Professional Development in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjie20

The transformation of pedagogical practices into

dialogic teaching: towards a dialogic notion of
teacher learning

Valentina Guzmán & Antonia Larrain

To cite this article: Valentina Guzmán & Antonia Larrain (2024) The transformation of
pedagogical practices into dialogic teaching: towards a dialogic notion of teacher learning,
Professional Development in Education, 50:4, 716-729, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1902837

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1902837

Published online: 19 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1804

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 50, NO. 4, 716–729
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1902837

ARTICLE

The transformation of pedagogical practices into dialogic

teaching: towards a dialogic notion of teacher learning
Valentina Guzmán and Antonia Larrain
Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The dialogic teaching approach has been studied widely, both empirically Received 22 May 2020
and theoretically. However, despite four decades of research suggesting Accepted 10 February 2021
that dialogical interactions promote student learning, it has been very KEYWORDS
difficult to reflect this in practice. Teachers’ professional development Teacher learning; dialogic
programmes oriented towards promoting dialogical pedagogies have teaching; dialogic teacher
been based on sociocultural approaches centred on teachers’ reflective learning; teacher
analysis of classroom practices. Studies show that reflecting on pedago­ professional development;
gical practices is necessary but insufficient to promote the desired pedagogical practice
changes. Beyond reflection, initiatives centred on scaffolding the practice transformation
with dialogic discursive repertoires have seen more successful results. This
suggests that centring on the practice seems to be fundamental to
change. Nevertheless, the theoretical basis has not been elaborated
further to understand why centring on the direct scaffolding of practice
would promote teachers’ learning and pedagogical practice transforma­
tion. In order to account for the available empirical evidence, drawing on
the works of Bakhtin and Vygotsky, the aim of this paper is to elaborate on
a dialogical theory of teacher learning. Using this theoretical approach,
different theoretical views of learning, teacher professional development
programmes and the main tensions therein are discussed.

1. Introduction
The need for change in teachers’ practices to promote learning that will meet the social demands of
the near future has long been raised by researchers and stakeholders, among other social actors.
However, how teachers learn has rarely been developed theoretically. This paper elaborates further
on the process of teacher learning of dialogic teaching practices from a sociocultural, material and
dialogical point of view. It is argued that as dialogical practices involve the learning of a certain
speech genre, language practices with others are needed in the classroom, and that curriculum
materials can offer a valuable scaffold in the process. We start by discussing dialogic teaching as
a pedagogical challenge and the empirical evidence regarding teacher professional development on
the matter. Then we revise the available theoretical models of teacher learning, pointing to the role
that pedagogical practices play in the process. Vygotsky’s theory of language development and
Bakhtin’s theory of language are then revised to raise the idea that learning to teach dialogically
involves learning to speak through specific genres; and, in order to do so, initially alien ways of
using language need to be scaffolded. Finally, we develop the notion of curriculum materials as
possible scaffolds for teachers’ learning of dialogic teaching.

CONTACT Valentina Guzmán [email protected] Almirante Barroso 10, Santiago, Chile

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 717

1.1 Dialogic teaching approach

In recent decades research in classrooms has acknowledged that dialogic practices are key to
knowledge construction (Alexander 2008, Nystrand et al. 2003, Matusov 2009, Wells 1999;
among others). The concept of dialogic teaching, coined by Robin Alexander (2008), is defined as
a general pedagogical approach that capitalises on the power of speech for the promotion of
learning and cognitive development, and which privileges strategically the integration of diverse
students’ voices through collective problem-solving through dialogue. Alexander (2008) argues that
this pedagogical approach includes specific speech repertoires that help students to develop greater
agency in the construction of their knowledge and understanding of a topic. According to this
author, although there are more common speech repertoires, such as recitation or repetition,
dialogic teaching privileges discussion and dialogue. This implies a type of dialogue that favours
a collaborative culture of ways of speaking in the classroom associated with specific educational
objectives: i) collectivity – teachers and students tackle the activities together; ii) reciprocity –
teachers and students listen to one another considering alternative points of view; iii) supportive –
ideas are articulated without fear of being embarrassed by ‘wrong’ answers, helping one another to
reach common understandings; iv) cumulative – teachers and students build their ideas among
themselves; and v) purposeful – teachers facilitate dialogic teaching, taking into account educational
objectives (Alexander, 2008). These characteristics are similar to the proposal by Mercer and
Littleton (2007), that a type of exploratory speech in the classroom prompts collectivity, reciprocity,
social construction and criticism of ideas. For example, in the classroom, with their students’
justification questions (‘why’), teachers use statements that imply reasoning (why, then), offering
reasons, among other things. This dialogic approach is based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
(1986), which considers language a privileged social means for structuring thought and promoting
learning. Kim and Wilkinson (2019) note that – even though to date there are differences among
conceptions of dialogic teaching in the literature, especially in terms of their adherence to episte­
mological perspectives on dialogue and the extent of considering different ways of talking –
Alexander’s theoretical approach has many elements in common and shares many features with
most of the different epistemological perspectives on dialogue.
Resnick et al. (2015) examined the evidence of students’ learning in diverse countries that had
experimented with dialogic teaching in their classrooms and found decisive results: besides improv­
ing performance on standardised tests, the knowledge developed in certain areas was maintained
for years, and it was even transferred to different disciplinary domains. In accordance with these
results, recent research has confirmed the importance of leaving space for students to develop both
their ideas and diverse and opposite views in the classroom (Howe et al. 2019, Sedová et al. 2019).
Despite four decades of research, in which convincing evidence suggesting that dialogic inter­
action is central to learning has built up, it has been very difficult to reflect this in practice in the
classroom (Reznitskaya and Gregory 2013). Research shows that teaching practices have not
changed, since transmissive forms of teaching prevail (Howe and Abedin 2013). These classic
ways of instruction are characterised by triadic sequences of interaction, usually known as the IRF
sequence (teacher initiation–student response–teacher feedback) or recitation (Sinclair and
Coulthard 1975). This accounts for the widely discussed gap between theory and practice in the
field of learning (Mercer and Howe 2012, Sedová 2017). For example, McIntyre (2005) argues that
the disconnection between theory and practice, and the knowledge gap between research and
professional practice, are the main reason for the maintenance of traditional models of teaching.
The conflict between teachers’ ideas and teachers’ practice epistemology has also been highlighted
as an obstacle to dialogic teaching implementation (Brownlee and Berthelsen 2006). Lyle (2008)
holds that the change from monological to dialogical practices is very hard because it implies
challenging asymmetrical, pre-existing and historically constructed power relations between tea­
chers and students. In this way, dialogue would constitute a potential threat for teachers, in the
sense that they would lose power, thereby emancipating their students.
718 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

