This close to practice collaborative action research project investigates teacher and student perspectives on the development, through a whole school intervention, of dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2017; Mercer, 2000; 2013). The research is in progress with 23 teachers within a vocational high school located within an area of England where heavy traditional industries have declined. The school attracts a high proportion of 14 to 19 year old students who, based on reasonably reliable proxy measures mainly related to household income, are identified as having experienced sustained social disadvantage. Living in poverty is associated with experiences of stigma and shame (Tyler, 2013) and ‘challenging deficit ideologies’ is a key challenge for schools in supporting engagement and achievement of students who have experienced social disadvantage (Thompson, 2017; Ridge, 2009). The dialogic teaching intervention is an attempt by the school to create experiences of ‘respect’ and ‘belonging’ for all students during everyday lessons. The research question is: How do teenage students experience the development of dialogic teaching in relation to respect and relatedness?

Dialogic teaching involves negotiation of rules and culture to encourage classroom talk that is ‘exploratory’ so that teacher and students listen, build on people’s ideas, challenge when appropriate, solve problems and strive to reach agreement (Alexander, 2017; Mercer, 2013). Dialogic teaching embraces struggle and mistakes as opportunities for learning and seeks ‘relational equity’ (Boaler, 2008). Although our project includes a focus on ‘respect and relatedness’ it is important to note that dialogic teaching is not merely about pleasant social interactions but aims to develop thinking and learning (Mercer, 2008; Wertsch, 2008). There is reasonable evidence for the impact of dialogic teaching on student attainment (Alexander, 2018). Returning to the issue of ‘respect’ - self-determination theory considers that three conditions are required to satisfy human needs as they seek fulfilment through completing challenges: autonomy (being in control); competence (feeling effective); and relatedness (a sense of belonging) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; ). Analysis of lesson observation or video of dialogic teaching might note a teacher offering some level of choice, providing encouraging but challenging feedback and nurturing interaction (Fried & Konza, 2013).

It is important to note the ‘troubles’ of dialogic teaching and a study in the Czech Republic recognized teachers struggling to implement the approach and identified themes of insufficient ‘rational argumentation’ and ‘semantic noise’ due to different understanding of words under the surface of the interaction (Sedova, Salamounova & Svaricek, 2014). It is arguable that the teacher’s design and framing of a problem-solving task that engages learners with a key concept is key to the learning impact of dialogic teaching (Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018). Studies of dialogic teaching have perhaps focused too much on talk between people and not sufficiently acknowledged the active and influential role of materials such as textbooks or practical equipment within the dialogue (Hetherington & Wegerif, 2018). Many studies of dialogic teaching have measured success through the quantity and quality of dialogue but less often have considered the ‘collectivity’ of that dialogue meaning the participation of all students, including those who have experienced social disadvantage (Sedlacek & Sedova, 2017). A study by Chinn et al. (2001) noted that an increase in dialogue quantity and quality did not occur for all of the observed students. Our study aims to contribute to this gap in the research and to consider task design and adopt a socio-material perspective in data analysis. Based on critical engagement with the literature the school staff collaboratively developed an agreed framework for dialogic teaching that included the element of ‘respect’ and further refined this during the study.

This paper focuses on data generated during the first of two action research cycles (Baumfield, Hall & Wall, 2013). Small teams of two or three teachers completed a cycle of lesson study focused on developing dialogic teaching (Lewis & Hurd, 2011). The ‘research lesson’ itself as well as the teaching team’s meeting to evaluate and redesign the lesson were captured on video. Teachers aimed to ‘see the lesson’ through the eyes of a target student in the class who has been identified as having experienced social disadvantage. The teacher also gathered photo evidence of student work. The target student in each lesson was interviewed using a video stimulated recall interview method (Lyle, 2003) to capture their perspectives on selected clips from the lesson including some of those involving classroom talk. In this first cycle the data from 5 completed lesson study processes is captured. The research gained approval through a university ethics panel scrutiny. Within their small teams the teachers controlled lesson study data generation and what video data and student interview data became part of the ‘research study data’. The approach to data analysis involves a hybrid thematic analysis combining inductive reasoning to code data and generate themes but also a deductive reasoning approach to apply codes based on the dialogic teaching framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday et al., 2006). The lesson structure and focus is analysed using the ‘quadrant model’ framework (Edwards, 2015) and an observation framework focused on ‘respect’ in relation to self-determination theory (Fried & Konza, 2013). Selected transcribed clips of whole class dialogue and teacher evaluation discussions are analysed in more detail (Warwick et al., 2016). The project uses inter-coder reliability checking and works towards co-creation of knowledge by using teacher focus groups to work practically on data analysis and to respond critically to the emerging analysis developed by the research mentor. The analysis aims to provide insight into the perspectives and learning of both teachers and of students and will inform the second action research lesson study cycle.

The study contributes to understanding of dialogic teaching in the distinctive context of a vocational high school. It provides insight through analysis of the voice of disadvantaged teenage students and their teachers. The study contributes to deeper understanding of material-dialogic teaching by considering dialogue in relation to design of lessons and learning tasks and the role of materials in shaping the interactions. The study is subject to the tensions, limitations and opportunities of close to practice action research. As a pedagogy relying on relationships and perhaps offering an element of ‘respect’ and ‘relatedness’ in the classroom, it is important in attempts to develop dialogic teaching to consider the struggles of teachers as well as those of their learners.

Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (5th edn). York: Dialogos. Baumfield, V., Hall, E. & Wall, K. (2013) Action Research In Education. London: Sage. Boaler, J. (2008) Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal 34 (2): 167-194. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Edwards, A. (2015) Designing tasks which engage learners with knowledge. In Ian Thompson Designing Tasks in Secondary Education. London: Routledge. Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1): 80-92. Hetherington, L. & Wegerif, R. (2018) Developing a material-dialogic approach to pedagogy to guide science teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 44:1, 27-43. Hofmann, R. & Ruthven, K. (2018) Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics. British Educational Research Journal 44 (3): 496-514. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6): 861-878. Mercer, N. (2008) Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51, 1, 90-100. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Ridge, T. (2009) Living with poverty: A review of the literature on children’s and families experiences of poverty, RR594. London: Department for Work and Pensions. Sedlacek, M. & Sedova, K. (2017) How many are talking? The role of collectivity in dialogic teaching. International Journal of Educational Research 85: 99-108. Sedova, K., Salamounova, Z. & Svaricek, R. (2014) Troubles with dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 3: 274-285. Thompson, I. (2017) Tackling Social Disadvantage Through Teacher Education. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Tyler, I. (2013) Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. London: Zed Books. Warwick, P., Vrikki, M. Vermunt, J.D., Mercer, N. & van Halem, N. (2016) Connecting observations of student and teacher learning: an examination of dialogic processes in Lesson Study discussions in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education 48: 555-569. Wertsch, J.V. (2008) From Social Interaction to Higher Psychological Processes: A Clarification and Application of Vygotsky’s Theory. Human Development 51: 66-79.