Rupert Wegerif
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
  • Publications
  • Talks & Media
  • Blog

Why dialogue is useful for teaching maths and science as well as literature and history

19/8/2019

6 Comments

 
Picture
​Monologic is the idea that there is just one true perspective or only one correct way of looking at things. Dialogic is the contrasting idea that understanding the meaning of something requires more than one perspective or more than one voice.
 
It is easy to see why dialogue and dialogic teaching could be useful in subjects like literature and history where there are debates between competing points of view and often no certainty as to which one is right. But subjects like maths and science present themselves as essentially monologic, so why should we teach them in a dialogic way?. That 2+2=4 is simply a truth and not a matter for debate. That water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level is a fact not requiring argument and discussion surely? Nonetheless, I think that we do need dialogic education in both maths and science. This short blog explains why.
 
Last week I  gave a talk about dialogic education at a big education conference (EARLI2019 in Aachen).  I focussed on how dialogic education can expand awareness by opening up a dialogic space, widening that space by bringing in alternative perspectives and deepening that space by questioning any framing assumptions. Meaning is only possible, I claimed, in the context of dialogue between different perspectives.
 
The discussant in our symposium, Frank Fisher, said that, while this dialogue approach is obviously useful in citizenship and the humanities it might not apply so well to subjects such as maths and science where there are correct answers to be taught. Frank, a professor at Munich, is a leader in the field of argumentation research. His concern about the limits of dialogic education is probably widely shared.
 
Anna Sfard, a leader in mathematics education,  raises a similar challenge against my account of dialogic education. She quotes me writing that progress in dialogic education is 'not simply from A to B but from A to A + B' and  she points out that this does not apply to monologic subjects such as mathematics[i].
 
This critical challenge from Frank and Anna is really useful in motivating me to express what I mean more clearly and also, perhaps, to think it through a little more carefully - hence this blog.
 
When I came up with the line that Anna quotes about progress being not from A to B but from A to A + B I was pretty pleased with myself. It expresses the experience of learning by talking to people and seeing the world through their eyes. Each new voice is a new way of seeing that does not replace other voices but augments them. For example, I feel fortunate as an adult that I have not entirely lost the ways of thinking, feeling and seeing the world that I had as a child. In that respect I have not moved simply from A to B (child to adult) but from A to A +B  (from child to child plus adult).
 
But I can see that the idea that learning moves from A to A + B is a big problem if it is taken to mean that you do not just learn that 2+2=4 but also that 2+2=3 and 2+2=5. I see the problem. That does not make any educational sense at all! Let me explain myself with three short examples.

1) Seeing the pattern
 
With the direct teaching, or the A to B approach, there is a danger  that children can apparently learn that 2 + 2 = 4 without  understanding what this means.  Maybe they can 'count on' 2 fingers from an initial two fingers without understanding why 2+2 is always the same as 1+3 which is always the same as 3+1. To understand that they need to move from the procedural business of 'counting on' to grasp the concept of 'commutativity'.
 
I did some research on this with maths education specialist Carol Murphy by teaching early mathematics in combination with teaching dialogic talk. In one class we observed the children worked together in groups of three solving a simple form of magic square. They were given the numbers 3, 2 and 1 on cards and asked to arrange them in a 3 by 3 grid so that every row and column added up to the same.

Picture
Figure 1: Magic Square

Two of the group, Amy and Jack, worked industriously arranging numbers and counting them out while Judy, the third member, just sat to one side and  watched them.

‘Two, three and one’ Jack counted on his fingers, ‘that’s six’. ‘One, three and two’, Amy counted on her fingers, ‘six’.

They were succeeding at the task, finding the way in which the numbers could be used to make all the rows and columns add up to the same total but they did not seem to realise that 3 + 2 + 1 was the same as 1 + 2 + 3 and the same as 2 + 1 + 3 etc. Judy sucked her finger looking on then said: ‘They are all adding up to six, look they are all six’. Later the teacher affirmed the point that Judy had made and helped to lead the group away from procedural understanding - knowing how to go on - to conceptual understanding - knowing why. I am not sure how much teaching the ground rules of dialogic talk helped with this small breakthrough but in general dialogue in classrooms has been shown to help with the shift from procedural to conceptual understanding in maths and in science.[2]
 
2 Three voices are better than one

Working with Neil Mercer in the 1990s I first explored the impact of teaching 'thinking together' (a form of dialogic education) in the context of citizenship. We could show a development  in the quality of children's reasoning as a result of teaching Exploratory Talk (a form of dialogic talk) but this effect was hard to measure and quantify. We moved on to using standard non-verbal reasoning tests to measure the impact of dialogic education. We did this precisely because each puzzle had a right answer and so we could easily measure the improvement in problem-solving that resulted from our teaching. As a result of dialogic education many groups moved from getting answers wrong to getting them right. In this respect you could say that they moved from A to B. But our analysis showed that they often achieved this greater success through increasing the complexity of their understanding of the problem. Whereas in the pre-test they often got problems wrong by  seeing them only one way, in the post test they often got problems right by seeing them in several different ways and then discussing together which way was best.[3]
Picture
Figure 2 Problem A

