“Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach” by Neil

Mercer and Karen Littleton (2007) explores the crucial role of spoken dialogue in children's
intellectual development during their school years. The book draws on extensive research
conducted over 16 years to prove the close relationship between the quality of classroom
talk and children’s thinking and educational achievement. It also presents a more
educationally relevant interpretation of sociocultural theory, particularly the work of Lev
Vygotsky, to explain how dialogue contributes to learning and cognitive growth.

This book presents eight chapters providing both theoretical and practical exploration of how
dialogue influences children's thinking and learning in educational settings. Below is the
summary of each chapter:

1. Why dialogue?

Mercer and Littleton (2007) claim that their main interest in the word "dialogue" is the
classroom talk that includes teacher-student exchanges and student discussions. They
argue that language, especially spoken language in classroom dialogue, deserves some
special attention since it is the teacher’s main pedagogical tool. However, while
classroom talk has been investigated thoroughly, children’s opportunity to use language,
the quality of children’s talk and its impact on learning outcomes have received less
attention. Moreover, Mercer and Littleton (2007) accentuate that there has not been
enough emphasis in educational policy and practice on the value of teaching children
how to use language for learning.

Aside of focusing on the ‘dialogue, Mercer and Littleton (2007) put some emphasis on
the relationship between dialogue, learning and development. According to Mercer and
Littleton (2007), learning is not simply about receiving new information. They view
learning as the process through which individuals develop the ability to make sense of
the world, solve problems, and gain new perspectives on their knowledge through
interaction. On the other hand, they argue that ‘development’ is a progressive kind of
growth where children use their knowledge from learning as an act of their intellectual
activities. Both terms, learning and development, are used by Mercer and Littleton
(2007) to show how children gain knowledge from their social interactions and be
intellectually and progressively active to carry out certain kinds of learning activities.
Underpinning sociocultural theory by Vigotsky, Mercer and Littleton (2007) support their
claim that thinking, learning and development cannot be understood without taking
account of the intrinsically social and communicative nature of human life.

Mercer and Littleton (2007) contend that humans use language not only for social
interaction but also to solve problems collaboratively. When they do so, they not only
interact but also work together to combine their intellect in creative ways to achieve
goals. Language is the principal means to establish a shared understanding, test out
possible solutions, and reach agreements in problem-solving situations where dynamic
engagement occurs among partners. With this view, Mercer and Littleton (2007) argue
that children’s collaborative activities contribute to improve their learning and
development.
 This part also briefly discusses how teachers influence classroom discussions.
Teachers are not just responsible for sharing knowledge but also for creating an
environment where conversations can thrive. Good teachers know how to ask the right
questions, challenge students' thinking, and lead discussions that help students
understand things better.

2. How does interaction help learning and development?

This chapter uses a sociocultural perspective to focus on the role of interaction in

children’s learning and cognitive development. Mercer and Littleton (2007) explain that
learning is a social process, not an isolated or individual process. In contrast to Piaget’s
theory that sees children as a ‘lone scientist’ that requires restricted intervention from
adults, Mercer and Littleton (2007) underpin Vygotsky’s perspective that children are
able to build knowledge, share ideas, and develop a deeper understanding of the world
through interactions with peers or more knowledgable individuals (such as teachers).

Mercer and Littleton (2007) further explain the dialectical relationship between
intermental (social/interpersonal) and intramental (individual/intrapersonal) processes.
According to Vygotsky, processes of interaction between the child and others, at the
so-called intermental level, become the basis for processes that subsequently go on
within the child—discussion, interaction and argument that become internalized as the
basis for intramental reflection and logical reasoning. Thus, learning and development
are seen as both interpersonal and intrapersonal processes mediated by cultural tools,
which emerge in the course of joint activity so that the child’s understanding of the world
develops through interaction with others.

