Using Dialogic Talks in EFL Primary Teacher Education: An Experience
Una Experiencia sobre Tertulias Dialógicas en Magisterio en Educación
Primaria con la especialidad de Lengua Extranjera
Raquel Fernández Fernández
Universidad de Alcalá
raquel.fernandez@uah.es
ABSTRACT
The present study is part of a long-term research project based on the use of Dialogic Talks as a
collaborative instructional strategy in EFL Teacher Education. The study was conducted with a group
(n=20) of EFL Primary Teacher Education undergraduates with the aim of measuring the impact of
the use of this strategy in the classroom. Data gathering tools included a questionnaire, students’
blogs, observation and the transcripts of sessions conducted in the classroom. Results show evidence
of dialogic and transactional learning, while also finding traits of the use of higher-order thinking
skills and the development of students’ communicative competence in English.
Keywords: Teacher Education, Dialogic Talks, EFL, techniques
RESUMEN
El presente estudio es parte de un proyecto de investigación de larga duración basado en el uso de
las tertulias dialógicas como una estrategia de instrucción colaborativa en la formación de
profesorado de lengua extranjera (inglés). El estudio se llevó a cabo con un grupo (n=20) de
estudiantes del Grado de Magisterio de Educación Primaria (especialización en enseñanza del inglés
como lengua extranjera). El principal objetivo era medir el impacto del uso de esta estrategia en el
aula. Las herramientas de recogida de datos incluyen un cuestionario, los blogs de los estudiantes,
observación y las transcripciones de las sesiones que se realizaron en el aula. Los resultados
muestran evidencia del aprendizaje dialógico y transaccional, así como del uso de las destrezas de
pensamiento de rango superior y desarrollo de las competencias comunicativas en inglés.
Palabras clave: Formación de profesorado, tertulias dialógicas, enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera,
técnicas
Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas (RNAEL) ISSN 1699-6569
Vol. 14 Núm. 29 (2020) doi: 10.26378/rnlael1429367
Recibido: 15/01/2020 / Aprobado: 13/04/2020
Publicado bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional
1. INTRODUCCIÓN
Two of the main gaps Communicative Language Teaching did not fill were, first, to reach a
high level of authenticity of purpose when using the language (Coyle, Hood and Marsh,
2010) and, second, not having defined the role of literature in the classroom (Paran, 2000).
With the advent of CLIL as a methodological approach, there is an opportunity not only to
cover those areas but also to connect them, as the need to promote good quality literacy
practices in bilingual classrooms has been outlined by research (see Meyer et al. 2015).
Learning contexts where real communication is achieved are generally based on
genuine interaction and, therefore, have ‘dialogue’ at the core of their practices. Dialogue
has a pivotal role not only in understanding but also in generating knowledge. This is the
main tenet of Flecha’s ‘Dialogic Learning’ (1997), which bolsters the creation of collaborative
spaces based on equalitarian dialogue and respectful interaction. Flecha considers Dialogic
Learning central in the educational process, ultimately leading to transforming the
community.
Creating the appropriate conditions for this to occur is, however, not an easy task, due
to at least two main reasons. First, that many students have experienced a transmission-
based, unidirectional and focus-on-form education. They expect teachers to follow this
methodology and feel uneasy when they are asked to build knowledge with their classmates
or think on their own. Second, that dialogic talks are based on reading texts, commonly
literature books. The 2017 Spanish reading barometer indicates that the reading habit
drastically decreased in population aged more than 14. In the case of people aged from 25-
34, almost 50% claim that they do not read because they do not like it, or they are not
interested in it. If the book is written in an additional language, the motivation may probably
decrease even more.
