Dialogic Learning

AKA

Dialogical Learning

Focus

Learning that happens within and through dialogue

Principal Metaphors

  • Knowledge is … consensual interpretation
  • Knowing is … coordinated action
  • Learner is … an interlocuter
  • Learning is … co-construing
  • Teaching is … facilitating (dialogue)

Originated

2000s

Synopsis

Dialogic Learning encompasses a range of discourses concerned with the learning that happens within and through dialogue -- and it is perhaps most easily described as the opposite of Dogmatism:
  • Dogmatism – rigid adherence to beliefs or doctrines asserted as unquestionably true, resistant to evidence, critique, or alternative perspectives. Dogmatism prioritizes certainty over inquiry, often suppressing dialogue, adaptability, and nuanced understanding in intellectual, cultural, or political contexts.
Interpreted in various ways, Dialogic Learning has been applied within a number of Activist Discourses (where the focus is typically egalitarian action), among researchers (where the focus is typically dispositions associated with collaborative inquiry), among some Personal Agency Discourses (where the focus is typically social dimensions of identity and thought), and within most curriculum areas (where the foci are typically the same as those within Discourses on Individual Learning in Group Settings and Discourses on Learning Collectives). As might be expected, then, Dialogic Learning has many subdiscourses – many of which are included in the clusters identified in the previous sentence. Others more specific to the discourse include typologies of dialogue types, such as:
  • Dialogue Types (Dialectical Typology; Typology of Dialogue Types; Walton’s Typology of Dialogue Types) (Douglas Walton, 1990s) – a categorization of varieties of dialogues according to their purpose and rules of interaction – distinguishing cooperative, competitive, and adversarial forms of exchange to explain how people argue, reason, or resolve conflicts:
    • Deliberation Dialogue – a Dialogue Type in which participants weigh options collectively to decide on the best course of action.
    • Eristic Dialogue (Quarrel) – a Dialogue Type aimed at venting emotions or attacking, not reaching resolution
    • Information-Seeking Dialogue – a Dialogue Type in which one party seeks facts or explanations from another to reduce ignorance
    • Inquiry Dialogue – a Dialogue Type in which participants collaborate to prove or disprove a claim using evidence
    • Negotiation Dialogue – a Dialogue Type in which parties with conflicting interests seek compromise or mutual agreement
    • Persuasion Dialogue – a Dialogue Type in which each side argues to convince the other of a standpoint
  • Dialogic Teaching (Robin Alexander, 2000s) – a typo0logy of classroom talk according to its social and cognitive functions, emphasizing dialogue as collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful interaction that advances understanding and reasoning:
    • Cumulative Talk – when participants build positively but uncritically on each other’s ideas
    • Disputational Talk – competitive exchanges marked by disagreement and short responses
    • Exploratory Talk – when ideas are shared, challenged, and reasoned collaboratively toward joint understanding
  • Framework for Analysing Classroom Discourse (Mortimer–Scott Framework) (Eduardo Mortimer, Philip Scott, 2000s) – a typology of teacher–student dialogue, analyzed across two dimensions – interactive vs. non-interactive and authoritative vs. dialogic:
    • Interactive–Authoritative Classroom Discourse – teacher leads students toward a specific, accepted viewpoint
    • Interactive–Dialogic Classroom Discourse – teacher and students jointly explore and compare different ideas
    • Non-Interactive–Authoritative Classroom Discourse – teacher presents one correct explanation, emphasizing transmission over discussion
    • Non-Interactive–Dialogic Classroom Discourse – teacher reflects on multiple perspectives without student input
Other types of dialogue that may or may not be captured by the above typologies include:
  • Accountable Talk (Lauren Resnick, 2000s) – any discussion that contributes to learning through being true to the knowledge domain, committed to rigorous thinking, and being respectful to others in the learning community
  • Antidebate (Jonathan Rowson, 2020s) – a mode of shared inquiry aimed at understanding complexity rather than defending fixed positions. Antidebate rejects adversarial, winner–loser argument, replacing persuasion with collaboration, epistemic humility, and relational sense-making.
  • Crosstalk (Cross-Talk) – a conversation between two people, each of whom speaks a different language. Crosstalk has been developed as an effective strategy for language learning, by which two fluent speakers of different languages engage with one another. As well, the notion has been extended metaphorically to other domains of learning (e.g., in mathematics, where the familiar terms and symbols can take on very different meanings from everyday usage).
  • Dialectic (Dialectical Learning; Dialectical Method; Minor Logic) – most often, a discussion involving people who hold different perspectives and who are committed to using agreed strategies of reasoned argumentation to come to the truth. In some usages, Dialectic (and especially Dialectical Learning) refers to the critical analysis of new concepts through explicit associations to previously established concepts).
  • Exploratory Talk (Neil Mercer, 2000s) – a form of interaction that involves genuine engagement with others’ thinking – through, e.g., Active Listening (see Discourses on Individual Learning in Group Settings), Open Questions (see Questions), and a general willingness to let the conversation flow. It is contrasted with squabbling “Disputational Talk” and transmissive “Cumulative Talk.”
  • Group Cognition – any manner of group expression that can be interpreted as an act of cognition – that is, an instance that can be seen as an instance of coherent thinking. The expression can be as simple as a statement of social accord in a small group or as complex as a collectively generated website by a global community.
  • Internally Persuasive Discourse (IPD)  (Mikhail Bakhtin, 1980s) – contrasted with “authoritarian discourse,” an involvement in dialogue that resonates with one’s current sense-making while being open to potential needs to elaborate or otherwise revise that sense-making
Discourses similar to Dialogic Learning include:
  • Convergent Conceptual Change (Collaborative Conceptual Change) (Jeremy Roschelle, 1990s) – a pragmatic discourse concerned with social learning that results in conceptual change – that is, with the creation of shared knowledge by, e.g., building on one another’s ideas and helping to repair one another’s gaps in understanding
  • Dialogism (Dialogic; Dialogue) (Mikhail Bakhtin, 1930s) – as taken up in education, a rejection of a sum-of-its-parts view of human interaction in favor of a view of dialogue as co-emergent possibility – as participants present, interrogate, and integrate one another’s thinking
  • Hermeneutic Pedagogy (Peter Sotirou, 1990s) – oriented by Hermeneutics (see the Phenomenology entry), a mode of engagement that locates teaching and learning in the space of conversation focused on a text (i.e., a cultural artifact to be interpreted), where learning is understood as an inevitable transformation through the engagement. Hermeneutic Pedagogy sees learners as members of a Discourse Community (see Socio-Cultural-Focused Discourses), rejecting the popular belief that knowledge begins with the self.
  • Learning Circle (Dialogue Circle; Listening Circle; Talking Circle) – in the most general sense, a format intended to invite and honor contributions from all members of a group. More specific meanings are associated with religious groups, employment settings, and research strategies. Typical features include equal participation, reciprocity, and non-judgmental listening. Within many Indigenous cultures (especially in North America), Listening Circle and Talking Circle practices are more strongly associated with community justice and healing.
  • Learning Conversation (Conversational Learning; Learning-By-Talking; Learning Through Conversation) (various, 2000s) – phrases that have different nuances in different discourses communities and/or when applied to different age groups, but that are almost always roughly synonymous with Dialogic Learning
  • Reciprocal Teaching (Ann Brown, 1980s) – focused on promoting learners’ reading comprehension, Reciprocal Teaching is a reading technique that is conceived as a dialogue between teacher and students in which all participants take turns being the teacher.
  • T-Groups (Training Groups) (Kurt Lewin, 1940s) – small-group sessions designed for participants to explore interpersonal behavior, feedback, and group dynamics in real time – in the process, fostering foster self-awareness, empathy, and leadership effectiveness
  • Transcendental Learning (Mihnea Moldoveanu, 2020s) – a type of Dialogic Learning that foregrounds collaboration, Interdisciplinarity (see Epistemology), and Multimodality (see Unaffiliated Discourses)