Mercer and Littleton (2007) then elaborate on one key of Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory, the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This key concept explains that a child
can achieve higher levels of understanding and skill with appropriate guidance. Through
social interaction, learners move from what they can do independently to what they can
achieve through collaboration. Closely related to the ZPD is the idea of scaffolding. This
refers to the temporary support provided by a teacher or peer, which helps the learner
accomplish tasks they would not be able to complete independently. Once the learner
becomes more capable, the support is gradually removed, and the learner can perform
the task independently. According to the authors, scaffolding is one of the central
mechanisms by which learning takes place in a social context.

According to Mercer and Littleton (2007), social interaction plays a crucial role in
learning and development. Whether it's interaction between learners or between people
in the roles of learner and teacher, dialogue enables the effective sharing of ideas and
the pursuit of common goals. The evidence supports the view that developing children
are both active constructors of their own understanding and dependent on dialogues
with others to scaffold their development. A child's development depends on their
individual contribution to the dialogic process as well as the influence of those they
interact with, reflecting the cultural tools and knowledge resources of their communities.
3. Learning together
Mercer and Littleton (2007) explore the concept of collaborative learning and its impact
on children's cognitive development. The chapter builds on the sociocultural perspective
introduced earlier, focusing on how peer interaction can enhance learning and how
children construct knowledge together. They first elaborate the nature of collaborative
learning that involves working with pairs or groups to solve problems. They argue that
through collaborative learning, children share their knowledge and construct new
knowledge through dialogue and interaction. They explain that children who work
together in a group do not need to exceed one another. They are allowed to face a
situation where they have different solutions/ideas. With this occurrence, they will re-
think about the solutions to gain shared agreements.

The results of experimental studies show that collaboration can greatly affect children's
learning and development. It is important to see conversation as more than just a way
for children to learn; it is also a valuable form of social thinking in itself. However,
observations have revealed that classroom collaboration is often unproductive and
unfair. Some studies suggest that improving the quality of collaboration requires creating
an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. It's also clear that the specific design of
activities, including the software used for joint tasks, can have a significant impact.

4. How dialogue with a teacher helps children learn

This chapter focuses on teacher-students dialogic interaction that guide students'
thinking, helping them develop not only knowledge but also cognitive skills such as
reasoning and critical thinking. The authors draw some findings from school-based
research to support their idea.

Firstly, they explain the importance of teacher questions. Mercer and Littleton (2007)
believe that asking questions is a very important tool for teachers to use to start
conversations. They think that the type of questions teachers ask is very important. For
example, closed questions that only ask for facts do not make students think deeply. On
the other hand, open-ended questions make students think critically and explain their
ideas. The authors say that good teachers use questions to help students so that they
are able to think hard. Some research findings that examine learners who achieved the
best score show that their teacher used question-and-answer sequences not just to test
knowledge but also to guide the development of understanding. For instance, the
teacher used ‘why’ questions to get pupils to provide reasons. Besides, the teachers
taught problem-solving aside from ‘subject content’. The teacher also treated students
learning as a social, communicative process that organizes the interchange of ideas
among students that encourage more active and vocal role classroom events.

Then, Mercer and Littleton (2007) introduce the concept of Alexander’s dialogic
teaching, where dialogue is at the heart of the learning process. In contrast to traditional,
didactic methods where the teacher controls the flow of information, dialogic teaching
encourages shared responsibility for learning between teachers and students. Teachers
use dialogue not only to impart knowledge but also to help students develop their own
reasoning abilities.
 One interesting point here is Mercer and Littleton (2007) argue that classroom talk not
always be ‘dialogic’. They argue that there will be occasions when the teachers may not
be interested to explore pupils’ ideas and their account in the development of the
lesson. This is the moment where the teachers think that it is the time to focus on
scientific content, to introduce some new concept, or to redirect students’ attention to
phenomena under investigation. The key to deciding this repertoire lies in teachers’
application of language in teaching and learning. (This argument sounds very sensible
for me).