From a critical perspective of educational policy, in countries where accountability policies and
market logic prevail, traditional forms of teaching are organised by competitive and comparative
ethics fostered by an evaluative state that governs from a distance (Ball and Youdell 2008). It is
expected that teachers will behave to satisfy external standards, which results in individualistic
cultures that erode collective values and social cohesion. Kath-Singer and McNeill’s (2016) study
shows that teachers’ beliefs about argumentation can impact their classroom instruction, and they
point out that teachers in low SES schools felt considerable pressure from accountability policy to
ensure that students do well in standardised tests, with little room for deviation in their teaching
practices. In this way, a process of teaching involving pedagogical innovation, such as a dialogical
pedagogy, would mean assuming a risky and uncertain path for the school and its actors (Lerman
2014, Falabella 2019).
In response to this challenge, various countries have proposed teaching and professional devel­
opment models to promote dialogic teaching.

1.2 Teacher professional development programmes of dialogic teaching

Recently, different teachers in professional development programmes have integrated reflective
dialogue about practice as a central ingredient in the promotion of a change towards more
dialogical pedagogies (for example, Borko et al. 2008, Reznitskaya and Wilkinson 2015, Sedová
2017, Hennessy et al. 2018, Van Es and Sherin 2010; among others). Within the most common
characteristics of teacher professional development programmes are: i) reflection on discursive
practices based on analysing videos and transcriptions; ii) feedback on class planning (Wilkinson
et al. 2017); and iii) the participation and involvement of the whole school in the implementation
process (Alexander 2018); among others.
However, evidence shows that teacher reflection about discursive practices is necessary, but not
sufficient, to promote a change in these practices (Lefstein and Snell 2014). In fact, although
research on teachers’ discourse in collaborative settings is scarce and fragmented (Lefstein et al.
2019), studies have shown that a coherent and productive focus on learning is missing. Coherently,
these teacher professional programmes have been partially successful in changing teachers’ prac­
tices when sustained over time. However, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the relationship
between teachers’ epistemology and practice: it shows changes in teaching practices without
changes in epistemological beliefs (Wilkinson et al. 2017).
Michaels and O’Connor (2015) propose focusing on practice scaffolding. The researchers
developed talk tools or talk moves to facilitate teachers’ orchestration of productive discussions to
develop students’ thinking. They established that talk tools within the classroom are powerful
movements that change the nature of the conversation produced between the teacher and the
students. This suggests that focusing on support for teachers’ practice is fundamental to the shift
towards dialogic pedagogies. Nevertheless, the question that arises is why these tools for practice
help the teacher to learn new ways of teaching.

1.3 Learning theory models and teacher change

Practice has been considered a starting point in teacher change (Guskey 1986). According to the
process model of teacher change (Guskey 1986, 2002), a significant change of beliefs depends on
obtaining changes in the learning outcomes of the students, from a change accomplished in the
practice. However, since the 1990s the opposite view has predominated, centring on teaching
cognition as a requirement for changing teaching practices. For example, according to implicit
models of development, like the one proposed by Cobb, Cobb et al. (1990), the transformation of
teachers’ beliefs and knowledge through cognitive conflict would be a necessary antecedent for
modification of the practice. This is consistent with neo-Piagetian approaches to adult learning that
emphasise the importance of suitable learning devices, called safe spaces, where it is possible to
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 719

experiment with new ways of acting and thinking, without too many risks or threats to the identity
and trajectory of the learner (Bourgeois and Nizet 1997/2007). From this perspective, identity
would be a starting point in the learning process, because change and transformation of prior
knowledge structures would be required for learning; however, this restructuration is enabled by
identity processes (Bourgeois 2009). From this perspective, one of the reasons why changing the
practices of current teachers is so difficult is because it first requires changing learning that is based
on years of experience (prior knowledge structures), which gives way to implicit theories about
learning and teaching that underlie teacher practices (Aldama and Pozo 2016).
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) have proposed the interconnected model of professional growth,
which accounts for the higher complexity in the changing processes. Instead of a linear path of
development, they suggest a non-linear, interconnected relationship between teachers’ different
domains: personal domain (beliefs, ideas), consequence domain (learning outcomes of students),
practice domain (professional experimentation) and external domain (external sources of informa­
tion). For this model, change can be initiated in any domain and is mediated by reflection and
enactive processes. Also, this model shows the cyclical nature of the change process, arguing that
change can occur in one domain without affecting the others. These researchers maintain that for
learning or professional growth to take place, change in multiple areas must happen first. This
approach is consistent with the conceptualisation of Opfer and Pedder (2011), who argue that
teachers’ learning processes have a multi-causal and multi-dimensional nature. For them, it is
necessary to theoretically comprehend the complexity of change, considering diverse targeting sub-
systems: i) teacher; ii) school; and iii) learning activity. These systems influence one another (and
themselves), affecting teacher learning. This approach criticises the reductionist idea of learning
that presents it happening as a partial change event (process–product logic), since it holds that it
happens in a reciprocal and complex system of influence. However, despite these approaches
pointing to the complexity and non-linearity of teaching practice change, they do not go beyond
the dualistic dichotomy between theory as cognition and practice as action.
Even though the revised frameworks help us to comprehend the complex nature of change, they
do not provide a proper theoretical account for the existing empirical evidence: focusing on
scaffolding classroom practice would be crucial for the development of dialogic teaching. This
suggests what Lampert (2010) promotes: that teacher learning happens when the action of teaching
is put into place, not before or after. In this way, learning occurs in relation to students and
curricular content during the teaching practice itself. However, beyond general ideas regarding the
centrality of the practice, there is no teacher learning model that can explain how, from practice,
teachers can learn to teach dialogically. The aim of this paper is therefore to elaborate further on
a dialogical theory of teacher learning that contributes to a theoretical explanation of the existing
empirical evidence, based on Vygotsky’s historical–cultural theory and Bakhtin’s theory of language
and discourse.

