Teacher and student interactions in primary school are an essential part of learning that determines how teaching occurs. Classroom interactions can be categorised as being teacher-centred or student-centred. In the former categorisation, an educator will pose a question to the students with a pre-determined answer, give an opportunity for the student to respond, and finally evaluate the response. In contrast, the student-centred classrooms encourage engagement, collaboration, and reciprocation where both students and teachers ask questions and have multiple answers to questions posed (Perkins, 2017). In a student-based classroom, dialogue among students and between students and teachers is encouraged (Egan, 2006; Tovani 2004). The second categorisation of a student-centred classroom is referred to as dialogic teaching. One of the vital goals of education is to empower students to become more skilful in language use (Egan, 2006). Language helps them grow the ability to express their thoughts and engage in intellectual discussions. Further, the students will have the ability to improve their reflective skills through dialogic teaching. This literature review will evaluate the connection between content literacy resources and dialogic learning as well as their importance to the literacy development of primary school students.
Literature Review
In many primary school classrooms, teachers still use the traditional methods of teaching (teacher-centred). Tovani (2004) noted that educators should have clear purposes of what classes entail to ensure that their students participate fully in the class. An encouraging debate among the students encourages critical thinking and learning skills, which is more than they learn in the traditional classroom settings (Tovani, 2004). Content literacy has a huge impact on the students learning and thinking because they give the learners the chance to develop thinking and make them aware of the approach they use towards a certain learning task (Tovani, 2004). A fusion of content literacy and dialogic learning will definitely help the students develop their critical thinking skills as well as improve their problem-solving skills. The strength of this source lies in the ability to provide information about the teachers in classes from a decade ago, giving the researcher an opportunity to compare the data. However, the information may be flawed because there might be bias from the author.
Nystrand (2006) agrees that talking is important while giving instructions in primary school. The contemporary methods of teaching literacy require that there is a discussion between the students and the teacher. Most of the materials used in teaching literacy in primary school require talk between the educator and the students (Nystrand, 2006). The author encourages educators to involve their students in discussions during classroom to encourage talk. Traditionally, teachers would initiate a discussion and let the students give them the answers without a real discussion (Nystrand, 2006). The source draws its strength from the comparison it provides of the traditional and modern-day (dialogic) method of teaching. However, the source might have out-of-date information given it was published in 2006.
In literacy learning the teacher engages the students through open questions, encouragement, and use of question that will further the discussion in the hands of the students (Egan, 2006). This helps the students investigate and assess ideas, discuss, reason and justify their points of view. In reading and writing exercises, learners get to see and appreciate the differences in ideas between them and their fellow students, which encourage creativity. Different students are given opportunities to give their opinions on the book. After reading, some educators require that students give reports on the work they read (Egan, 2006). The source is important because it will help the researcher understand the different steps involved in teaching literacy. However, this source also risks bias because the information comes from the author’s point of view.
A child’s awareness and skill can be used in the understanding of different concepts as presented in different materials that promote literacy in classrooms (Browne, 2007; Mercer & Littleton, 2007). The researcher noted that most of the teaching resources in primary schools encourage interactions between the learners and teachers to improve the quality of their understanding. The students have an opportunity to interact with their fellow students to gain insights on different issues. At the primary school age, it is vital that students sharpen their skills in literacy and dialogic learning is the best approach for educators (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Browne uses information from research findings and guidance in classrooms, which improves the validity and reliability of the data. However, the source does not provide any information on children over the years of five, which reduces effectiveness.
Recent findings on dialogic teaching have established that students perform better if they are allowed to debate during lessons including English (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Mercer & Littleton (2007) concluded that requiring primary school children to expound their answers and reason with their classmates provides them with an opportunity to improve on most of the school subjects including maths and science. The source provides some recent research findings on dialogic teaching, which is important. Further, they provide guidance on how teachers interact with their students. Nevertheless, despite the information being recent the book was published sometime back and might contain outdated information.
