture, norms,
space, time, and organization. These repertoires emphasize the
importance of setting norms for talk and structuring the physical and
social classroom environment to facilitate meaningful interaction.
These repertoires deal with how the interaction/relations is organized
(whole class, small group, individual), how the students are grouped
(related to the amount of group size, student’s task, and function of
 grouping), how the classroom space and layout are handled (rows,
cabaret, or horseshoe) and how time is apportioned (lesson length,
balance of talk-based and text-based and activities, range and
balance of different talk forms, and pace)

2. Patterns of Exchange (Repertoires 3 and 4): These repertoires deal

with different forms of talk, namely learning talk and teaching talk.
They outline ways to encourage and organize these interactions,
creating diverse and dynamic dialogue patterns in the classroom. The
dialogue patterns of learning talk could be transactional, expository,
interrogatory, exploratory, deliberative, imaginative, expressive and
evaluative. On the other hand, teaching talk includes rote, recitation,
instruction, exposition, discussion, deliberation, argumentation and
dialogue. Alexander (2020) adds that dialogic teaching encompasses
all of those teaching talk, but privileges the last four (discussion,
deliberation, argumentation and dialogue).

3. From Transaction to Move (Repertoires 5 to 8): This group delves

into specific teaching moves, such as questioning, extending,
discussing, and arguing, which teachers can use to guide and deepen
student dialogue. These repertoires break down the various ways
teachers can respond to students’ contributions to foster deeper
reasoning and cumulative understanding. In repertoire 5, Questioning,
we have to set up the questioning purposes (to initiate, to probe or to
expand) and the questioning structure (open, narrow, discursive). In
repertoire 6, Extending, is the follow up of the previous repertoire
where we direct the students to delve into discussion (ask the
students to say more, ask for evidence or reasoning, challenge
example, agree/disagree and why). The next repertoire, Arguing,
serves the move to clarify meaning, connect ideas, evaluate fact and
articulate reasons. (In my opinion, these moves/repertoires replace
the E/F on IRE/IRF patterns by expanding, extending or challenging
the students’ responses to open room for discussion)

d. Alexander (2020) suggests that the repertoire should be framed eclectically

and selectively (I am now curious how to set up the repertoire/moves for my
own classroom/workshops).

e. Alexander (2020) suggests 15 indicators to see whether the classroom uses

dialogic teaching. The following are the indicators we witness in a dialogic
classroom:
● Respect for the situation, needs and rights of every student, especially
those from communities whose voices are not treated equitably or
who for social or clinical reasons find it diffcult to express themselves
in front of others.
● Agreed and respected norms for speaking, listening and discussion.
● A preparedness to talk for its own sake and to re-think its relationship
with reading and writing.
● A broad and flexible repertoire of teaching strategies, modes of
interaction and forms of both student and teacher talk.
 ● Interactions that encourage students to think and to think in different
ways.
● Questions that invite more than simple recall and are posed by
students as well as teachers.
● Answers which are justifed, followed up, and built upon rather than
merely received.
● Feedback that takes thinking forward and is offered by students as
well as teachers.
● Extending moves which probe and collaboratively expand student
contributions.
● Exchanges that chain together into coherent and deepening lines of
enquiry.
● Discussion in which ideas are freely shared, heard and explored.
● Argumentation which tests and builds evidence and cases.
● Patterns of organisation that are conducive to the above include
handling classroom layout, student grouping, time, pace, and the
balance of whole class, group, and individual interactions.
● A classroom culture in which talk dynamics are collective, reciprocal
and supportive, and its content and trajectory are deliberative,
cumulative and purposeful.
● A recognisably dialogic stance on learning, knowledge and human
relationships, as well as on interaction, is more narrowly defined.

10. In chapter 8, he proposes professional developmental strategies to make dialogic

teaching happen. Alexander (2020) emphasizes that adopting dialogic teaching
requires a long-term commitment from both individual teachers and school systems.
Here's a summary focusing on professional strategies to achieve this:

a. Whole-School Approach: Alexander (2020) advocates for a whole-school

commitment to dialogic teaching, where the school leadership plays a key
role in fostering a supportive environment. He emphasizes that professional
development should not be isolated but embedded within the school’s culture,
ensuring that all staff are involved in the transition toward dialogic practices.

b. Training Cycles: Professional development should be structured in cycles of

training, implementation, and reflection. These cycles involve:
● Initial training on dialogic principles and strategies.
● Classroom implementation, where teachers apply these strategies in
their lessons.
● Reflective sessions with peer collaboration, where teachers share
experiences and refine their approaches based on feedback.

c. Responsive and Directed Focus: The chapter introduces a dual approach to

professional development:
● Directed focus involves specific guidance on applying dialogic
teaching methods. Teachers are expected to implement strategies in a
structured manner, which ensures fidelity to the dialogic approach.
● Responsive focus gives teachers the flexibility to adapt dialogic
principles to their unique classroom contexts, promoting professional
agency.
 d. Collaborative Professional Learning: Alexander (2020) emphasizes the
importance of collaborative learning, where teachers work together to explore
and refine their use of dialogic teaching. This can include peer observations,
co-planning, and feedback sessions to foster a community of practice that
promotes sustained growth.

e. Support Structures: Schools should provide ongoing support through

coaching, mentoring, and access to resources that help teachers implement
dialogic teaching effectively. This includes having experienced practitioners or
specialists in dialogic pedagogy who can offer guidance and address
challenges.

f. Reflective Practice and Evaluation: Teachers are encouraged to engage in

reflective practice by analyzing their dialogic interactions in the classroom.
Alexander (2020) suggests using video recordings, peer reviews, and
reflective journals as tools to evaluate progress and make adjustments.

g. Sustained and Incremental Change: The transition to dialogic teaching is a

gradual process requiring sustained effort. Alexander (2020) cautions against
quick fixes and highlights the importance of incremental changes that build
over time through continued professional learning and reflective cycles.

Kim, M.-Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and
reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, culture and social interaction, 21, 70-
86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003