2. Dialogic Teaching Learning: A Process of Appropriation and Internalisation

In order to make sense of the available empirical evidence regarding why pedagogical practice
scaffolds (Michaels and O’Connor 2015) would be effective for teacher learning, it is necessary to
make a theoretical detour that diverts us momentarily from our central focus, namely, teacher
learning. The reason for this detour is because we need to tackle two important issues that will
lead us back to teachers learning the theorisation of dialogical practices. The first issue concerns
the nature of what is learned when studying dialogic teaching; we will say that a new speech
genre will be learned, elaborating further on Bakhtin’s notion of the speech genre. The second
issue concerns the nature of learning through language use, which will lead us to Vygotsky’s
theory of development. After traversing the complex theories of these two classical authors, and
highlighting a few aspects, we will come back to teachers’ learning to develop our overall
argument.
720 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

2.1 The nature of what is learned: a new speech genre

Contrary to a structuralist notion of language, particularly that of Saussure, Bakhtin (1986) under­
stands language as a living process constituted by multiple voices in contradiction, voices coming
from different social origins, temporary, real and imaginary, which occur in social interaction. The
unit of speech communication is the utterance (written and oral), which is defined as a unique and
one-off event that represents a link in the chain of discourse, and it always responds to previous
utterances and waits for a response. In this way, the utterance is dialogical, as long as the unit is
defined by the response: the first and most important standard in the conclusiveness of the
utterance is the possibility of being answered (Bakhtin 1986). The utterance then represents the
unity of a social bond that occurs in and through language, which carries, materialises and recreates
human history. Thus, for Bakhtin (1986), life participates in language through utterances, just as
language participates in life. In this sense, language is not strictly an individual act but a purely
social phenomenon, structured through otherness (others’ perspectives). This Bakhtinian point of
view is so radical that every utterance is dialogical, in the sense that it is always directed at someone/
something and anticipates a response. Moreover, every word is primarily a foreign word (Bakhtin
1981), and every thought emerges as a struggle between my own and foreign ideas. For this reason,
as Bubnova (2006) says, words can only exist in the form of dialogue, in the same way that each
person builds his/her ‘self’ in dialogue.
The author comes up with the concept of speech genres, defined as typical and stable forms of
utterances that characterise a social practice. The diversity of these genres is immense, because in
each sphere of social practice a whole dialogical, discursive repertoire exists, which diversifies and
grows as social practice diversifies and develops (Bakhtin 1986). The variety of these genres, and the
use of utterances, is determined by the discursive situation, social position and personal relation­
ships between the participants of the communication. In other words, the unit is given by the typical
social activity that sets the rules for understanding the utterance. The author gives the example of
a person who dominates with perfect utterances during a scientific discussion but who finds it very
difficult to carry on an informal conversation. In this case, it is not about poor vocabulary or an
abstract style but rather an inability to dominate the genre of worldly conversation.
Even more so, from this perspective, speakers and listeners are conceived of as active partici­
pants: the listener is also a speaker in the sense that he or she not only understands the linguistic
meaning of the speech but also simultaneously takes the posture of the response in respect to it. On
the other hand, the speaker is him/herself a listener, because he/she directs the speech towards
previous and anticipated utterances, foreign and of their own, to which it is related given a thematic
and ideological field. Answering, meaning and becoming the speaker involves appropriating foreign
words in relation to what is being answered, that is, making it one’s own and answering it. The
notion of appropriation for Bakhtin (1981) implies converting a foreign word (which comes from
a foreign context and intention), endowing it with intention and an accent of your own and taking
control of it. It is all about recreating what is given, with a unique style and sense. However, Bakhtin
maintains that, although every word is dialogical, not every word is easy to take over, differentiating
between the authoritarian word and the internally persuasive word. He states that the first asks to be
recognised and assimilated as an imposition, regardless of the degree of internal persuasion, because
it is associated with authority that is organically linked with a hierarchical past. In other words, this
word has been recognised in the past, and it demands recognition and subordination. On the other
hand, the internally persuasive word closely intertwines with our own words, because it has an open
structure, it is not finished and it is opened up to new possibilities of response and comprehension.
Following this idea, as Bakhtin says, speech genres are typical utterances that render the social
sphere more complex, and they differ from one another based on their structure or composition,
that is, according to the relationship that speakers establish in the discursive communication
(Bakhtin, 1986). In a consistent way, it is possible to establish that classroom research has
accumulated sufficient evidence that communicative interaction is structured by an active search
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 721

of speech monologization. Accordingly, it is sensible to point out that dialogic teaching prompts
speech repertoires that differ from the typical forms of interaction that actually dominate the
classroom (more authoritarian), performing different rules. The interactions that are common to
dialogic teaching imply a change in the relationship between speakers (teachers and students): they
involve a more equal distribution of power between speakers and the formulation and exploration
of students’ diverse ideas through challenging and open questions. Therefore, we propose that
dialogical teaching involves new speech genres, insofar as they transform the nature and rules of the
conversation between speakers in typical classroom dynamics. Another relevant implication is that
adopting a dialogical teaching approach from the perspective of teachers involves appropriating
new languages and new speech genres. Thus, in the sense that dialogic teaching as a foreign word (a
new use of language) is internally persuasive, it will eventually be possible for teachers to respond to
it, to be intertwined with teachers’ voices and potentially transform the rules of classroom discourse.
The approach outlined thus far allows us to account for the nature of what is learned: a new
speech genre (dialogic teaching). However, it is also important to refer to how learning takes place,
and what consequences this discursive and practice transformation has for the teacher. In order to
elaborate on this further, we will develop some ideas from the socio-genetic approach of Lev
S. Vygotsky, who proposes the use of functional language as a starting point to understand people’s
thinking and learning processes.