According to Johnson (2008), teaching literacy to students should not be confined to the knowledge of learning how to read and write but rather a deeper understanding of every text that a student reads and comes across. However, Johnson (2008) notes that growth and development of student’s literacy levels require commitment from the students as well as the educators (Johnson 2008). Johnson (2008) argues that allowing children to choose books they want to read will improve their literacy levels considerably because highly literate people have interests and preferences in their reading materials. Johnson provides different techniques that students and teachers in fourth grade can use for literacy lessons such as lesson plans and assessment tools. While the author provides different types of lesson plans, it fails to classify the students according to their capabilities, which is an important element in teaching.
Understanding the meaning of a text requires looking at different aspects of the text rather than just interpreting the written words (Mercer et al., 2009). (Mercer et al., 2009) noted that students discuss and talk about the books; they understand the different meanings that the writer of the book tried to pass across. Most of the resources in teaching give precise instruction to educators to give a chance to every student in the class to give their thoughts on topics discussed in class. When students engage in exploratory talk, they discuss different ideas among themselves and construct meaning as a group (Mercer et al., 2009). Mercer et al. noted that dialogic teaching would greatly improve the awareness of the students through talk. The source utilises examples from a classroom, which provides the researcher with reliable raw data for the dissertation. However, the researchers mostly use observational data, which might affect the reliability of data.
Scott, Meiers, and Knight (2009) noted that teachers do not give the students enough time to talk in classrooms. Most of the literacy resources promote exploratory talk. Scott et al. (2009) noted that children who work with adults and are guided in the learning activities and conversations are helpful in information acquisition as well as learning how to use the information. A thorough discussion among students helps them understand and critique one another. The source is important because it helps understand the most productive interaction process between the teacher and the students. However, the author might provide information out of bias, which affects the source’s reliability and validity.
Spooner & Woodcock (2010) agree that the students have a myriad of talent that should be taken into consideration when teaching literacy. Therefore, educators should provide ample time for their students to read to allow them to develop skills and strategies that are essential in developing skilful reading and acquisition of new knowledge. Students should be provided with an opportunity to choose books that they want to read and discuss it with their classmates. Most literacy content can be interpreted in many different ways, considering the individuals’ background (Spooner & Woodcock, 2010). Spooner and Woodcock’s book draws its strength by giving insights into the differences of students at the school. It helps the researcher understand the needs of children and how to deal with the differences.
Some authors like Wegerif (2010) have suggested methods of differentiated teaching that provides unique experiences for every student depending on the capabilities and understanding. For this reason, it is vital that teachers are clear about the purpose of the lesson and give students time to work through it. Content literacy is not concerned with facts rather with the skills that students get during learning (Wegerif, 2010). The source provides alternative methods that can be used in teaching, which is an important component of the research. However, the source leaves a chance for bias.
Apart from encouraging the students to engage in class discussions, it is imperative that educators have other approaches, which might facilitate the discussions or will help other learners who may not be suited by the dialogic teaching (Robins,2011). The most important aspect of learning is gaining knowledge and being a part of the learning process as much as one can. Therefore, the teacher has the mandate to ensure that every student attains as much as possible from the literacy classroom disregarding which methods they result in using. The source guides the educators on various methods of dialogic teaching but also risks bias and time wastage.
The instructional basis forms the agenda for the learning process (Shockett-Qafleshi, 2011). Many materials that help students in primary school work through their literacy such as art and music. To help the students understand, it is vital that an educator gives them an opportunity to decipher the meaning of the various content materials available to them. Dialogic teaching provides an opportunity for these students to “think aloud” as well as learn from their peers. Further, students learn to see matters from different points of view, which improve their critical thinking strategies. The source provides rich information on the different methods of teaching that is required for this research.