As some difficulties using literary texts have been foreseen, there is a need to follow
a methodological model which helps ease the way to introduce texts in the classroom while
also matching with the dialogic principles stated before. After having revised None, Carter
and Long (1991), the Cultural, Language and Personal Growth models are disregarded, as
they cover just partially students’ needs and interests. Instead, the transactional model put
forward by L.M. Rosenblatt (1938) is chosen. The model elevates the creation of meaning
in the reading process. The focus is not on the text or the reader, but on the interaction
between those, and how this building of knowledge is also a shared experience (Rosenblatt
terms it ‘public sphere’ of reading). Therefore, the reading transaction will also be favoured
using dialogic talks in the classroom, with the purpose of offering a positive and rewarding
reading of literary works.
The present study is part of a long-term research project on the impact of dialogic
talks in teacher education. The experience presented in this contribution was conducted
with a group (n=20) of primary teacher undergraduates completing their final year. They
were specialising in English as a Foreign Language and were enrolled in the bilingual group
(completing more than 50% of the degree ECTS in English and through CLIL). The
experience was carried out in the subject ‘Exploring Children’s Literature in English’ and
revolved around the first book of the series Mary Poppins, written by P.L. Travers in 1934,
and consisted of a total of twelve dialogic talks developed in October and November 2015.
The sessions were recorded and transcribed, and students completed a final questionnaire
and a blog. In 2017, students were contacted to complete a questionnaire about their
experience with Dialogic Talks and its impact on their personal and professional lives.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 In search of a new model for literature in the bilingual classroom
Literature has played different roles in the history of ELT, from being at the core of
methodologies such as the Grammar-Translation method to being almost completely
forgotten with the Direct or the Audiolingual Method. Its role in the last decades has not yet
been clearly defined. In 2000, Professor Amos Paran asserted that “for the majority of EFL
teachers, literature is still not considered to be an essential element within the overall
experience of language learning” (78). The use of literature may then be well researched
on as an opportunity to develop students’ language while also contributing to their
educational development. Following the Loop Input theory stated by Woodward (1991), if
this is done in Teacher Education contexts, it is expected to start working on strategies and
techniques undergraduates can later bring into their own classes.
Even if it seems clear that literature deserves another opportunity, it is also true that
the models defined by Carter and Long (1991) are not really covering students’ needs and,
what is more important, not making a full use of the text which ultimately leads to a true
interaction not only with the text, but also with other readers. Fostering an adequate
experience of the literary text will encourage students to keep on reading and sharing,
thinking critically and finding ways to understand and express their ideas in the additional
language.
In this context, the Transactional Theory of reading, put forward by Rosenblatt in her
work Literature as an exploration (1938), and her subsequent publications (see Rosenblatt,
1978 or 2005) is presented as a possible alternative. Her proposal was based on the idea
that the text and the reader are modifying each other in a process she labelled as ‘the
transaction’. In other words, when we read a text for the first time and when we do it for
the second time, neither the text nor we are the same. Using dialogic terminology, the text
is in a constant dialogue with the reader. In this sense, Rosenblatt highlighted the
importance of the community of readers and established text discussion and debate as the
main methodological tool to reach an appropriate transaction with the text:
An atmosphere of informal, friendly exchange should be created. The student should feel
free to reveal emotions and to make judgements. […] Teachers and pupils should be relaxed
enough to face what indeed happened as they interpreted in the printed page. (Rosenblatt,
1995: 67)
Another critical element in Rosenblatt’s theory is her distinction between efferent and
aesthetic stances. In her view, most reading processes encouraged in the classroom are
inviting students to experience texts from an efferent point of view, that is, searching for
and storing information. However, native speakers rarely experience literary texts this way,
as this type of reading is naturally encouraging aesthetic stances. In other words, the reader
is invited to experience and to feel through the text, with the purpose of engaging him/her
in the story. In Rosenblatt’s words, these stances are not opposites, but rather the extremes
of a continuum which needs to be balanced in the classroom.
