Sarah Michaels

When Is Dialogue ‘Dialogic’?

Gordon Wells’ article, ‘Semiotic mediation, dialogue, and the construction of knowledge’ (this issue), offers an insightful review and synthesis of work centering around a dichotomy between monologic and dialogic meaning making. He integrates a number of disparate ideas from psychology, semiotics, linguistics, and sociology to argue that semiotic mediation – the use of ‘signs’ in dialogue with self and others – underlies all human learning and reasoning. Briefly, Wells’ position encompasses four related claims: (1) language acquisition and language use in interaction with others are forms of mediation (akin to tool use); (2) dialogue itself is a form of semiotic mediation that undergirds the learning and thinking of individuals, groups, and cultures at large; (3) signs, interactions, and socialization (all forms of semiotic mediation) can be more or less ‘dialogic;’ (4) in the process of language acquisition, children acquire their culture’s implicit sign system. As signs are internalized, so is the ‘dialogicality’ or meaning-making stance of the home culture internalized. In this way, children from different cultures, different social classes, or different school environments take on more than language; they take on different values or ‘meaning potentials’ and expectations relating to making meaning in dialogue with others or in thinking on one’s own. In the end, Wells emphasizes the significance of these claims for education, and calls for ‘dialogue in all educational settings in order to enable learners of all ages to construct knowledge together’ (this issue). This leads to an interesting puzzle. Classrooms are full of discourse and dialogue: the back-and-forth between teachers and students, formal and informal talk, in small and large groups, one-on-one conferences, and written text to an audience.

Can the Intellectual Affordances of Working-Class Storytelling Be Leveraged in School?

In commenting on the Miller et al. article, I take the liberty of bending the standard genre of ‘commentary.’ Instead of dispassionate, analytic discussion – pointing out linkages with other literatures and addressing shortcomings of the article – I write a more personal account of how this article became a ‘tool’ for me to think with, how it interacted with my own research and solved some nagging problems for me, and, in general, how rare and thrilling an experience it is when that happens. Miller et al. draw on decades of ethnographic, sociolinguistic research (their own and others’) in examining narrative accounts told by adults and children. Defining personal storytelling as ‘a genre in which people recreate experiences from their own life in conversation with others,’ they take pains to examine ‘workingclass storytelling on its own terms, not as a deviation from middle-class standards.’ The authors identify a number of characteristics of working-class narratives: positive valuing, frequency, and artful performance of personal storytelling; the privileging of dramatic language and negative story content; and the need to defend one’s own point of view

Productive Classroom Dialogue as an Activity of Shared Thinking and Communicating: A Commentary on Marsal

In Eva Marsal’s article, a model is presented that teaches children to philosophize by acquiring a set of skills in step-by-step exercises. In the classroom examples that Marsal provides, however, it remains unclear how teachers support the kinds of thinking and philosophizing that her Five Finger Model aims to promote. This is why, in response to Eva Marsal’s article, we argue that productive classroom dialogue can be seen as a complementary approach that supports teachers in bringing dialogue into their classrooms. As its aim is to promote children’s “meaningful learning and cultural development in an emancipatory way” (van Oers, 2012a, p. 59), it enables them to do more than appropriate or reconstruct conventional cultural meanings. Through productive classroom dialogue, children learn how to collaboratively progress in communicating, thinking, and understanding. As such, we believe it to be a suitable context for philosophizing with children that goes beyond step-by-step exercises. In this commentary, we subsequently elaborate the notion of productive classroom dialogue and discuss how it interanimates with Marsal’s Five Finger Model.

Scaling Up Three-Dimensional Science Learning Through Teacher-Led Study Groups Across a State

The vision for science teaching in the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards requires a radical departure from traditional science teaching. Science literacy is defined as three-dimensional (3D), in which students engage in science and engineering practices to develop and apply science disciplinary ideas and crosscutting concepts. This knowledge building presents many challenges for teachers. We describe a two-pronged program for scaling 3D science professional development (PD) across a state: (a) 24 teachers developed expertise in 3D learning and facilitating teacher study groups; (b) these peer facilitators led 22 study groups of teachers in 3D science activities, analyzing student learning, and investigating classroom interactions. We describe design approaches for supporting teacher and facilitator learning. We present analyses of teacher learning, including shifts in 3D science, beliefs, and pedagogical content knowledge that supports 3D science teaching, and consider implications for scalable design approaches for supporting science teacher learning.