MoyoEd Research

Introduction.

Dialogic teaching, the intentional use of sustained, purposeful classroom talk, positions dialogue not as idle chatter but as the medium through which knowledge is co-constructed. Robin Alexander (2008) conceptualised dialogic teaching as purposeful, cumulative and reciprocal interaction that “promotes thinking and learning”. Paulo Freire (1970) viewed dialogue as emancipatory praxis that humanises both learner and teacher, while Lev Vygotsky (1978) situated language at the core of cognitive development, arguing that social speech precedes internal thought. Together, these perspectives reveal that when students speak, listen, and reason together, they do not merely express understanding; they create it.

Current Research in Emerging Economies.

Recent research in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America has shown that dialogic pedagogy greatly enhances learning outcomes in STEM disciplines. Belay (2022) found that dialogic practical work in Ethiopian physics classrooms enhanced both attitudes and conceptual mastery compared with traditional didactic learning. In Latin America, SUMMA’s Dialogic Classrooms Program (2021) has improved engagement and critical reasoning in science courses without reliance on high-cost technology, confirming that pedagogy outweighs infrastructure when it comes to impact.

Meta-analytic reviews (Hardman et al., 2019; Mercer & Dawes, 2014) further show that dialogic instruction correlates with improved reasoning and mathematics performance. The cumulative evidence underscores that dialogic approaches are cost-effective, scalable, and pedagogically robust, an ideal combination for emerging-economy contexts.

Advantages of Dialogic Teaching in STEM

1. Deeper conceptual understanding.
Dialogue verbalises student reasoning, exposing misconceptions and prompting cognitive restructuring. In Vygotsky’s (1978) terms, talk mediates the Zone of Proximal Development, allowing learners to achieve higher-order understanding through social scaffolding.

2. Student agency and scientific identity.
When students construct and justify claims, they practise the epistemic moves of scientists, developing ownership of learning (Alexander, 2008).

3. Peer collaboration and distributed cognition.
Collaborative dialogue distributes cognitive load and fosters cooperative problem-solving, which are key competencies in twenty-first-century STEM fields (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).

4. Inquiry and argumentation skills.
Dialogic classrooms cultivate the language of science, claims, evidence, and reasoning, which improve both oral and written scientific communication (Osborne, 2010).

5. Low resource intensity.
Because it relies primarily on structured talk, dialogic teaching suits schools with limited materials; even minimal resources can yield deep conceptual learning when discourse is well-managed (SUMMA, 2021).

Challenges and Limitations

However, implementation challenges persist.

• Teacher preparedness. Many teachers remain anchored in transmissive models and lack training in dialogic facilitation (Hardman et al., 2019).
• Large classes and time constraints were also mentioned. Overcrowded classrooms and content-heavy syllabi discourage the extended dialogue.
• Cultural and linguistic barriers: In hierarchical contexts, learners may hesitate to challenge authority and their peers (Alexander, 2008).
• Assessment misalignment occurs when the Examinations that reward rote recall undermine dialogic goals (Osborne, 2010), although Bloom’s taxonomy may be mitigatory to some extent. Questions are structured to address all levels of cognitive demand in a weighted manner.
• Resource constraints. Limited laboratory access can restrict the synergy between practical work and reasoning (Belay, 2022).

These realities demand pedagogical innovation and systemic reform.

Pedagogical and Policy Implications.

Teachers and Educators.

• Focus professional learning on “talk moves” — open questioning, pressing for reasoning, and revoicing (Alexander 2008). Students’ answers may be redirected to each other for validation.
• Use micro-teaching, video reflection, and peer observation to refine discourse techniques (Mercer & Dawes, 2014). Observer and observee agree on an aspect to explore and refine through complementary observations.
• Align formative assessment with dialogic indicators: justification, reasoning, and collaborative sense-making. Various assessment tools, including rubrics, can be used.

For schools and systems.

• Prioritise depth over breadth in curriculum pacing. Consolidative sessions may be planned at the end of a topic(s).
• Establish classroom norms for respectful disagreement and evidence-based discussion (embedding school values and global citizenship in lessons).
• Support scalable, low-cost initiatives, such as the SUMMA Dialogic Classrooms Program (2021). A short workshop could expose educators to the main tenets of the program.

For assessment bodies.

• It is important to introduce components that credit reasoning and argumentation, and encourage teachers to sustain authentic dialogue. Six markers (asterisked *) were introduced by examination boards.

Practical Strategies for Constrained Environments.

• Dialogic practical work: even basic experiments followed by structured discussions improve reasoning (Belay, 2022).
• Talk routines: implement “Think–Pair–Share,” “Claim–Evidence–Reasoning,” and “Challenge–Build–Summarise.”
• Peer scaffolding: mixed-ability grouping leverages students’ varying expertise.
• Local contextualisation: ground abstract STEM concepts in everyday cultural phenomena to reduce linguistic barriers (Freire, 1970). Students may also be asked to explain in their own language if numbers allow. This approach enhances multicultural education.

Conclusion: A Call to Action.

Dialogic teaching integrates theory and practice — Vygotsky’s cognitive socialisation or social constructivism, Freire’s emancipatory dialogue, and Alexander’s classroom pragmatism — to create equitable STEM classrooms. Because dialogue requires human, not material, capital, it offers a sustainable path for educational transformation in emerging economies, such as India.

To paraphrase Freire (1970), authentic education begins with conversations. Therefore, let us replace monologues with dialogues, recitations with reasoning, and silence with curiosity. The future of STEM learning in the Global South depends not only on new curricula but also on new conversations.

References

Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (4th ed.). Dialogos.
Belay, E. B. (2022). Dialogic practical work and students’ attitudes towards physics learning in Ethiopian secondary schools. Journal of Education and Practice, 13(4), 45-58.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed  M. Continuum.
Hardman, F., Abdi, A., & Harber, C. (2019). Developing interactive pedagogy in African classrooms: Impact on learning outcomes. Compare, 49(4), 517-533.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014).The study of talk between teachers and students: From theory to practice. Educational Review, 66(3), 339-360.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007).Inter-Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. Routledge.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative dialogue. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
SUMMA. (2021). Dialogic Classrooms Program: Scaling Impact in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.