You may be interested in the research behind The Toolkit, especially if you are working in a research school, are developing CPD, are currently studying to be a teacher or undertaking post-graduate study, or are interested in research on teaching, learning and student engagement. You will find accessible links to the original research papers within the text.

The Toolkit is based on a wide body of research which shows that a dialogic approach to teaching and learning can improve learning outcomes (Ruthven et al., 2017; Howe, Hennessy, Mercer, Vrikki, & Wheatley, 2019; Alexander, 2018). With dialogue, we refer to an approach with two distinct features. Firstly, dialogue refers to an interactive approach utilising whole-class and small-group discussions to elicit students’ thinking on the topic. The second important feature of dialogue refers to discussing different points of view on a task or problem. (Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018). Our research has developed a structured approach to support both of these features in classroom practice. (Ruthven et al., 2017)

The Toolkit can support a range of subjects. The original epiSTEMe pedagogical approach was developed specifically for mathematics and science, and includes lessons organised around carefully crafted problem situations which appeal to student and real-world interests. They are designed to bring about multiple points of view and develop students’ ability to think like mathematicians and scientists. (Ruthven & Hofmann, 2013; Howe, Luthman, et al., 2015; Howe, Ilie, et al., 2015) However, our research and work with schools have demonstrated that such a dialogic approach can give rise to meaningful learning conversations in subjects focusing on language, literacy, source analysis and argumentation as well. (Maine & Hofmann, 2016)

Our research has shown that changing classroom practice to support productive discussions and integrate students’ ideas requires systematic and focused effort. Using the structured epiSTEMe approach it was shown possible to develop new dialogic skills and practices in ordinary classrooms while simultaneously maintaining or actually improving subject learning outcomes. (Ruthven et al., 2017) Many teachers use discussions and group work already, but our research and partner teachers’ experience shows that this often happens in a way that does not reap the full benefits of dialogue. Developing beneficial dialogues in the classroom requires in itself the development of new skills by not only teachers but by students, as well as classroom norms and tasks that can support rich conversations. (Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018)

The first key aspect is developing class ground rules for talk that support effective small-group and whole-class discussion. The aim of this is to support student understanding of the value of talk and dialogue in fostering (subject) thinking and learning and awareness of how to have conversations that support everyone’s learning. (Ruthven et al., 2017) Developing ground rules also promotes the understanding that contributing to and enabling effective dialogues is an aspect of what students – and teachers – are accountable to in lessons. (Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018)

There is more to these Ground Rules than first meets the eye. Our research has shown that rules for talk such as ‘Listening’ or ‘Contributing’ can be based on four different underlying rationales. Most classrooms have such rules functioning in the operational and interpersonal dimensions, emphasising appropriate behaviours and ways of treating other people. Important for learning is to emphasise not only people, but discussion and ideas: drawing on the discussional dimension to promote the elicitation of ideas, and the ideational dimension to ensure students’ ideas are taken seriously, compared and evaluated. Productive learning dialogues are not just about students sharing their ideas, but comparing their ideas to those of others, and convincing others of their ideas through developing persuasive arguments. (Hofmann & Ruthven, 2018)

Knowing how to best support students’ discussion and initiative, especially when students are on an incorrect path or stuck, can be difficult. Research has shown that telling students immediately if they are right does not foster independence or resilience (Chiu, 2004) but neither does lessening support (Pol, Mercer, & Volman, 2019). At the same time, both teachers and students often find it unhelpful if teachers simply withhold evaluative information. Our research has identified a range of concrete communicative strategies teachers can use when supporting student discussions, which are contingent on students’ current understand but don’t take away students’ opportunity to do their own thinking. (Hofmann & Mercer, 2016)

It is important to note that such a dialogic approach does not mean handing over all control over classroom talk to students. Teachers can, at different times, share different aspects of leadership of the dialogue with students. For example, teachers may maintain epistemic initiative, taking charge of setting the agenda in classroom dialogue, while allowing students to be part of epistemic appraisal, evaluating the persuasiveness of different contributions and arguments (Ruthven & Hofmann, 2016). For the teachers that supported the development of the Toolkit, such an approach has been beneficial with groups with challenging behaviours.

Teacher collaboration is key to achieving impact. Changing classroom and school practice is not easy even when we want to make it happen. And we know teachers often worry about whether their students will be able to engage in dialogue. Evidence shows that when teachers first trialled the epiSTEMe dialogic approach, students’ learning outcomes improved while they were also learning new discussion skills. (Ruthven et al., 2017) Teachers who have tried these ideas in their classrooms have been surprised about what their students were able to do. Our research has demonstrated that a good sign that you are successfully implementing something new is if you notice anything unexpected about your students. It further shows that it is beneficial if teachers are able to discuss their project, and especially their surprises, with a colleague to analyse together how this could inform further changes of practice. (Rainio & Hofmann, 2015) Our research shows that even in disadvantaged settings where change in student engagement can seem impossible, teachers’ perceptions of their students and those students’ engagement can really change when teachers work together in a sustained way to try new ideas and to notice and discuss new things about their students. (Rainio & Hofmann, 2015) Our partner teachers’ experience resonates strongly with this. Research on teacher learning via Lesson Study also supports these findings (Dudley, 2013) and the Toolkit can, if desired, be implemented within a Lesson Study.

Finally, teachers should seek to monitor and generate evidence of student progress. This will enable them to not only see, but also demonstrate to other stakeholders including school inspectors, that innovation risks are well managed and that they are improving students’ learning opportunities. We have developed rigorously tested measures (see Resources) to evaluate student learning. Some of them relate to the specific STEM topics of the example modules. But others relate to other outcomes, such as student engagement and can be used across subjects. (Ruthven et al., 2017)

References

1. Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
2. Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312041002365
3. Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.006
4. Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2016). Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons. Language and Education, 30(5), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363
5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3444
6. Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
7. Howe, C., Ilie, S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Mercer, N., & Riga, F. (2015). Principled Improvement in Science: Forces and proportional relations in early secondary-school teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.975168
8. Howe, C., Luthman, S., Ruthven, K., Mercer, N., Hofmann, R., Ilie, S., & Guardia, P. (2015). Rational number and proportional reasoning in early secondary school: towards principled improvement in mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2015.1019914
9. Maine, F., & Hofmann, R. (2016). Talking for meaning: The dialogic engagement of teachers and children in a small group reading context. International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.10.007
   (Open access: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/252489)
10. Pol, J. van de, Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
11. Rainio, A. P., & Hofmann, R. (2015). Transformations in Teachers’ Discourse About Their Students During a School-Led Pedagogic Intervention. The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 13(2), 1815–1829. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.163
12. Ruthven, K., & Hofmann, R. (2013). Chance by design: devising an introductory probability module for implementation at scale in English early-secondary education. ZDM, 45(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0470-6
13. Ruthven, K., & Hofmann, R. (2016). A case study of epistemic order in mathematics classroom discourse. PNA (Pensamiento Numérico y Algebráico) Special Issue on Language and Mathematics, 11(1), 5–33. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/42388
14. Ruthven, K., Mercer, N., Taber, K. S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Ilie, S., Luthman, S. & Riga, F. (2017). A research-informed dialogic-teaching approach to early secondary school mathematics and science: the pedagogical design and field trial of the epiSTEMe intervention. Research Papers in Education, 32(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1129642