Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
How can dialogue create opportunity for students to think and express their ideas?
Sue Bewley and Dianne Smardon
University of Waikato, New Zealand
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Abstract.
“Fostering dialogue at the classroom level, enabling the pupil’s voice to be heard and valued, has the potential not
only to improve relationships but to enhance the learning and achievement which policy makers seek” (Nixon et al,
1996:272 as cited in Flutter & Rudduck, 2004).
This research is embedded in the New Zealand teacher professional development project, Assess to Learn (AtoL)
which works nationally towards improving student learning and achievement and shifting teachers assessment
knowledge, beliefs and practices.
Through gathering student voice data for the purpose of informing teacher learning and improving their practice,
some student responses indicated that the opportunity to talk about their learning, through an interview process,
may also improve their learning. Four key questions were used to guide an informal interview with students. In
responses to the question; “How does your teacher help you with this learning?” students have shown that they
value opportunities to talk about their learning as this is often where knowing is constructed. We acknowledge and
support other research which is showing that “Giving young learners opportunities to think and talk about aspects of
teaching and learning can have a direct impact on pupils’ metacognitive development and on their understanding of
how they learn” (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p.8).
In the light of our work, inquiry into how dialogue can create opportunities for students to practice high order thinking
and express their ideas supports teachers and students to understand the importance of dialogue. Dialogue for the
purpose of this research is defined as talk through which meaning is mutually constructed. It should be thoughtful,
reflective and focused on evoking and exploring understanding (Black and Wiliam, 1998).
The question; How can dialogue create opportunity for students to think and express their ideas?, has been
investigated using qualitative methodology involving interviews with both teachers and students and gathering
observational data of teacher-student interactions within normal classroom practice. The observational data was
gathered over 20-25 minute periods twice within a six month period. Reactivity to the researcher presence is
designed to be minimized through returning to the same classrooms, where the research focus and purpose has
been shared with teachers and students. The data gathered in the observation was used in the interviews, to delve
into the thinking and perceptions of the research participants and also to reduce the possibility of researcher bias in
interpretation of observations. Validity of each component of the data is strengthened by the triangulated collection,
analysis and interpretation.
Critical qualitative inquiry is enabled through shared analysis and interpretation of the data with the participants. The
teachers and students can make sense of their world in terms of the part they play and make changes for
improvement. Additional analysis of larger samples of data, gathered across contexts has been undertaken to
investigate findings and further improve the work we do within the Assess to Learn (AtoL) professional development
project.
We believe that this research may be useful to those involved in teaching and learning and those supporting
professional learning because it is based on a subjectivist concept of change where people are changed rather than
the structure of the organisation, and are agents of that change. In critical educational research the purpose is to
change as well as understand situations (Cohen and Manion, 2000). It should also be of interest to teachers, policymakers and the general public as it is underpinned by a belief in the empowerment of students who are far too often
positioned as passive receivers of information. We are finding that dialogue empowers students to become critical
thinkers and to express their ideas.
Background to topic and focus of enquiry
This research is embedded in the New Zealand teacher professional development project, Assess to
Learn (AtoL) which works nationally towards improving student learning and achievement and shifting
teachers assessment knowledge, beliefs and practices. We were inspired by what we were discovering in
regards to both teachers and students learning.
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-1-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
Within our work as assessment advisers we gather student voice data, using four key questions, primarily
for the purpose of informing teacher learning and improving their practice. However some researchers
have suggested that consulting and listening to students in an interview not only provides information for
practitioners, as was our primary purpose, it may also provide the opportunity to re-focus on learners and
learning. (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). We were beginning to wonder if talking with us was also helping
students to re-focus on their learning. In response to the question; How does your teacher help you with
this learning? students have shown that they value opportunities to talk about their learning as this is
often where knowing is constructed. “Giving young learners opportunities to think and talk about aspects
of teaching and learning can have a direct impact on pupils’ metacognitive development and on their
understanding of how they learn” (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p.8). In line with our work we were also
considering how significant the opportunity to think and talk about learning can be in developing
assessment for learning principles.
“Research carried out by Black et al (2002) suggests that there is a need for teachers to focus more
closely on classroom dialogue and to develop classroom strategies that encourage students to think and
talk about their learning. In particular Black and his colleagues have identified the importance of
assessment practices—which they describe as assessment for learning that provide effective support for
pupils’ learning” (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p. 9).
In our classroom observations we were also noticing that teachers do a lot of talking and in reflecting on
the observational data teachers were making comments like “I think I do too much talking” “Did I really
talk that much?” They were noticing that the recorded group discussions were more often repeated
incidents of the teacher playing “ping-pong” with individual students (Askew & Lodge, 2000) where the
purpose of the feedback is to describe and discuss. In this model the power sits with the teachers,
positioning students in a role of passivity. It was evident through many classroom observations over
several years that learning talk where students are engaged was rare. It seemed to us that teachers do
most of the talking, and if we believe that talking is ‘thinking aloud’ we wonder who is doing the thinking in
our classrooms. Mercer talks about the infrequency of ‘exploratory talk’ in classrooms and the need for
teachers to teach it. (2000). Mason suggests that some features of teacher talk such as repeating back
may not necessarily be wrong, we can create opportunities for teachers to view and reflect on their
classroom talk so they can deliberately and consciously use these features appropriately to facilitate
learning. (Mason, 2002).
Other research is convincing in the idea that dialogue can create opportunity for students to think and
express their ideas and that this impacts on learning. However we believe that teachers and students
could learn more about how dialogue can develop thinking and expression through inquiry in an authentic