2.2 The nature of learning and its implications

2.2.1 Language use and internalisation
For Vygotsky (1987), language is learned through verbal communication with others. This means
that the meaning of each word develops through its use in social activity. In other words, language is
learned by participating in a shared discursive display, which in each case involves functional uses
of concrete and diverse language. The key is not to participate passively but rather to become an
active speaker of those new functional uses of language: for Vygotsky, the beginning of the
development of a meaning is the active use of certain ways of speaking (words). So, it is impossible
to learn the meaning of a word by assimilating it at once, through mental transmission between
both speakers. In this way, the functional use of the word, that is, what we do with language in each
use (for example, learning to dialogue, learning to orally present or writing a text), is learned by
participating in social activity.
Moreover, Vygotsky (1987) states that this language development impacts people psychologi­
cally. It is not enough, when learning a language or system of languages, to develop different ways of
thinking, because the social forms of behaviour are those that move towards the sphere of
psychological functions, later transforming them. Thereby, while the superior psychological func­
tions are intra-psychological, they have an initially inter-psychological genesis. This social origin is
eradicated in an external procedure of behaviour with others (in an action with others): ‘Each
higher form of behaviour enters the scene twice in its development – first as a collective form of
behaviour, as an inter-psychological function, then as an intra-psychological function, as a certain
way of behaving [. . .] into the practice of personal behaviour’ (Vygotsky 1997, p. 95). In this way,
every higher psychological function first unfolds divided between two people; dialogue occurs first
between speakers in social activity, and only then, when the use of language is achieved without the
other, is it possible to psychologically function socially but also autonomously.
This internalisation process is crucial in the writings of Vygotsky 1987), because it implies
a complicated internal psychic process that is not about the mechanical transfer of liquid content
being introduced from outside operating under dualistic assumptions. Rather, the author talks of
the internal reconstruction of an external operation, which remains in a process of continuous
interaction. Regarding this, Álvarez and Sebastián (2018) conceive of internalisation as dialectical,
because it supposes the internal reconstruction of forms of operating in an inter-psychic plane,
based on an active interpretation of the subject, and consequently on a progressive incorporation of
722 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

ways of thinking that are mediated by the available cultural tools, which enable a space for internal
regulation (p. 31).
Consequently, it is possible to begin thinking and working in a new way, through organisation of
the language that was once foreign. As Vygotsky (1997) states, what is internalised through the use
of language is the social situation that organises that interaction. Thus, when certain ways of using
language become their own, certain ways of working with others become their own – and therefore
of acquiring new possibilities of acting while respecting them. This implies that what is internalised
when learning dialogic teaching are specific and new ways of using language (referred to as
dialogical, see Alexander, 2008) and, with them, a whole social organisation: more symmetrical,
more open to diverse ideas, more humble, with less fear of being wrong and with more opportu­
nities for students’ talk, among others. This internalisation cannot take place in the air; rather, it
occurs through participation in the material performance of this specific way of talking and feeling,
in the dialogic pedagogical practice itself. Classroom discursive practices will then be the starting
point of dialogic teaching learning.

2.2.2 Development of the word and its conceptualisation

In his theory of concepts Vygotsky (1987) differentiates between spontaneous and scientific
concepts: the former arise from concrete personal experience, and, through its development,
move in the direction of the latter, which arise from the sphere of conscious and voluntary activity
towards the sphere of personal and empirical experience. Vygotsky (1987) states that, from
a dialectical logic, scientific or developed concepts are not a set of abstract features of the object
(categorisation or mental representation) but rather a process of generalisation through multiple,
stable and systematic connections to other meanings. The nature of each developed concept
presupposes the presence of a system of meanings. For example, the author says, when the
generalisation of the concept ‘flower’ arises, the relationship between it and the concept ‘rose’, or
other subordinated concepts, is disturbed. Thus, in language meaning, an act of thought that is
a generalisation underlies it, which occurs each time a word is used. Generalisations are operations
of thought that develop from, and through, the uses of speech: a psychic road where complicated
relationships and connections between concepts and reality are established (Vygotsky, 1987).
Consequently, concepts, as the meanings of words, are developed through speech; and, when
spoken, inevitably word meaning as a generalisation is developed. For Vygotsky (1987), the true
or developed concept emerges through the systematic, functional and specific use of the word,
opening the door to progressive awareness and generalisation of the operations of thought itself.
With each new word that is learned, Vyogtsky states, a gradual internal process of thinking
development begins. This means, in order to generalise with words, they must first be used.
Therefore, it is possible to argue that the starting point of the development of a dialogic teaching
conceptualisation is its use, rather than a theoretical representation: through the performance of the
dialogic teaching as a social activity a theoretical comprehension can be built upon.
In this way, since the process of development of a concept depends on the functional and specific
use of the word, a transition process for the formation of true concepts exists: so-called pseudo-
concepts that match true concepts, both externally and phenotypically, but not in their genotypic
and internal nature. The author (1987) explains that the meaning of a word for a child or an adult, at
a certain point in the development of that word, is simply functional so that they can understand
each other, but the psychic path that leads to the intersection point between them is of a different
psychic nature. For example, a child uses the word ‘because’ commonly and correctly to commu­
nicate with adults, even though he or she has no understanding of its meaning (unlike the adult,
who does). In this way, in order to develop a true concept, one must first go through the pseudo-
concepts; that is, one must begin to use the words first without having gone through their psychic
development.
Hence, it is possible to hypothesise that the development of the ‘true’ concept of ‘dialogic
teaching’ would start with knowing how to do it, that is, its performance as a specific social activity.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 723

Then, the progressive internalisation of this social activity and its specific ways of using language
would lead to the formation of a concept of dialogic teaching.