Even if Rosenblatt established the central tenets to consider reading as a meaning-
making process where all readers can contribute with their experiences and knowledge to
the community of learners, few practical guidelines were given as to put her theory into
practice in the classrooms. There is then a need to gather strategies, techniques, resources
and tools to put her theories into practice, as they may be beneficial to create a methodology
which works on literary texts from a perspective which is still valid even if it was originated
almost a century ago.
2.2 Dialogic Talks as an instructional tool to foster Transactional Reading
Dialogic talks are part of the practices of a group of educational experts, led by Prof. Ramón
Flecha (University of Barcelona), who are pursuing dialogic learning. As such, these talks
are considered a collaborative strategy, based on the creation of knowledge and meaning
through dialogue(Flecha 1997). In the Dialogic Reading, the text becomes a complex and
enriching activity where collective dialogue-author and readers produce better learning
(Loza 2004: 67).
The mechanics of Dialogic Talks are quite simple. Students have to read the text
indicated by the teacher and they highlight one sentence they want to share with others.
They meet and share this sentence, give their opinion in a respectful and tolerating
classroom atmosphere, where the teacher is another reader. Interpretations of the text are
not imposed but rather negotiated among all participants. This strategy is based on a
dialogic view of learning, which supports the view that learning occurs through interactions
with others.
The nature and procedure of these circles are in line with Rosenblatt’s proposal of
collaborative reading, both combining the private sphere (the reader interacting with the
text alone), and the public sphere (the reading sharing reading experiences and having
contact with shared meanings of the text). Also, the text is used in an authentic context,
fostering aesthetic views, which balanced the natural use of efferent stances, and
encouraging critical thinking skills by analysing, discussing and associating the text with
other spheres, such as the sociocultural context, the author’s biography, etc.
Dialogic Talks may then fit Rosenblatt’s theory, as it has been previously highlighted in
the literature of the topic (see Fernández, Garvín and González 2012). Therefore, it is
assumed that transactional techniques, which favour communication and interaction in the
classroom, will also benefit the creation of a communicative and authentic learning
environment focused on meaning, and not on form. The main purpose of this type of
exchanges is to build up knowledge individually and together using language as a
communication tool. In this sense, the use of literature in the bilingual classroom could be
guided by these presumably favouring strategies.
2.3 Literature Review
The use of Dialogic Talks in teacher training has been subject to research in the past years.
Alonso, Arandia and Loza (2008) and Fernández, Garvín and González (2012) put dialogic
into play to train in-service teachers. They focused on dialogic reading seminars, as in the
present study, and were interested in participants’ learning and how these experiences were
different from those they had in their initial training. The main purpose was to demonstrate
how dialogic reading seminars may shape teachers’ beliefs and practices about reading texts
in their classrooms.
Concerning the benefits obtained with the use of this instructional strategy, Alonso et
al. (2008) highlighted how Dialogic Talks favour participants’ equalitarian dialogue and
reinforce the idea of how we are transformational agents and responsible for the change in
our own classrooms. They also claim that teachers reading together may influence not only
the teaching process but our lives from a more general perspective. In this line, Fernández
et al. (2012) mention that teachers valued collective reading as motivating and rewarding,
and compared it with their university training, which was far more individualistic. Also, using
original versions and primary sources was considered interesting and valuable. An
interesting finding was that teachers value the need to have a sense of understanding and
flexibility in this type of lessons. Besides, they were willing to transfer this experience to
their classrooms.
Concerning the use of Dialogic Talks in the Teacher Degrees, Chocarro (2013) and
Foncillas and Laorden (2014) present studies to measure the impact of the use of this
instructional technique in their classrooms. Chocarro (2013) carried out an experience with
students taken 2nd Year of Primary Teacher Degree in the subject of Inclusive Education,
where the equalitarian dialogue was fostered. In this study, undergraduates used the
strategy to teach at school, and reflected on it after the experience took place. Results show
that students highlighted equalitarian dialogue in the classroom, and an atmosphere of
respect, fostering students’ empathy, the interplay of emotions and thoughts, the promotion
of reading habit, encouraging participants’ communication, working on interculturality. The
negative impact of this practice was also present, as the lack of participation of shy students,
which could be mitigated thanks to the teacher. Students were then aware of the important
role of the teacher to foster participation. The study does not mention the book used;
neither does it provide information about the data gathering tool administered to the
participant.