5. Learning to think together – and alone

In this chapter, Mercer and Littleton (2007) introduce an approach called Thinking
Together. This approach demonstrates how social interactions in particular ways to
laking and working together help children develop independent thinking skills. The
authors emphasize how collaborative learning and interaction contribute to the
development of both social cognition (intermental) and individual thinking (intramental).
They argue that children are first exposed to complex ideas and reasoning in social
settings, such as classrooms and peer discussions, and later internalize these
processes for independent thought. This concept is based on Vygotsky's theory that
higher cognitive functions originate in social interaction and are later internalized by
individuals.

In addition, Thinking Together encourages students to give reasons, seek clarification,

ask questions, listen to each other’s and so on (exploratory talk). The main goal of this
approach is to help pupils to apply, adapt, and develop their use of language flexibly and
creatively in their discussions. Mercer and Littleton (2007) argue that when students are
encouraged to explain their reasoning, question others, and consider alternative views,
they develop the capacity for critical reflection. This reflective thinking, first developed in
a social context, becomes a skill they use when working alone.

6. Evaluating sociocultural theory in practice

This chapter reports the results of classroom-based research that has tested the
effectiveness of Thinking Together to classroom dialogue. In short, the research has
provided the evidence of Vygotsky’s proposal that collective thinking (Intermental
activity) shapes the development of individual thinking (intramental activity).

Although the authors claim the research's positive results, they admit they encountered
some challenges when applying the Thinking Together program. Some teachers were
resistant to this and argued that students had already been dealt with so many rules of
learning. They thought that it would lead to confusion. Besides, students were not
familiar with exploratory talk. However, the students seemed to enjoy the activity,
knowing that everyone deserved to be heard and did not need to quickly agree to one’s
answer. They are tricked and encouraged to think other possible answers.

7. Time for learning: Classroom dialogue in its temporal context

This chapter proposes an alternative name for sociocultural theory, that is socio-
historical theory. It emphasizes that the development of human knowledge, both
collectively and individually, has a historical dimension by looking at time that is used as
a resource in dialogue. From a sociocultural perspective, language is the prime tool for
 making collective sense of experience and using dialogue to mediate that activity. On
the other hand, sociohistorical theory sees learning as a process that happens over time
and is mediated through dialogue. In other words, the progress of the talk itself matters.

Mercer and Littleton (2007) also examine the temporal patterns of classroom talk. They
discuss how dialogues often unfold over multiple lessons or even across entire school
terms. Ideas introduced in one lesson may not be fully understood until they have been
revisited and discussed several times. The authors suggest that effective teaching
involves recognizing these temporal patterns and structuring lessons in a way that
allows ideas to be developed incrementally over time. They argue that students need
time to reflect on what they have learned, and teachers should encourage them to revisit
previous discussions and consider how their understanding has evolved. This process
of reflection helps students internalize new knowledge and develop metacognitive skills.
To do this, teachers should be mindful of how time is used in the classroom, making
room for extended dialogues that allow students to engage deeply with the material.
They suggest that schools should provide teachers with the flexibility to prioritize depth
over breadth in the curriculum, giving students the time they need to fully develop their
understanding through dialogue.

8. Some conclusions
This chapter brings together some conclusions of issues discussed in this book as
described as follows:
a. Giving children guidance on how to use language to reason positively impacts their
collective problem-solving and curriculum learning.
b. The mediation of cultural tools of language and social interaction shapes intellectual
development.
c. Through engaging in collective thinking/collaboration, children learn how to think
better on their own.
d. Through the Thinking together project, learners learned how to interthink effectively
e. Promoting exploratory talk enables the opening and maintaining of dialogic space of
reflection in which children can jointly pursue creative solutions to problem.
f. Dialogue deserves to be more closely related to the nature of classroom talk with a
more visible and explicit role in children learning and development.
g. The use of exploratory talk in group work reduces risk and frustration of any failure to
find solutions because the responsibility is shared. However, more interactive,
observed group work and tasks need to be clearly designed.
h. The joint construction of knowledge is negotiated, contested, and achieved over time.