2.3 Towards a notion of teacher dialogic learning

On the basis of the arguments that have been raised, which demonstrate the importance of the use
of words in speech practice for the development of a new conceptualisation, it is possible to think,
looking at Vygotsky (1987), that development in the world of ideas will not happen before a change
in practice occurs. On the contrary, the discursive practice (functional use of words) transforms not
only the discursive competencies of the speakers but also their ways of thinking.
In this sense, given the nature of discourse and what really needs to be changed in dialogic
teaching approaches – an authoritarian discursive practice into a dialogical one – it makes sense to
think that it is not sufficient to begin by changing implicit knowledge about teaching through
reflective spaces, because this is not how a new way of speech, a new discursive practice, is learned.
According to Vygotsky (1987), the starting point of learning a new way of speech, of the appro­
priation of a new speech genre (reading Vygotsky from Bakhtin), is speaking with others. From
there, they would not only appropriate these ways of speaking – to be able to use them with others –
but also internalise them, transforming the ways of thinking themselves, and with this the ways of
conceptualising. In other words, from a sociocultural point of view, for teachers to transform their
pedagogical practices into dialogical teaching, the starting point cannot be theoretical knowledge of
it, not because it does not matter, but because in order to develop it discursive practice is first
needed.
From the above, rather than reflecting on the theoretical nature of dialogical practices, the crucial
importance of systematically using words in dialogic teaching before conceptualising them is
emphasised. So, for teachers to begin to talk using the principles of dialogic teaching, reflecting
on the dialogical practice is not enough, neither observing carefully what happened during the
practice (for example, using videos for reflective practices) nor modifying the implicit knowledge
that underlies these actions (transformation of previous knowledge structures). For teachers to
begin speaking using a dialogic teaching approach, from this sociocultural perspective, they should
begin to participate in these different dialogues in order for them to be appropriated and gradually
understood.
For example, within teaching development programmes one could consider offering opportu­
nities to perform specific speech repertoires of dialogic teaching, similar to what Grossman et al.
(2009a) conceptualise as the grammar of language practice. Specifically, they argue that teaching
practice is so complex that it is necessary to decompose it in order to prepare teachers for their
professional practice, making its main components visible and identifiable for teachers and unveil­
ing the implicit grammatical rules. However, in our version of the grammar of language practice we
would emphasise that the crucial aspects are not just to name making explicit an implicit process of
doing, but the process through which teachers should achieve this. Our argument is that teacher
educators need to offer these components translated into living, concrete and embodied repertoires
of language practices, in order for teachers to perform their procedural rules of usage and then to
conceptualise them. Thus, from the enactment of dialogical teaching repertoires, it is possible to
foster the mastery of that repertoire and, in turn, its conceptualisation.
However, this conceptualisation is not automatic, and concepts will not simply form once you
start being a dialogical teaching speaker. Following Vygotsky’s thought, it can be hypothesised that
for teachers to conceptualise the use of dialogic teaching, something similar to what happens in the
case of pseudo-concepts, in the interaction between children and adults, should take place. While
teachers who learn to teach dialogically can even, with the proper scaffolds, use this language
appropriately, it may even be the case that they are still in the process of developing ways of
understanding and systematically conceptualising dialogical teaching in itself. Even though it is
important to recognise the limitations of the use of the pseudo-concept, as long as it is a notion that
724 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

is used strictly to describe child–adult interaction, it is useful in the sense that, while the learning
process for dialogical teaching may have as a starting point a discursive practice with others, this is
just the beginning. It requires sustained practice to achieve ownership of that language, to be able to
use it autonomously, and internalise it, using it to think and develop the necessary concepts to give
total sense to that practice. This means that speaking in a new way does not immediately make the
teacher an expert in dialogic teaching: expertise is achieved through sustained classroom discursive
practice, which leads to its owning and understanding.
Considering the idea of the inter-psychological origin of thinking, Bruner (1978) specifies the
need for another person to work as a scaffolding structure, helping the learner to successfully
achieve something that would not have been achievable by themselves. With this in mind, one
may wonder what characteristics this other should have in order to work as a scaffold that
promotes a transformation of pedagogical practices. Specifically, within the classroom, who might
this other actually be that opens a new speech genre to teachers? Would it be another teacher or
peer? Or a mediational device? And, perhaps, which specific conditions must this scaffolding
structure have?
Davis and Krajcik (2005) shed light on this matter. They point to the use of curriculum materials,
understanding them as material devices that work as scaffolds prompting teacher learning in the
classroom. The authors point out that, in many ways, the development of teacher learning is even
more complex than the development of student learning. They liken teaching to performing
surgery: ‘Just as we do not expect a surgeon to invent a new procedure each time she sees
a patient, we should not expect a teacher to invent a new strategy for every new topic’ (Davis and
Krajcik 2005, p. 9). This difficulty is typically overlooked and assumes that the teacher should be
responsible for planning and knowing how to teach each subject in the best possible way. Therefore,
curricular materials could be conceived of as fundamental artefacts to support teaching in the
classroom (Ball and Cohen 1996, Davis and Krajcik 2005). They also offer the possibility of
delivering high-quality bridge analogies between theory (curricular content) and practice (pedago­
gic knowledge), which, in turn, could enable teachers to adapt to each particular situation. In this
way, insofar as this curricular material finds an equilibrium between giving clear and concrete
indications, and providing the rationale behind them, they could invite teachers to speak in new
ways, ‘talking to them’ to explain the underlying ideas of the curricular designers (Ball and Cohen
1996, Remillard 2000). This is particularly important, in the sense that the other (as a speech genre)
cannot become a hierarchical or authoritarian voice that commands the teacher how to do his/her
complex job; rather, it must be an internally persuasive word that guides and creates the possibility
of appropriation or contestation (Bakhtin 1981). Davis and Krajcik (2005) establish many char­
acteristics of the material for it to work as a facilitator of teacher learning. Among them, they
mention that providing specific questions to lead productive discussions in the classroom is
relevant – given the lack of time that teachers have and the high level of difficulty doing this –
and they make suggestions about how to develop productive communication, with the correct
justifications about why certain themes are important to teaching (dialogue material). Larrain et al.,
(2017) point out that there is evidence that especially designed curricular materials to support the
conversation in the classroom are effective in the development of deliberative teaching practices.
With this, it is possible to establish that, to begin an appropriation and internalisation process of
a teaching practice that leads to dialogicality, the scaffold must ‘dialogue’ and provide a linguistic
organisation at a social plane to the teacher. While Davis and Krajcik (2005) do not work on
dialogic teaching in particular, it is possible to learn from their ideas about the relevance of
conditions of the scaffolding structure: it must deliver the correct bridge analogies to, first, integrate
the pedagogical use of principles in dialogical teaching and disciplinary content and, second, for
semantic possibilities to be answered and adapted. Specifically, it would be necessary, as Michaels
and O’Connor (2015) propose, to provide talk moves as tools for practice (scripts of relevant
questions based on the pedagogical use of dialogical teaching), which enable teachers to articulate
productive discussions in each particular teaching situation in relation to specific disciplinary
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 725