The second study, conducted by Foncillas and Laorden (2014), was developed in the
Social Education Degree at the same university in which the present work was conducted.
Information was gathered using observation grids and recordings and using three main
elements as success indicators: the creation of a cooperative learning environment, the
development of a transformative, critical and reflective capacity, and the impact on students’
relationship with their affective environment (family and friends). Results show that
students recognised this instructional strategy as positive for their learning and learned to
work with others, respect their opinions and build their knowledge together. Also, students
developed communicative skills in an environment based on egalitarian dialogue and
respect.
In light of the literature in the area produced in the last years, it may be concluded
that Dialogic Talks are considered to have a positive impact on both Teacher Education
undergraduates and in-service teachers. All studies highlight how Dialogic Talks favour
respect, understanding and communication in the classroom. Also, participants value the
possibility to learn from and with others, fostering a collaborative learning environment.
Fernández et al. (2012), who carried out their study with in-service teachers, suggest the
need to transfer these dialogic practices to university, claiming that they may help fight the
traditional model of teachers owning all knowledge and students receiving it.
A clear gap in the area is that the use of Dialogic Talks in CLIL environments has been
not found at the time of developing this study. If the use of collaborative and communicative
instructional techniques is to favour students’ language abilities and content acquisition, it
is necessary to measure their impact and reflect on how we can make better use of those.
Dialogic Talks have been proved to favour students’ L1 communicative skills and may also
contribute to their bilingual literacy development.
3. METHOD
3.1 Context and participants
The context of the study is a university college set in Alcalá de Henares, Madrid. It is a
private institution run by the religious congregation of the Marist brothers, and is
administratively attached to the Universidad de Alcalá. It has been offering degrees in
Teaching for more than 40 years now, and has a student population of around 1000 people.
The institution encourages educational innovation using active methodologies in the
classroom. One of the methodologies favoured is the use of dialogic learning in both the
Teacher Education and Social Education Degrees, as proved with a previous study using
Dialogic Talks in two Social Education subjects (see Foncillas and Laorden 2014).
The study was conducted in a class composed of 26 students. For the purpose of the
study, only those who attended the lessons regularly account for the information provided
in the present work; therefore, 20 of them finally participated in the study. They were 6
men and 14 women aged 21/22. The experience was conducted in the subject “Exploring
Children’s Literature in English”, a compulsory subject for students studying to become
Primary Teachers with an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) specialisation. The students
participating were also following the bilingual itinerary at the University, which meant that
all of them hold a minimum B1 level (CEFR) at the beginning of their studies and had at
that time completed almost 50% of their studies in English.
The subject is delivered in three different groupings: large group (all the class together),
middle group (half of the class, A or B); or seminars, where the whole group is divided into
four groups (A1, A2, B1 and B2). The experience was developed during the seminars, having
three meetings with groups of 5 students in November and December in 2015. The
researcher was lecturing the subject and, during the seminars where the Dialogic Talks were
conducted, a language assistant, an English native-speaker, was also present. He was also
invited to record his observations and commented on them with the lecturer after each
session.
The subject is focused on the development of four key competences. Students should
be able to know resources and strategies to use literature in the primary classroom, they
should also know how to develop literacy skills through literature in the EFL/CLIL classroom,
and be able to plan effective lessons including texts, stories and literature. Apart from that,
they are expected to use English appropriately as the language of communication and
instruction in the classroom using a B2+ minimum level.