Commentary

While Dialogic Learning has a relatively brief history, some argue that the concept dates back thousands of years (compare, e.g., Socratic Method) and others note that the underlying principles are common to many pre-modern cultures and non-western societies. Those points, considered alongside the wide diversity of interpretations and applications in the current edusphere, prompt the suspicion that the construct, while clearly useful to many, is not precise enough to be of much value to those pursuing impactful educational change.

Authors and/or Prominent Influences

Diffuse

Status as a Theory of Learning

Most versions of Dialogic Learning tap into the social and cultural dimensions of individual learning, but none further develop the associated principles of learning. As such, we are aware of no versions of Dialogic Learning that be properly described as a theory of learning.

Status as a Theory of Teaching

A common theme across interpretations of Dialogic Learning is an intention to affect learner actions and interpretations. Consequently, most versions are appropriately described as theories of teaching.

Status as a Scientific Theory

Because the phrase is interpreted in so many different ways and applied across such a variety of context, Dialogic Learning cannot be described as a scientific discourse.

Subdiscourses:

  • Accountable Talk
  • Antidebate
  • Convergent Conceptual Change (Collaborative Conceptual Change)
  • Crosstalk (Cross-Talk)
  • Cumulative Talk
  • Deliberation Dialogue
  • Dialectic (Dialectical Learning; Dialectical Method; Minor Logic)
  • Dialogic Teaching
  • Dialogism (Dialogic; Dialogue)
  • Dialogue Types (Dialectical Typology; Typology of Dialogue Types; Walton’s Typology of Dialogue Types)
  • Disputational Talk
  • Dogmatism
  • Eristic Dialogue (Quarrel)
  • Exploratory Talk
  • Framework for Analysing Classroom Discourse (Mortimer–Scott Framework)
  • Hermeneutic Pedagogy
  • Information-Seeking Dialogue
  • Inquiry Dialogue
  • Interactive–Dialogic Classroom Discourse
  • Interactive–Authoritative Classroom Discourse
  • Internally Persuasive Discourse (IPD)
  • Learning Circle (Dialogue Circle; Listening Circle; Talking Circle)
  • Learning Conversation (Conversational Learning; Learning-By-Talking; Learning Through Conversation)
  • Negotiation Dialogue
  • Non-Interactive–Authoritative Classroom Discourse
  • Non-Interactive–Dialogic Classroom Discourse
  • Persuasion Dialogue
  • Reciprocal Teaching
  • T-Groups (Training Groups)
  • Transcendental Learning

Map Location



Please cite this article as:
Davis, B., & Francis, K. (2025). “Dialogic Learning” in Discourses on Learning in Education. https://learningdiscourses.com.


⇦ Back to Map
⇦ Back to List