domains. All of the above allow us to assert that not just any text, scaffold or other (co-teacher) is
equally effective in terms of functioning in the learning process of practice transformation.
The notion of learning presented in this article is dialogical for two reasons. First, it is used as
a starting point and building block for the dialogue of teachers with others, that is, participation in
discursive practices such that they would be impossible to sustain if the teacher carried it out him/
herself in the classroom. Consequently, learning to speak with different functioning rules, with
words that are originally foreign, through a dialogical scaffold, is necessary. Second, in this learning
process, the nature of what is being learned is special: it is learning a particular speech genre
(dialogical teaching) that must be appropriated and internalised. This implies that a particular
phenomenon is produced: a clash of languages, an encounter of speech genres with a different
historic genesis. This clash of languages – which will maintain itself unless the teacher internalises
the new speech genre – has the structure of a contestation in the sense that each utterance (just as
Bakhtin describes it) is verbalised and born in response to multiple, diverse and contradictory
voices. Thus, given the nature of discourse from Bakhtin (structured through otherness), the clash
of speeches involves an intertwining process that will maintain itself in dialogic teaching. Learning
dialogic teaching, then, is not only learning a new speech genre; it is also initiating a process of
appropriation of a foreign word, where one’s own words enter into a relationship of contestation,
agreement and disagreement, resistance, bonding, acceptance and tension, with the new words. It is
a process marked by conflict at the same time as a recreation process of something new. For this
reason, for teachers starting a dialogic teaching pathway of learning, it would be possible to observe
contradictory (dialogical and non-dialogical) practices and ways of thinking. Moreover, even
among expert teachers, there is no definitive or absolute appropriation of these voices, precisely
because, given the dialogical nature of learning, different and contradictory voices remain in
constant relations of alterity. Dialogicality in itself implies the unsolvable of the dialogical: the
constant and remaining tension of otherness.

3. Discussion
The initiatives of teacher development for dialogical teaching that have gone further than reflecting
on the practice, and which have centred on scaffolding the practice with dialogical discursive
repertoires, have shown promising results. This suggests that centring on scaffolding for the
practice is crucial. However, too few theoretical foundations have been developed to understand
how teachers learn to teach dialogically from a practice scaffold. This paper contributes to the
understanding of teacher learning from a dialogical perspective, shedding light on why the move
towards dialogical practices in classrooms is so difficult and gradual. Consequently, what is
proposed may be formulated as follows: for teachers to change both their practice and theory of
teaching, the starting point is their active participation in new ways of talking marked by the
enactment of new voices and words, to later appropriate and internalise them. This can be achieved
through curricular materials, as particular scaffolds that integrate the curricular content into
dialogical teaching.
The theoretical vision exposed in this article differs from theoretical proposals that understand,
in a linear and dualistic way, the relationship between thinking and teaching practices (Lampert
2010). The learning process of dialogic teaching involves a change in both conceptualisation and
practice, but starting from the latter and appropriating the new speech genre, in Bakhtinian terms.
In this way, it approaches the process model of teacher change proposed by Guskey (1986). However,
while Guskey (1986) assumes a deficit in abilities or knowledge that must be acquired in order to
change the practice, the proposed dialogical learning model assumes that the transformation of
ways of using the language is not an immediate or direct change; rather, it needs a scaffolding
otherness to facilitate it in the long term and, through use, both sustained practice change and a new
conceptualisation. In this sense, it also differs from the interconnected model of Clarke and
Hollingsworth (2002), which postulates that change can be triggered through reflection and
726 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