The implementation of Dialogic Talks is an activity included in the lecturer’s didactic plan
for the subject. The module it belongs to revolves around a famous children’s book, in this
case, the first book of the series Mary Poppins, written by P.L. Travers in 1934. The main
goals of this module are to make students engage in a meaningful reading experience using
Dialogic Talks, to raise students’ interest in how literary texts may contribute to our learning
and personal development, to make students experience techniques and strategies to use
literary texts in the classroom, and to raise students critical thinking by comparing the book
with other related works, such as their adaptation to the screen as films, or documentaries
related to the creation of the text or the life of the authors.
The module was developed from October to December, parallel to modules 1 and 2 in
the subject, covering 16 classroom hours plus 20 hours of students’ autonomous work. The
sessions were directed as follows:
- Session 1 (2 hours): Brainstorm information about Mary Poppins and create a Padlet
(a virtual wallchart with notes on the data gathered in the session).
- Session 2 (homework+2 hours): Watch the movie Mary Poppins at home. In class,
we discuss the main events in the movie.
- Session 3 (2 hours): Elicit knowledge about the author of the book, P.L. Travers.
Watch Saving Mr Banks in class (this movie explained the adaptation of the book to
the screen).
- Session 4 (1 hour): Simulated dialogic talk with the whole group and the first chapter
of the book. Instructions to understand how Dialogic Talks work.
- Sessions 5, 6 and 7 (3 hours, they were repeated in the 4 seminar groups): Dialogic
Talks.
- Session 8 (2 hours): In-role teacher pretending to be P.L. Travers to conduct a press-
conference with students. The information delivered was taken from Lawson (2013).
Reflection and discussion.
- Session 9 (2 hours): Students were asked to prepare an activity to work on Mary
Poppins’ story with Primary Students in Spain.
- Session 10 (2 hours): A group of 52 children from a local school participated in the
workshop prepared by students in groups.
- Session 11 (1 hour): Final questionnaire is administered.
3.2 Aims
The study attempted to measure the impact of the use of a transactional-based tool:
Dialogic Talks, as an instructional strategy to enhance students’ learning (future EFL Primary
Teachers) in a bilingual context. More specifically, its application will be measured in terms
of how students respond to literature, and how this response may shape their learning
experiences and professional development as future teachers. As students are not taking
any other similar subject in the degree, it was not possible to measure this impact against
a different experience using another strategy. However, students’ perceptions of the
experience and their learning development are collected to fill this gap in the best way
possible.
3.3 Data Gathering Tools
Research tools used were questionnaires, an observation log, students’ blogs and analysis
of recorded sessions. It was our purpose to triangulate the data gathering tools used to
pursue research validity. Responses obtained after the experience were complemented with
information obtained in August 2017, a year and eight months after the experience had
been conducted. At that time, the lecturer contacted the group, sent a questionnaire about
their view of Dialogic Talks and asked for participation to those who had been teaching
recently. Information from 5 participants, out of 20, was obtained.
Concerning questionnaires, these were delivered at the end of the experience with the
purpose of gathering data related to students’ perceptions and opinions of having
experienced dialogic literary circles in the classrooms. The first question included in the
questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was asking about their gender. Although no significant
differences were expected to be found among sexes, this information was considered to
prove this. Then, students were asked about whether they liked to read in Spanish and
English. The next section revolved around their participation in the Dialogic Talks, and
students were questioned about whether they had participated in the Dialogic Talks
(otherwise the responses were not valid), and if they found the sessions interesting. Later,
questions concerning their perceptions of language and communicative development were
included. More specifically, they were asked if they had felt comfortable talking in English,
and if they had realised about their progress in their oral skills in English. The following
questions were more open, and asked students how the Dialogic Talks were helping them,
and what they had learnt with them (students were encouraged to provide with information
about language, content, attitudes, or other aspects). Last, students were asked to give
suggestions for improvement and to suggest the lecturer if she should keep this strategy in
the future.
Throughout the dialogic talk sessions, students were asked to keep their subject blogs.
