This abstract focuses on teaching and learning in classroom and examines how these are created during an educational communication between a teacher and pupils. During research we discovered that educational monologue takes up only 13 percent of the overall teaching time while dialogical forms take more than three times and a half (48 percent) of the overall time. Our research question was: What is the dialogical nature of educational communication and how is it perceived by teachers?

Proponents of dialogic teaching draw on several theoretical sources (Vygotsky 1978; Bruner 1986; Wood, Bruner & Ross 1976; Applebee et al. 2003). In dialogic teaching, teacher is open to thoughts and ideas coming from students (Scott et al. 2010). A class where teacher accepts only pre-defined answers to their questions and pupils cannot contribute with their own ideas is then understood as the opposite of dialogic teaching. According to Alexander (2006) all communicative situations can be divided into several types: rote, recitation, instruction/exposition, discussion, and dialogue. Although all types have their place in teaching, discussion and dialogue with scaffolding have the greatest potential in relation to learning. The results of empirical studies typically replicate these findings: dialogic teaching is only very rarely seen in reality (Nystrand 1997; Burns, Myhill 2004; Parker, Hurry 2007).

Drawing on data gathered from a field research of ethnographic character, we can say that the dialogical nature of educational communication consists of two different types, with different functions. We call the first type explanation as a show for the chosen few. Instead of explaining, in which teachers pass their knowledge to pupils, this is the time where teaching in the form of a dialogical play appears. Teachers‘ main aim in this type of communication is not to transmit knowledge; rather they focus on motivating of some of the pupils to work with them on the explanation and thus participate in the show which had been prepared for them. The purpose of the show is for one of the pupils to present what they s/he has acquired or experience the moment of understanding in front of everybody else. Thus, the learning process becomes more evident. This is in accordance with Hattie’s claim (Hattie 2009) who suggests that if teachers want to make the process of learning more visible they have to choose the right communication partners at the right time.

The second type (revision) is related to various forms of revisions, which take up a considerable amount of time in every class. This type is characterised by drills and discipline and is beneficial for all pupils. Calling on pupils thus acquires a new function: it is no longer a strategic choice of a communicative partner who will co-explain with the teacher. In this part of a class it is a disciplinary technique whose aim is to ensure that pupils pay attention. This reveals the central aim of this technique: it is not to lead pupils to understanding but rather to ensure that they still pay attention.

Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy. International Comparisons in Primary Education. London: Blackwell. Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 685-730. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burns, Ch., & Myhil, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35–50. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York, London: Teachers College Press. Parker, M., Hurry, J. 2007. Teachers´ use of questioning and modeling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 3, pp 299 – 314. Scott, P. Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge. In Littleton, K., Howe, Ch. (eds.). (2010). Educational Dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction. London: Routledge, 289–303. Šeďová, K., & Švaříček, R. (2010). Evaluation or Non-evaluation? The Role of Teacher Evaluation in Educational Communication. Paper presented at the Oxford Ethnography Conference, 30 pp. Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., & Šalamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve školní třídě. [Communication in the Classroom]. Prague: Portál, 2012. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.