inaction in any domain. The proposal of this article establishes that the transformation towards
a new way of dialogue with others should begin with the help of a scaffolding other in the discursive
practice itself.
On the other hand, this proposal differs from constructivist neo-Piagetian views that assume
that, in order to change practice, a disposition to previous knowledge restructuration is required
(Bourgeois 2009), which, in turn, requires extra classroom learning devices to meet specific
characteristics in order to avoid learner identity resistance. Identity, then, is assumed to be the
starting point of the learning process, because it organises implicit theories of learning that are
acquired through teaching experience (Aldama and Pozo 2016). Obviously, it is hard to think that
a change of pedagogical practices in the direction of dialogic teaching (appropriation and inter­
nalisation of a new way of speaking) does not have an impact on, or is mediated by, teachers’
identity processes. Enacting new speech genres, and participating in dialogical movements of
contestation and resistance to foreign words, inevitably involves identity processes of transforma­
tion, insofar as identity is a constant becoming (Penuel and Wertsch 1995).
This theory of learning to teach dialogically allows us to account, from a new perspective, for the
reported inconsistencies between teachers’ thinking and practice (see Wilkinson et al. 2017) or
between different patterns of coexisting practices. Teaching, especially in a process of learning, is
dialogical and thus intrinsically contradictory and complex (see Opfer and Pedder 2011).
Returning to another of the problems that was raised initially, it is worth noting that account­
ability policies may restrict teacher learning opportunities: in a context of assessment and competi­
tion, innovation and risk-taking – which are both necessary conditions for trying dialogical
practices – are discouraged (Ball and Youdell 2008, Falabella 2019). In this sense, the change of
practices towards dialogicality involves a new epistemological understanding of teaching, facing the
current accountability policy (Lerman 2014). Thus, dialogic teaching would tension the antique
linguistic history of teaching forms in schools (IRF sequence) (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). While
a policy change is necessary, it is not sufficient to sustain a transformation towards dialogical
practices in the classroom. Consequently, our approach recognises the possible policy restriction,
which constrains change, but it goes beyond these limits. Our theoretical argument is that learning
from this teaching will be more effective if it begins from the practice itself through a dialogical
scaffold that transforms it. It is crucial that this scaffolding is not implemented as an authoritarian
voice, so that it can be appropriated, recreated, contested, questioned and transformed. The
curricular content (Davis and Krajcik 2005) may be a great platform to reconcile teacher learning
processes for dialogical teaching (not only for students). However, theorising the role of curriculum
materials and their role in teacher learning has so far been limited: our approach contributes to
theoretically formulating a teacher learning model that enables an understanding of the potential of
learning the curricular materials for dialogical teaching.
Now, it is important to specify that dialogic teaching must be related to specific curricular content
and objectives, so that the new ways of speech and conversation in the classroom may be effectively
appropriated by teachers, thereby having an impact on the thoughts of students (Michaels and
O’Connor 2015). In this sense, the design of public policies from the perspective of dialogical
learning proposed here should focus on, among other things, curriculum materials’ design, follow­
ing a participatory and design-based methodology. It must be remembered that the design of these
curricular materials is challenging, since it involves thinking and planning in detail about the theory
of dialogical practice linked to disciplinary content (Ball and Cohen 1996, Remillard 2000), which
invites thinking in a crucial challenge for teacher learning processes.
The theoretical proposal of this article resonates with what Grossman, Hammerness and
McDonald, (2009b) raised regarding the importance of redefining teaching and teacher education
to organise it based on practice. However, more than decomposing practice, we argue for making
practice performable by teachers. This performance has a twofold meaning. On the one hand, it
involves performing in a dramatic way something that is initially an alien practice, meaning that
teachers need to perform as if the practice were their own. On the other hand, they have to perform
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 727

in the sense of doing it repetitively in order to appropriate it. The natural implication is that teacher
educators need to carefully design how to make specific practices – in this case, dialogical teaching –
actionable for teachers. In other words, how best can they support them in order to perform
a certain repertoire, given the constraints of teachers’ labour? This is not easy, because it involves
redirecting the focus from reflection and theory-building from practice, to accompanying and
scaffolding practice itself with material means.
This leads us to think about the practical implications of this proposal. On the one hand, it is
essential to mention that curricular materials should be made visible in teacher education. They
need to be recognised as actants or agents of change, who participate in teachers’ learning during
real and authentic classroom practices. Thus, in terms of the challenge of transforming transmis­
sive teaching patterns into dialogical ones, in addition to focusing on practice and thinking about
how to simulate scenarios that approximate complex teaching practices (Grossman et al., 2009a),
it is also crucial to design scaffolds that embody not only the representations of the forms of
speech but above all the forms of speech themselves. This is consistent with the conclusion of
Teclai Tecle (2006) regarding the relevance of thinking about teacher learning and the practical
implementations for the classroom, considering curricular materials that are exemplary in
practice. This requires conceptualising the other’s word (a repertoire of living languages) as an
agent that promotes a teacher learning process from the real classroom teaching activity. In
addition to the above, it is possible that initial training requires teacher trainers who not only
model ways of speaking in their pedagogical practice but also offer an exercise to put into practice
the forms of speech embodied in specific disciplinary content. In other words, students in
training not only have to talk about the speech of practice but also to talk through these speech
repertoires. Teacher education, therefore, needs to provide a space in which to perform dialogical
teaching and learning, to model the key practices and offer them to performance and
appropriation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) [GRANT
NUMBER:1170431].

ORCID
Valentina Guzmán http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6164-0843
Antonia Larrain http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-4516

References
Aldama, C.D. and Pozo, J.I., 2016. How are ICT used in the classroom? A study of teachers’ beliefs and uses.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 14 (2), 253–286. doi:10.14204/ejrep.39.15062
Alexander, R.J., 2008. Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk. 4th ed. York: Dialogos.
Alexander, R.J., 2018. Developing dialogic teaching: genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33 (5),
561–598. doi:10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
Álvarez, A. and Sebastián, C., 2018. El concepto dialéctico de internalización en Vygotski: aproximaciones a un
debate. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 8 (1), 4–29.
Bakhtin, M., 1981. Discourse in the novel. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, eds. The dialogical imagination,259–422.
Austin: University of Texas Press, Trans.
Bakhtin, M., 1986. The problem of speech genres. In: V.W. McGee, ed. Speech genres and other late essays. Trans.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 60–102.
728 V. GUZMÁN AND A. LARRAIN