These blogs are assessed in the subject, and are based on students’ reflections on their
lessons. Students have a blog schedule which indicates they should write their posts once
every two weeks, and respond to their classmates’ entries in the second week. The topics
around which students need to write are not imposed by the teacher. However, students
need to refer to their experiences and learning in class in the last lessons. Therefore, it was
expected that there would be some entries dealing with the Dialogic Talks.
The last data gathering tools were the observation logs and the transcriptions of the
recordings (the final sessions of the four groups were recorded with students’ permission).
The lecturer kept an observation diary she used to take notes throughout the lessons.
Information gathered was primarily concerned with students’ creating of collaborative
learning, contributing to each other’s knowledge and expertise and, secondly, to explore if
students were engaged in a transactional way with the text.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Information gathered from the questionnaires indicates that it was the first time that
students experienced dialogic talks with literary works in English. They mention it is the first
time they had read a book and commented on it in groups. Also, they recognise the
importance of developing communicative competences in a stress-free environment, in
which nobody is marking their oral proficiency or judging their points of view. In this sense,
most of them mentioned the importance of being respectful and considerate of their
classmates’ opinions. Regarding the didactic potential of this experience, some students
indicated that this experience could well be employed in their future classes, with some
adaptations. It was quite revealing to know that all of them without exception recommended
the lecturer to keep this activity in the future.
Concerning observation and transcript analysis, information gathered shows that
students were contributing to their learning in many ways:
- Linguistic issues. The students completed their classmates’ sentences or contributed
with a more appropriate word when somebody else was stuck.
- Putting academic language into practice. Students show a good command of language
resources to express their opinion, agree and disagree, illustrate with examples and
back up their opinions. There are some instances in which they all want to speak, but
the moderator acts appropriately and establishes turn-taking. In this last session, the
lecturer was not moderating and asked a student to play this role instead.
- Building on previous comments. They generate new knowledge by linking what others
have said.
- Going back to the book. They were concerned about not forgetting the book in their
talks. There are many instances where students refer back to paragraphs in the book
or keep their classmates on track referring to lines or scenes in the book.
- Cultural issues. They contribute with their views on British and American society,
comparing Travers’ background and the context of the book with Disney’s creations.
Spanish culture was not mentioned in the talks, but they were aware of the
differences when creating a different product using the same story.
- Considering the timeline. Some students were aware of the time the book was written
and the movie was launched. They established connections between society in the
30s, 60s, and now.
- Teaching, our profession. Many of the reflection captured in the recordings are based
on their ideas about how Mary Poppins educate children and their own role as
teachers. This comparison leads to insightful conversations were students are shaping
their own views on education.
Regarding the level of participation, all students contributed to the group with the
sentences they had highlighted in the text. It was also gathered that the role of the
moderator is essential to keep students on track. It is relatively easy to depart from the
book and start commenting on issues which are not directly related to the story. The lecturer
modelled the role of the moderator in the first seminar, and students took this role later.
One volunteer was appointed to be the moderator for half of each session, to allow more
students to be in this role.
The character of Mary Poppins in the text and in the movie was also subject to
discussion. One student commented on an instance in the book when Mary Poppins is
displaying kind behaviour towards the children and said out loud: “I see kindness here”
(Teresa S, seminar 2). Her classmates agreed and were happy to find this, somewhat
relieved. This, and other instances in the seminars, may prove that in transactional reading,
readers answer “not to the text but to their evocation of the text, to their own creation”
(Galda 2013, p. 6).
Participants in this experience were also interested in how children’s literature has
evolved over time. More specifically, they mentioned that the original book could be
considered not appropriate for children now. They discussed about the dangers of
overprotecting kids. This comparison was also valued as rich and fruitful, as the book “(..)
makes us think about society, the way they used to teach values, morals and manners. And
maybe it would be very useful for us to reflect on them now” (Laura C., seminar 2).