context which also allows us to learn and further support their professional learning. “…the focus on
learning through activity, constructing new ideas through the individual interacting with the environment,
and contextualized rather than abstract learning, represent the common characteristics of situativity
theory within the psychological perspective”(Owen, 2004). Due to the ethnographic nature of this inquiry
it has had practical value for teachers because it is concerned with their own issues, problems and in
their terms, thus teachers can add to their strategies and skills through the studies of themselves, their
students and teacher-pupil interactions (Woods, 1986 as cited in Jones).
Research questions and methods.
The key research question; How can dialogue create opportunity for students to think and express
their ideas? was investigated using qualitative methodology to gather student voice data, observations
of teacher practice and teacher voice.
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-2-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
Classroom observations
Using a pro forma recording sheet a running commentary of teacher talk and incidence of student talk is
recorded capturing as much as possible the actual words the teacher speaks (15-20 minutes). Student
voice is collected through individual response to set questions, recorded in most instances against the
student’s name on the recording sheet. Follow up prompts were used at the discretion of the adviser in
order to elicit further information directly linked to the purpose of the question. Teachers were invited to
select students that they might have an interest in knowing about their perceptions – this was also an
intentional step to ensure teachers did not feel threatened by the process but could see that there would
be benefits for them at the outset.
Students were asked:
1. What do you think you are learning?
2. Why do you think you are learning this?
3. How will you know you have learnt it?
4. How does your teacher help you with…?
5. When you are learning, how might discussion give you a chance to think and express your ideas?
6. How do you think listening to other people’s ideas helps you with your own ideas?
7. How have I helped you to think?
The first four questions are asked to set the scene and establish a context. It is the last three questions
which we have designed specifically to investigate the key research question. We interviewed 120
students ranging from 5 to 15 years of age in seven different schools. To this point the responses of
students of different ages have not been analyzed in a comparative way—this might provide information
for a different research question.
All the data was gathered through written recording and was used in the teacher interviews to delve into
the thinking and knowledge of the teachers and also to reduce the possibility of researcher bias in
interpretation of observations. Validity of each component of the data is strengthened by the triangulated
collection, analysis and interpretation
Discussions with teachers
Follow up discussions were held with each teacher where the responses of the three or four students
interviewed were examined. There were forty teachers in this large sample. Through this reflective
dialogue, teachers have the opportunity to view and reflect on their practice and relate it to the students’
perceptions as recorded. Teachers can then plan actions they will take to further improve their practice
based on the data collected and shared. They focus specifically on what they could do differently in their
practice. These actions become the focus for the next classroom observation.
Thirty percent of these classrooms observations were repeated twice within a six month period. These
teachers discussed with us the changes they have made in their practice and the impacts they are
noticing. The discussion was guided by two questions.
1. What have you been deliberately doing?
2. What are you noticing for your self and the students?
For various reasons not all teachers and students in the first phase of this inquiry have yet been visited a
second time. This process is ongoing as it is built into our work and is informing our practice and that of
the teachers we work with.
Links to literature and data collation.
This inquiry draws on research into metacognition, thinking and dialogue (Alexander, 2005; Costa, 1991,
2001; Flutter & Rudduck, 2004; McGuiness et al, 2005; Mercer, 2000), the discipline of noticing by
teachers (Mason,2002), feedback for learning theories (Askew & Lodge, 2000), and positioning of
students in classrooms (Askew & Lodge, 2000; Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). In the light of our work, inquiry
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-3-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
into how talking can create opportunities for students to think and express their ideas supports teachers
and students to understand the importance of dialogue. The original meaning of dialogue is the sharing of
ideas and meaning, to enable insights not attainable individually (Senge, as cited in Carnell, 2000).
Dialogue for the purpose of this research is defined as talk through which meaning is mutually
constructed. It should be thoughtful, reflective and focused on evoking and exploring understanding
(Black and Wiliam, 1998).
In considering how dialogue can create opportunity for students to think and express their ideas we
referred to literature about different types of thinking and talk. The term metacognition refers to the ability
to think about one’s own thinking on which learning is predicated (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). There is
general agreement in the literature that has guided us, that metacognition means thinking about our
thinking or learning or “the ability to know what we don’t know” (Costa, 1991, p.143). “We can evidence if
students are becoming more aware of how they think when they can explain the processing in their head
sequentially, describe what data is missing and their plans for producing it” (Costa, 1992). The process
of planning, monitoring, redirecting and evaluating was evident in comments that students made in
regards to what they have been learning, what they need to learn, and how the teachers helps them.
Alexander has propounded the need for a pedagogical repertoire where learning talk is as important as
organisational interaction and teaching talk. Learning talk includes the ability to narrate, explain, instruct,
ask different types of questions, analyze and solve problems, speculate and imagine, explore and
evaluate ideas, discuss, argue, reason, justify and negotiate. Together with these he lists four contingent
abilities; to listen, be receptive to alternative viewpoints, think about what they hear and give others time
to think, as vital if students are to gain full potential of talking with others. These abilities, according to
Costa, are indicators of flexibility in thinking. Students who are becoming more flexible in their thinking
can be heard considering, expressing and paraphrasing alternative points of view. Clarification and often
expansion of their own ideas and thinking is apparent when students consider what others think.
While this literature supports the understanding that learners need to be effective learners, it also
discusses the notion of learning partnerships within teaching and learning models.
Alexander (2005), Askew and Carnell (2000) indicate that teachers need to be effective teachers in a
dialogic, co-constructivist paradigm for strong partnerships to develop. “…the required shift from
accepting and compliant student to influencing and responsible learner needs practice and support
(Carnell, 2000, p.58).
Research findings
What students are saying.
The initial responses from students in italics below (student age in brackets), showed that they believed
that dialogue can create opportunity for them to think and express their ideas when they:

can listen to others ideas, perspectives and opinions and think about what they have heard
Cos you think of other ideas like it. (7)
It helps when you listen, you get your ideas pop into your head. (8)
If I listen to other people’s ideas my ideas might sound more useful and I’ll feel confident to
put my hand up and say them and I can add to other people’s ideas. (10)
Hearing their own opinion and the way of thinking about it—hearing my opinions, it
stays in my head. Oh, hearing how they think, seeing their point of view. (14)
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-4-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
Because everyone has different opinions to you. Then you get to see what other
peoples points of views are and you take it in. You’re more aware of what others
think and it’s not just what you think. (13)

can express their ideas and opinions
you could say what you think should be done. (14)
because if you don’t get to talk you don’t get to express your ideas. (15)

can clarify their own ideas
by making me think about what to write about. Because then we don’t have to stop and think
again. (7)
talking with peers can kind of sink it in your head. (15)

can expand on their ideas
you can carry on from what they said and you can learn more things.(8)

can discuss all ideas offered and create new ideas.
If you come up with not a very good solution you should listen to a few people’s ideas then
you mix them all together. We make up more ideas together. (12)
I think it’s good because you can discuss things with other people. You’re listening to how
they figure it out and thinking about how you figure it out and put it together. People say two
minds are better than one.(13)
There was also substantial evidence that learning is planned, monitored, redirected and evaluated
through reflective, thoughtful dialogue. There were also many students who said that our questions
were hard because they don’t get asked questions like that and they made them think about their
learning.
Sometimes it has some tricky letters I’m going to have in my story and then I remember
them, and remember to write them in my story. (5)
By making me think about what I have to improve. (9)
It’s helped me to think about what we’re doing and probably like the steps through it
because I didn’t actually think about the steps down there until you asked the questions. So
from that I know the steps but I didn’t really think about them down on the mat. (10)
Helped me to think about what we’re doing in the group like inference and conversation. (10)
Student’s limited understanding of effective dialogue, the potential benefits of it and how to develop it was
evident in that the only strategy of dialogue that was commented on was that effective dialogue provides
time to talk, listen and think.
Cos the older children in our group are expressing their ideas and I express my ideas from a
group. It gives me a chance to think because it gives me time to think about some ideas. (10)
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-5-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
Other features of effective dialogue such as asking questions, disagreeing, justifying opinions and the
looping of dialogue among students did not become evident in student voice or observational data until
the second visit.
There were some suggestions that students did believe that dialogue could create opportunity to think
and express their ideas but these opportunities did not seem to be occurring from their perspective.
Most of the time we don’t talk. Because when the teacher is talking you have to put your
hand up to talk to the teacher.(6)
We put our hand up and if he doesn’t answer us we wait until he is finished talking with
someone else. (8)
What teachers are doing and finding
The initial student voice clearly had implications for teachers in that students are describing types of talk,
abilities, actions and conditions that they believe support them in thinking and expressing their ideas. We
did not explore the basis of the student perceptions with the students however the teachers were able to
make sense of their responses based on what they know about their students and classroom
programme. We are wondering what is informing the student perceptions however the teachers were
reflecting on the notion of dialogue as talk which is thoughtful, reflective and focused on evoking and
exploring understanding (Black and Wiliam, 1998) and concluding that it was infrequent in their class
programmes. Initial teacher observation and voice data had shown that most teachers do a lot of the
talking in their classrooms and that much of the talk with groups of students was discussion where
interaction was of a ‘to and fro’ nature between the teacher and a student. We explore this with the
teachers as a notion of feedback called ping-pong (Askew & Lodge, 2000). The purpose of this feedback
in the constructivist model is to make connections and explore understandings. Much of the student voice
data would indicate that this was an evident discourse. The teachers however seemed motivated to make
shifts to a more learner centered model where feedback is constructed through loops of dialogue among
the learners.
Data from the second visits showed that teachers were deliberately using assessment for learning
strategies to purposefully promote student dialogue. It was evident that teachers were teaching students
to use dialogue to think about how they learn and develop flexibility of thinking. Teachers found that they
are also needing to teach students what effective dialogue is and how to engage in it. The noticeable
changes that teachers shared with us on the second visit were supported by the student voice data which
have fallen under two headings.
1. To make use of dialogue to think and express their ideas.
Teachers commented (and were observed) that they are making the students do the thinking at the
higher order of synthesis, application and evaluation by frequently using question stems such as; “what
can you add to that, what makes you think, what might, and do you agree”. The impacts on student
thinking were evident in the student voice.
You get to speak out—people get to hear your ideas. You think about what you are going to
