This study investigates how classroom discourse fosters dialogic interaction in secondary English lessons, focusing on students’ speaking engagement and cognitive strategies. While dialogic teaching is widely recognized as enhancing reasoning, collaboration, and participation, there is limited research on how these interactions naturally occur in everyday English lessons. Alexander (2020) argues that dialogic teaching harnesses classroom talk to engage students’ interest, stimulate thinking, and support argumentation, treating dialogue as an essential learning tool rather than incidental to teaching. Wegerif (in press) frames dialogic education epistemologically and ontologically, emphasizing that knowledge emerges through interaction and dialogue, highlighting the need to examine authentic classroom talk to understand co-construction of ideas and cognitive development.

Research on classroom discourse supports the importance of participation in learning. Cazden (2001) shows that patterns of teacher and student talk shape engagement, and Walsh and Li (2016) highlight collaboration and co-construction as central to learning outcomes. Mercer (2004) proposes sociocultural discourse analysis, emphasizing language as a social tool for thinking, problem-solving, and knowledge construction. Applied research, such as Chow et al. (2023), shows that dialogic teaching interventions improve vocabulary and phonological awareness in young ESL learners, demonstrating how structured dialogue impacts learning. Yet there remains a gap in understanding dialogic interaction in routine secondary English lessons, especially in multilingual, non-Western classrooms. This study addresses this gap by examining features of classroom discourse, student participation, and cognitive strategies during everyday lessons.

The theoretical framework combines sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and dialogic teaching frameworks (Alexander, 2020; Wegerif, in press; Mercer, 2004). Sociocultural theory views learning as socially mediated, where interaction with teachers and peers supports cognitive growth. Dialogic teaching frameworks identify features of productive talk, including exploratory dialogue, reasoning, uptake of peers’ ideas, and co-construction of knowledge. Together, these approaches enable analysis of micro-level discourse while situating findings within broader educational and cognitive theory.

To ensure the European and international relevance of this study, the findings and implications are positioned beyond the national classroom context. While the study is conducted in a secondary English classroom in Kazakhstan, the principles of dialogic teaching, patterns of classroom talk, and student cognitive strategies have applicability across European education systems and multilingual classrooms. Insights from this research can inform teacher professional development, classroom interaction practices, and dialogic pedagogy policies in other countries, highlighting strategies to enhance participation, reasoning, and collaboration in diverse cultural and linguistic settings.

The study employs a small-scale, qualitative, classroom-based design to investigate how dialogic interaction unfolds in routine secondary English lessons. The participants consist of one class of 22 students, all aged 15 years old, and their English teacher. The focus is on naturally occurring classroom discourse rather than artificially structured interventions, ensuring that the data reflect authentic teaching and learning practices. A qualitative approach is most appropriate given the study’s aim to explore patterns of student participation, teacher–student and peer interactions, and cognitive strategies within the context of regular lessons. Data collection involves multiple complementary instruments. First, audio recordings of classroom discussions capture the flow of dialogue, including teacher prompts—that is, questions, instructions, or cues intended to stimulate student thinking, elicit responses, or initiate discussion—student responses, peer exchanges, and moments of elaboration or reasoning. Field notes taken by the researcher provide contextual information, including classroom layout, seating arrangements, and non-verbal interactions, which are crucial for understanding the dynamics of participation and engagement. Semi-structured interviews with the teacher explore reflections on pedagogical decisions, lesson planning, and perceived student engagement, offering a complementary perspective to classroom observations. The primary method of analysis is discourse analysis, drawing on sociocultural and dialogic teaching frameworks (Mercer, 2004; Alexander, 2020; Wegerif, in press). This approach examines both micro-level features of classroom talk, such as turn-taking, question types, and reasoning sequences, and broader patterns of interaction, including participation equity, collaborative problem-solving, and dialogic uptake. The analysis focuses on identifying the cognitive strategies students use in dialogue, such as elaboration, justification, and perspective-taking, as well as the ways teachers facilitate or scaffold these processes. Coding of transcripts follows established criteria for dialogic teaching, including exploratory dialogue, uptake, and student–student interaction, ensuring consistency and reliability in identifying patterns of discourse. Ethical considerations are integral to the study. Parental consent and student assent are obtained, and confidentiality and anonymity are maintained throughout. Data are securely stored and accessible only to the research team. By combining audio recordings, field notes, and semi-structured teacher interviews with rigorous discourse analysis, this methodology provides a detailed and multifaceted understanding of dialogic interaction and its role in student engagement and cognitive development in secondary English classrooms.

This study is expected to provide detailed insights into the nature of dialogic interaction in routine secondary English lessons and its impact on student engagement and cognitive strategies. Based on previous research, it is anticipated that classroom discourse will reveal varying levels of student participation, with some students actively contributing to exploratory dialogue while others respond minimally. The analysis will likely show that teacher prompts play a crucial role in guiding discussion, encouraging reasoning, and fostering uptake of peers’ ideas, demonstrating how dialogic teaching strategies scaffold students’ cognitive processes. Expected outcomes include identification of key patterns of classroom talk that support co-construction of knowledge, collaborative problem-solving, and elaboration of ideas. For instance, students are expected to demonstrate cognitive strategies such as justification, perspective-taking, and connecting new concepts to prior knowledge during interactions. Additionally, the study may reveal how classroom layout, seating arrangements, and non-verbal cues influence participation equity, showing that contextual factors significantly shape dialogue dynamics. The findings are anticipated to contribute both practically and theoretically. Practically, they may inform teachers on effective strategies for promoting dialogic interaction, highlighting methods to increase participation, support reasoning, and develop students’ confidence in expressing ideas. Theoretically, the study will extend current knowledge on dialogic teaching by providing evidence from authentic English classroom settings, particularly in a secondary education context where research is limited. The results may also illuminate how sociocultural and epistemological principles of dialogic education manifest in everyday lessons, demonstrating the interplay between dialogue, cognition, and learning outcomes. Overall, the study aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how classroom discourse operates as a vehicle for learning and engagement, offering actionable insights for educators while addressing the existing gap in research on dialogic interaction in secondary English classrooms.

1.Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos. 2.Alexander, R. (2020). A Dialogic Teaching Companion. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351040143 3.Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge. 4.Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 5.Chow, B. W.-Y., Hui, A., Li, Z., & Yang, D. (2023). Dialogic teaching in English-as-a-second-language classroom: Its effects on first graders with different levels of vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 27(6), 1408–1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981399 6.Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development (pp. 229–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 7.Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. 8.Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9.Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. London: Routledge. 10.Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. 11.Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. 12.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 13.Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2016). Classroom talk, interaction and collaboration. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 13–25). London: Routledge. 14.Wegerif, R. (in press). Dialogic education. In Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford University Press.