Concerning blogs, students were given access as authors to the university blog site.
Each student was requested to write six posts and comment on their peers’ posts throughout
the module. In the time the Dialogic Talks were used, nine students commented on this
experience1. In most of the cases they reflected on the use of ‘dialogic circles, but also
described some of the activities or commented on the situation depicted in the books.
Most commentaries on the Dialogic Talks experience referred to the opportunity to
exchange ideas in a peaceful atmosphere, build on their classmates’ ideas and perspectives,
and consider this instructional strategy as to be adapted for their Primary classrooms in the
future. Some students referred to Dialogic Talks as an opportunity to learn together. One
example is the comment made by Carmen S. (November): “Then we start sharing ideas
and I have to highlight that the conversation was fluent all the time. We were respecting
each other and adding something new to other thoughts. I really like this idea because we
can implement it in our future classrooms and create a debate in a relaxing atmosphere and
with plenty of meaningful ideas”. It is worth noting that students were considering that the
creation of a relaxed atmosphere was a crucial point to share and learn as a community.
Also, they were considering this technique as a plausible teaching tool in the future.
After one year and eight months, the lecturer contacted the group to know whether
they had been using literature and Dialogic Talks in their professional lives. Some former
students had not had the opportunity to teach yet, but five valid responses were obtained.
These now Primary Teachers all have a positive view of the experience, and they agreed on
it having influenced them in considering the potential literary texts may have in the primary
classrooms. However, just one of them (Inés F.) had the opportunity to implement Dialogic
Talks in their classes. She is working at an English school and used the Dialogic Talks with
some adaptations, as she added the use of visuals and realia to enhance students’
interaction and understanding. This teacher considers that everything she has learned at
University is now useful and she can understand much better why it is important to make
children love books and reading.
The five former students, now teachers, agreed on having an interest in learning more
about how to make better use of books in their classrooms. They also considered that
Dialogic Talks are useful and can be implemented in their teaching context. Also, they all
agreed in finding ‘the Mary Poppins experience’ crucial to understand how they can make
the most of books in the classrooms.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study aimed to measure the impact of the use of a transactional-based tool,
Dialogic Talks, in the learning of a group of students taking the Primary Teacher Degree.
The study has demonstrated that the impact has been positive in terms of students’ learning
gains. This has also shown that future literacy pedagogies should consider some key
elements highlighted by students as having an influence on their learning.
First, Dialogic Talks favour the creation of a collaborative-cooperative environment in
the classroom. Students value the chance to share their reading experiences in a
comfortable environment where they did not feel judged or assessed. This has been also
pointed out by experts, such as Rosenblatt, who states that: “The primary criterion should
be not whether his reactions or his judgments measure up to critical traditions but, rather,
whether the ideas and reactions he expresses are genuine” (1995: 67). It seems clear that
these conditions were created thanks to the Dialogic Talks. In addition, the role of the
moderator was essential to conduct students’ interventions. Leading discussion without
imposing our own views is not an easy task; however, there are some guidelines, which are
also indicated by research, which were effective, namely: “Listen well, ask contingent
questions, seize opportunities to clarify or enlarge concepts and ideas, and be challenging
but supportive in interactions with students” (Galda 2013).
Second, the importance of integrating different views and learn how to build our own
knowledge with the help of others. This was carefully modelled by the lecturer in the first
sessions, when she acted as the moderator. It is very important to let them know that all
interventions are valid, but they need to be justified and clear. The teacher is just one more
reader, but an informed one.
Third, the relevance of using literature in class with a meaning-making perspective.
Rosenblatt insisted on the importance of making readers have a live-through experience of
the text, as to evocate their reading and construct it from the private (individual) and the
public (group) sphere. In this case, students read at home, but were also encouraged to
bring one sentence to share with the rest. This simple process made students focus on what
words meant to them, and they were re-constructing the text together. This view opposes
current practices focused on exploiting the text to learn grammar and vocabulary.
