Prior research has clarified how adults engage in learning processes. According to authors like Epstein et al (2002), Hoover-Dempsey et al (2005), etc., adults may participate in education as parents, looking for resources to help their children learning mathematics. Recent studies (INCLUD-ED, FAMA) suggest that there are five different types of parent/family involvement: informative, consultative, decisive, evaluative and educative (Flecha, 2015). Adults may attend family workshops, training courses, or other ways to improve their academic background, in order to participate from and “educative” point of view. In this paper we analyse the case of a group of adult learners who attended a training course in mathematics, framed by Dialogic Learning (DL). DL draws on seven principles described by Flecha (2000). Drawing on Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, Flecha argues that individuals may use either power claims or validity claims, to legitimize their action. When the teacher, for example, uses “power claims” to justify his/her explanation regarding a particular topic in mathematics it is then questionable that we could state that authentic learning is happening (Garcia & Díez-Palomar, 2015). In order for learning to happen, the teacher must provide some valid argument to students, thus they may be able to verify them. Authors like Wells, Wertsch, etc., claim that this is a social process in which individuals negotiate the meaning of the topic. In this paper we examine how a group of adults interacting when solving mathematical tasks in the field of analytic geometry. During a six-month period (two semesters), this group of adults became a solid sub community of mutual learners (as defined by Bruner). They created spaces to network and share their work (like a WhatsApp group), in addition to the regular classroom. Drawing on qualitative data collection (video, audio taped, and field notes), we analyse adults’ interactions from the DL point of view. We conclude that “cultural intelligence”, “solidarity” and “creation of meaning” are crucial aspects to understand how this group of people created such strong connection. Examples of dialogues among participants illustrate how the use of validity claims helps them to understand the meaning of the mathematical objects (such as vector, line equation, slope, etc.). The “solidarity chain” they created was a source of resources for all of them. We define this “chain” as the type of interactions created by those adults, involving shared knowledge, examples, explanations, and other resources based on each adult background.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman & Littlefield. Flecha, R. (Ed.) (2015). Successful Educational Actions for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe. Springer. Garcia Carrión, R., and Díez-Palomar, J. (2015). Learning Communities: Pathways for Educational Success and Social Transformation through Interactive Groups in Mathematics. European Educational Research Journal. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon. Hoover‐Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.