say and how different people think about it. You get to compare other people’s ideas. (11)
Teachers are using invitations/prompts such as “If you don’t agree you can say and say why, You don’t
have to wait for me—you can take turns, Do you want to add something? Take a risk, share mistakes,
That’s how we learn”.
It gives you a chance to say what’s right and what’s not right. If you don’t know much things
you might have ago and you might be right. (7)
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-6-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
Students are feeling sufficiently secure to take more control of their learning according to the teachers
and are drawing conclusions themselves and getting better at expressing their opinions.
Because some people have the same ideas but different opinions you can discuss it—it
helps you to think a bit more cos you’ve got someone to listen to. (11)
Student self assessment is evident in their dialogue as they talk about what they are finding interesting
and difficult and figuring out their next steps. This was also acknowledged by students with comments
such as:
They give you more ideas and help you kind of. I re-read the text again and find more
information and use the same tactic they use.(11)
You get the chance to hear everyone’s opinions and a chance to think about what I am
going to write. (12)
Teachers also talked about the significant increases in student achievement data and are reflecting on
how their deliberate teaching may have impacted on this as well as the students learning, which the
students are clearly thinking about.
2. To develop effective dialogue.
Teachers said that they are working to stop controlling the dialogue by not repeating back what students
are saying and telling them they don’t need to put their hand up. You don’t have to put your hand up. You
can express your ideas. (11)
They reported that they are trying to get students to do the talking by using non-verbal gestures such as
nodding and shifting eye contact to invite other students to contribute. We recognize that this shift in
teacher practice is scaffolding to support students to develop dialogue. The expectation of teachers for
the students to talk is greater and more explicit. Teachers are providing opportunity for students to
practice dialogue and questioning in pairs and smaller groups
“Student involvement was opening up the student’s learning—they know what they can try, instead of
sitting doing nothing”(teacher). They are unlocking the risk taking and proudly articulating where and
when they are taking risks and trying different strategies. They are using strategies such as looking at
and listening to each other rather than focusing on the teacher and communicating across the group.
Students are doing most of the talking, all contributing their responses and valuing others. These ‘loops’
of dialogue constitute a co-constructivist view of feedback (Askew & Lodge, 2000) which we have
discussed with teachers and they are deliberately working to create. Some students who were known to
teachers as “non-contributors to dialogue” seemed to be gaining more confidence to talk in a group
especially if they could engage with one other student first.
Conclusion
We believe that continuing to focus on dialogue as an opportunity for students to think and express ideas
is worthwhile. There is significant evidence in the student perception data that students value
opportunities to talk about their thinking and learning and that through talking with others metacognition
and flexibility of thinking is impacted on. Only five students from the large sample group said that they like
to think alone. From all data sources we have concluded that dialogue can create opportunity for
students to think and express their ideas particularly when the teacher consciously talks less and the
focus is on learning. Students need to understand what effective dialogue is, how to develop it and that
the purpose is thinking and learning oriented. Dialogue can be reflective and focused when students can
clarify, negotiate, discuss and evaluate their ideas. Through dialogue students believe they can plan,
monitor, redirect and evaluate their learning. There is significant evidence that suggests the sharing of
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-7-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007
ideas, building on and creating new ideas empowers students to become critical thinkers who are more
confident and competent in expressing their ideas.
When teachers reflect and act on this data they may reconsider their views about learning. Qualitative
inquiry is enabled through shared analysis and interpretation of the data with the teacher participants.
The teachers can make sense of their beliefs about learning and the part they play. “We can redefine
the role of teacher. Think of a teacher not simply as the instructor or facilitator of the learning of a large
and disparate set of individuals, but rather as the potential creator of a community of enquiry in a
classroom, in which individual students can take a shared, active and reflective role in the development
of their own understanding” (Mercer, N. 2000,p.161). This constructivist view of teaching and learning
becomes evident when feedback and reflection become intertwined and is constructed through ‘loops’ of
dialogue (Askew & Lodge, 2000). In our work with teachers it is difficult to develop understanding of
feedback for learning without delving into learning theory and linking it to practice. This inquiry is one
way of providing the opportunity for this discussion and professional learning.
We believe that this research may be useful to anyone involved in teaching and learning and especially
those supporting professional learning. It is based on a subjectivist concept of change where people are
changed, rather than the structure of the organisation, and they are the agents of that change. In critical
educational research the purpose is to change as well as understand situations (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison (2000). It should also be of interest to policy-makers and the general public as it is underpinned
by a belief in the empowerment of students who are far too often positioned as passive receivers of
information.
References

Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, Dialogue and Learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented
at International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology Conference, University of Durham, UK,
10-14 July 2005.

Askew, S. (2000). Feedback for Learning. Part 1. Askew, S. & Lodge, C. – Gifts, ping-pong and loops
linking feedback and learning. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/Doc?id=2002543&ppg=13

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment,
London: Kings College, School of Education.

Carnell, E. (2000). Dialogue, discussion and feedback-views of secondary school students on how others
help their learning. In Askew, S. Feedback for Learning. 2000.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/Doc?id=2002543&ppg=58

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th edition). London:
Routledge/Falmer

Costa, A (1991). The School As A Home For The Mind. A collection of articles by Arthur L. Costa. Hawker
Brownlow Education. Printed in Australia.

Costa, A., Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (3rd Edition). Editor: (Published by
ASCD 2001)

Flutter, J. & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils. What’s in it for schools? RoutledgeFalmer, London.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P (1983). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London; New York: Tavistock.

Jones, A. (date unknown) Key issues related to Classroom Observations. The University of Waikato.

Mason, J (2002) Researching Your Own Practice The Discipline of Noticing. RoutledgeFalmer, London.

McGuiness, C., Curry, C., Eakin, A. & Sheeby, N. (2005). Metacognition in Primary Classrooms. A proACTive learning effect for children. Paper presented at TLRP Annual Conference 2005 (Warwick).
http://www.suatainablethinkingclassrooms.qub.ac.uk
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-8-
Paper presented at BERA Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 Sept 2007

Mercer, Neil. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together and Get Things Done. London,
UK: Routledge, 2000. p 153 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/Doc?id=10054095&ppg=168

Owen, S. (2004). Situativity theory and emerging trends in teacher professional development. Paper
presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference in Melbourne, Australia, 29
November-2 December.
Sue Bewley
suebewley@clear.net.nz
Dianne Smardon
diannes@waikato.ac.nz
-9-