Ball, D. and Cohen, D., 1996. The role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?
Educational researcher, 25 (9), 6–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X025009006
Ball, S.J. and Youdell, D., 2008. Hidden Privatization in Public Education. Brussels: Education International.
Borko, H., et al., 2008. Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (2), 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012
Bourgeois, E. (2009). Apprentissage et transformation du sujet en formation. In: J.-M. Barbier, ed., Encyclopédie de la
formation, 31–71. París: PUF.
Bourgeois, E. and Nizet, J., 1997/2007. Aprendizaje y Formación de Personas Adultas. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Brownlee, J. and Berthelsen, D., 2006. Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early childhood teacher
education programs. Early Years, 26 (1), 17–29. doi:10.1080/09575140500507785
Bruner, J.S., 1978. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In: A. Sinclair, R.J. Jarvella, and W.J.M. Levelt, eds.
The Child’s Conception of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag, 241–256.
Bubnova, T., 2006. Voz, sentido y diálogo en Bajtín. Acta Poética, 27 (1), 97–114. doi:10.19130/iifl.ap.2006.1.191
Clarke, D. and Hollingsworth, H., 2002. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18 (8), 947–967. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
Cobb, P., Wood, T., and Yackel, E., 1990. Chapter 9: classrooms as learning environments for teachers and
researchers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 125–210. doi:10.2307/749917
Davis, E. and Krajcik, J., 2005. Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning. Educational
Researcher, 34 (3), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X034003003
Falabella, A., 2019. The ethics of competition: accountability policy enactment in Chilean schools’ everyday life.
Journal of Education Policy, 35 (1), 23–45. doi:10.1080/02680939.2019.1635272
Grossman, P., et al., 2009a. Teaching practice: a cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111 (9),
2055–2100. doi:10.1177/0022487109336543
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., and McDonald, M., 2009b. Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15 (2), 273–290. doi:10.1080/13540600902875340
Guskey, T.R., 1986. Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Guskey, T.R., 2002. Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teacher and Teaching: theory and practice, 8 (3),
381–390. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Hennessy, S., Dragovic, T., and Warwick, P., 2018. A research-informed, school-based professional development
workshop programme to promote dialogic teaching with interactive technologies. Professional Development in
Education, 44 (2), 145–168. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1258653
Howe, C., et al., 2019. Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: does it really impact upon student
outcomes? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28 (4–5), 462–512. doi:10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Howe, C. and Abedin, M., 2013. Diálogo en el aula: una revisión sistemática durante cuatro décadas de investigación.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (3), 325–356. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
Katsh-Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., and Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs
about argumentation in high, mid, and low socioeconomic status schools. Sci. Educ. 100, 410–436. doi:10.1002/
sce.21214
Kim, M.Y. and Wilkinson, I.A., 2019. What is dialogical teaching? Build, deconstruct and reconstruct a pedagogy of
conversation in the classroom. Learning, culture and social interaction, 21 (2019), 70–86. doi:10.1016/j.
lcsi.2019.02.003
Lampert, M., 2010. Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: what do we mean? Journal of teacher education, 61
(1–2), 21–34. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321
Larraín, A., Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., López, P., & Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials support
teachers in the promotion of argumentation in science teaching: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67,
522–537.
Lefstein, A., et al., 2019. Taking stock of research on teacher collaborative discourse: theory and method in a nascent
field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 102954. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102954
Lefstein, A. and Snell, J., 2014. Better than best practice: developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London:
Routledge.
Lerman, S., 2014. Mapping the effects of policy on mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 87 (2), 187–201. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9423-9
Lyle, S., 2008. Dialogic teaching: discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice.
Language and education, 22 (3), 222–240. doi:10.1080/09500780802152499
Matusov, E., 2009. Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
McIntyre, D., 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35 (3), 357–382.
doi:10.1080/03057640500319065
Mercer, N. and Howe, C., 2012. Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: the value and
potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (1), 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.
lcsi.2012.03.001
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 729

Mercer, N. and Littleton, K., 2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: a sociocultural approach.
London: Routledge.
Michaels, S. and O’Connor, C., 2015. Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: professional development approaches for
academically productive discussion. In: L. Resnick, C.S.C. Asterhan, and S.N. Clarke, eds. Socializing intelligence
through talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 333–347.
Nystrand, M., et al., 2003. Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom
discourse. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135–200. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3502
Opfer, V.D. and Pedder, D., 2011. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81
(3), 376–407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609
Penuel, W.R. and Wertsch, J.V., 1995. Vygotsky and identity formation: a sociocultural approach. Educational
psychologist, 30 (2), 83–92. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3002_5
Remillard, J., 2000. Can Curriculum Materials Support Teachers’ Learning? Two Fourth-Grade Teachers’ Use of
a New Mathematics Text. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (4), 331–350. doi:10.1086/499645
Resnick, L., Asterhan, C., and Clarke, S., 2015. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Reznitskaya, A. and Gregory, M., 2013. Student thought and classroom language: examining the mechanisms of
change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48 (2), 114–133. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
Reznitskaya, A. and Wilkinson, I., 2015. Professional development in dialogic teaching: helping teachers promote
argument literacy in their classrooms. InThe SAGE handbook of learning, edited by D. Scott and E. Hargreaves,
219–232. London: Sage.
Sedová, K., 2017. A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and teacher
education, 67, 278–290. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.018
Sedová, K., et al., 2019. Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and
student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101217. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
Sinclair, J.M. and Coulthard, M., 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils.
London: Oxford University Press.
Teclai Tecle, A. (2006). The potential of a professional development scenario for supporting biology teachers in Eritrea.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente.
Van Es, E.A. and Sherin, M.G., 2010. The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 13 (2), 155–176. doi:10.1007/s10857-009-9130-3
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, R.W. Rieber, and A.S. Carton (Eds), The collected works of
L. S. Vygotsky (Vol.1, pp. 39–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934)
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). On psychological systems (R. Van Der Veer, R.W. Rieber, and J. Wollock (Eds), The collected
works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol.3, pp. 91–108). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1930)
Wells, G., 1999. Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Harvard Educational
Review, 70 (2), 228–230.
Wilkinson, I.A., et al., 2017. Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through
professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and education, 31 (1), 65–82. doi:10.1080/
09500782.2016.1230129