Scholars like Kazepides (2012) and Maher (2012) agree that talk is one of the major ways used in instruction in primary schools. Talk is a way of communication (Kazepides, 2012). Teachers have a major role in ensuring that the children learn the language in its abstract type. The modern classroom encourages the reciprocal method of teaching. Teachers ask open-ended questions giving the students an opportunity to participate in the discussion (Maher, 2012). In reading a text, for example, the educator asks students to give their opinions on the text. The opens an opportunity for the students and the teacher to discuss. In doing this, the students grow in their thinking and critical capabilities (Maher, 2012). The information in the two sources is similar and provides important information on reciprocal thinking, which is an important part of the current research. The information provided in these texts may be outdated, which is a limitation.
Rudd (2013) established that to improve the literacy levels of the students, most literacy resources guide educators on the best way to achieve this. In the contemporary world, literacy is not limited to reading printed books and texts alone. There are many new skills that a teacher needs to take into consideration when teaching literacy (Rudd, 2013). In individualised teaching, students are treated as individuals with different levels of know-how (Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013). The educator uses different speeds to teach the students to ensure that none of the students is left behind in knowledge acquisition (Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013). In one way or another, this method fulfils the needs and requirements of dialogic teaching because it provides an opportunity for the learners to learn at their pace and get understanding of the materials.
Grugeon, Hubbard, Smith and Dawes (2014) note literacy classes provide students with opportunities to give their different opinions. The different students provide the educator with an opportunity to listen to the thoughts of the students while they discuss their findings during the class sessions. In teaching reading, for example, the students have an opportunity to critically discuss the book with one another during pre-, during, and after reading (Grugeon et al., 2014). Perkins (2017) feels that one approach will not be suitable for every child, which means that dialogic teaching does not suit every student. The author claimed that all students learn in different ways and it is important that the educator caters to every child’s needs. The last two sources contain up-to-date information on the topic but do not eliminate bias.
Gaps Found in the Literature
From the literature discussed above, most of the focus is on the use of dialogic teaching in the general classroom setting. However, the material available does not identify the importance of using dialogic teaching in specific classes such as literacy and science. The general guidelines of what is required in a primary school classroom to achieve dialogic teaching may not be applicable to every lesson. The content for every class has different materials that educators can use for the dialogic approach. The aim of this research paper is to determine whether literacy resources for primary school promote dialogic teaching. This will be done by highlighting the different ways literacy resources can be used to achieve dialogic teaching in primary school classrooms.
References
Browne, A. (2007). Teaching and learning communication, language and literacy. London: Paul Chapman.
Cox, R., & United Kingdom Literacy Association. (2012). Primary English teaching: An introduction to language, literacy and learning. Moorabbin, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education.
DOI:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659888
Egan, K. (2006). Teaching literacy: Engaging the imagination of new readers and writers. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Grugeon, E., Hubbard, L., Smith, C., & Dawes, L. (2014). Teaching Speaking and Listening in the Primary School (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Johnson, D. (2008). Teaching literacy in fourth grade. New York: Guilford Press.
Kazepides, T. (2012). Education as Dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(9), 913-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00762.x
Maher, D. (2012) Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactive whole-class technology: facilitating student-to-student whole-class dialogic interactions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 137-152.
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A socio-cultural approach. Oxon: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273
Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392-412.
Perkins, M. (2017). Observing primary literacy (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
Robins, G. (2011). The effect of exploratory talk on the development of sentence structure in able writers. Literacy, 45(2), 78-83.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00572.x
Rudd, A. (2013). Literacy and ICT in the Primary School: A Creative Approach to English. London: Routledge.
Scott, C., Meiers, M. & Knight, P. (2009). Talking to learn: Dialogue in the classroom. The Digest 2009/2.
Shockett-Qafleshi, E. (2011). How teachers develop content literacy of their students and use children's literature for such purposes. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 4(4), 48-58.
Spooner, L., & Woodcock, J. (2010). Teaching children to listen: A practical approach to developing children’s listening skills. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Tovani, C. (2004). Do I Really Have to Teach Reading?: Content Comprehension, Grades 6-12. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
Wegerif, R. (2010). Mind expanding: Teaching for thinking and creativity in primary education. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Wray, D., Medwell, J., Poulson, L., & Wray, D. (2002). Teaching literacy effectively in the primary school
(1st ed.). London: Routledge.