Fourth, the use of English for real communication purposes. Even though focus-on-form
was not encouraged, some interventions in the seminars were concerned with vocabulary
and expressions. Students helped each other to make meaning out of those words and to
make the text their own (hence, unobtrusive scaffolding was provided in this way). In their
interventions, students were using appropriate language, and were aware of the importance
of the expressions they were using (respectful and semiformal), but the message they were
conveyed was of the utmost importance.
Fifth, students claimed they had learned much with this experience, as the Dialogic Talks
gave them the chance to know about different elements and ideas they could not have come
up with alone. This also led to putting higher order thinking skills (HOTS) into play, as
participants could not be content with understanding the text, they needed to analyse,
synthesise, compare or evaluate.
All in all, research shows that Dialogic Talks may be influential in changing teacher
trainees’ views on the use of literature in their classes. Also, they contribute to creating an
appropriate atmosphere for students to interact with the text, their classmates and the
lecturer. Dialogic Talks foster listening skills, and the practice of turn-taking, agreeing and
disagreeing, and constructing own views with the help of others.
Concerning future lines of research, this study has made an attempt to gather
information about the impact of this experience on students and could gather the views of
five of them one year and a half after it was conducted. It would be interesting to contact
them in the future to know whether their views have changed if these former students have
implemented dialogic-friendly strategies in their classes once they became professionals.
Also, it would be interesting to provide students with more Dialogic Talks during their
training, so as to test whether their language skills and critical thinking skills are fostered
with their use. Last, it would be interesting to classify students’ responses to the text, as to
know whether dialogic-friendly tools are encouraging any specific type or if direct
intervention from the teachers’ part is needed to work on some areas which would be
otherwise not dealt with.
NOTES
1 Students’ quotes are cited literally. No language correction has been made.
REFERENCES
Alonso, M.J., Arandia, M. & Loza, M. (2008). La tertulia como estrategia metodológica en la formación
continua: avanzando en las dinámicas dialógicas. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de
Formación del Profesorado, 11 (1), pp. 71-77.
http://www.aufop.com/aufop/uploaded_files/articulos/1240860668.pdf
Carter, R. & Long, M. (1991). Teaching Literature. Harlow: Longman.
Chocarro de Luis, E. (2013). Las tertulias dialógicas, un recurso didáctico en la formación de
docentes. Historia y Comunicación Social, 13: 219-229.
https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/viewFile/44238/41800
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fernández González, S., Garvín Fernández, R., & González Manzanero, V. (2012). Tertulias
pedagógicas: con el libro en la mano. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación de Profesorado
45, pp. 113-118.
http://aufop.com/aufop/uploaded_files/articulos/1364431359.pdf
Flecha García, R. (1997). Compartiendo palabras. El aprendizaje de las personas adultas a través del
diálogo. Barcelona: Paidós.
Foncillas Beamonte, M., & Laorden Gutiérrez, C. (2014). Tertulias Dialógicas en Educación Social:
Transformando el Aprendizaje. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 3(3) , pp. 244-
268.
Galda, L. (2013). Learning from Children Reading Books: Transactional Theory and the Teaching of
Literature. Journal of Children’s Literature, 39(2): 5-13. Retrieved from
http://www.childrensliteratureassembly.org/docs/39-2-Galda.pdf, accessed 27 July, 2018.
Lawson, V. (2001). Mary Poppins, she wrote. The life of P.L.Travers. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Loza, M. (2004). Tertulias Literarias. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 341: 66-69.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Shuck, K & Ting, T. (2015). A Pluriliteracies approach to content
and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction
and meaning making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28/1: 41-57.
Paran, A. (2000). Survey Review: Recent Book son the Teaching of Literature, ELT Journal, 54/1, pp.
75-88.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). 1938. Literature as Exploration. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. 5th
Edition.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary
Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2005). Making meaning with texts: selected essays. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