Before the series of  Thinking Together lessons one group, Elaine, Danny and John,  did not talk together at all well. In the pre-test one person in the group, Elaine, worked out the answer to Problem A (above)  alone and wrote it down as number 5.  She fell into the trap of just looking at the puzzle from top to bottom. In the post-test we gave this group the same set of puzzles and they got it right. The video recording shows why. As before, it seems that the pattern of the top to bottom lines is noticed first and John offers number five as the answer. But this answer is only made as a suggestion preceded by 'I think'. Danny then put forward number two as the answer, apparently because he is looking at the horizontal pattern of the single lines. John explains (through words and pointing) that the vertical black lines have to ‘go out'. Danny in turn explains that it cannot be number five because the light lines have to ‘go in’. Each of the two boys has adopted a different perspective; John takes the side of the vertical lines, Danny that of the horizontal lines. Each can see enough to refute the position of the other but this does not yet produce the solution. Elaine then comes up with the answer which combines the vertical lines going out with the horizontal lines going in, that is number four. Once she has expressed this both Danny and John agree that she is right, nodding.

​There is a single correct answer here which they converge upon. This is monologic. But they only get it because they compare the right answer to the wrong answers. This is dialogic. Understanding the right answer means understanding why it is right which also means understanding the wrong answers in order to contrast and compare.
Picture
3 Darwin vs Lamarck

As a teenager I associated Darwin with the theory that humans had evolved from animals. I was confused when I discovered that lots of other people, Goethe for example, had suggested this same idea long before Darwin had published his 'Origin of Species'. This made me realise that I had not really understood Darwin's theory at all. Darwin had not only speculated on man evolving from animals but had offered a theory as to the mechanism whereby evolution worked. This mechanism is variation of organisms combined with selection by survival and reproduction. I really understood this more specific theory only when I saw Darwin's theory of evolution compared with Lamarck’s theory.  Lamarck’s theory is just as much a theory of evolution as Darwin's but it did not work as well to explain the available evidence. This theory is that organisms strive to adapt to their environment in their lifetimes and then passed on this adaptation on to their offspring. Giraffes that stretched to reach leaves in high trees grew longer necks and so their children inherited these longer necks.
 
Understanding the debate in the 19th century between these contrasting views of evolution helped me to understand what was special about Darwin's theory. It is also interesting that, although Lamarck’s view was 'defeated' at the time it has returned. Recent evidence has demonstrated that features acquired through experience in a lifetime can in fact be transmitted to offspring and so Lamarck's name is being referenced in biology articles once again [4].
 
My point is that, as with Mathematics, to understand a theory in science, it is not enough to just state it - it does not mean anything on its own outside of any dialogic context  - it means something in relation to the dialogue that spawned it and the ongoing dialogues that it is engaged within. To understand it then is also to understand the apparently 'wrong' theories that it contrasts with. But even these wrong theories do not really disappear from the dialogue - they remain around as resources to help us think and so to help us to be able to respond to new challenges.
 
It is true that some difference in pedagogy is required if the objective is for students to end up knowing a correct way as opposed to if the objective is to explore the range of ways. However, these different objectives and associated pedagogies can both be valued and combined in any subject area [5]. There can be convergence on a single truth in history and literature just as there can be discussion of a range of perspectives in maths and science. Arguing that progress is expansive and moves not simply from A to B but from understanding only A to understanding both A and B   is not meant to suggest that all points of view are equally valid. It is meant to suggest that understanding why one way is better than another (in a context) requires understanding the contrasting views and so requires mastering a dialogic space  [6].


[1] Sfard, A (in press for 2019) Learning, discursive faultiness and dialogic engagement. In Mercer, Wegerif and Major (eds) The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education.
[2] Wegerif, R. (2010) Mindexpanding. McGraw Hill
[3] Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and instruction, 9(6), 493-516.
​[4] West-Eberhard, M. J. (2007). Dancing with DNA and flirting with the ghost of Lamarck. Biology and Philosophy, 22(3), 439-451.
[5] Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science education, 90(4), 605-631.
[6] Phillipson, N., & Wegerif, R. (2016). 
Dialogic Education: Mastering core concepts through thinking together. Routledge.

6 Comments
Natallia
20/8/2019 09:31:29 am

Thats very very interesting and might be investigated from different points of effective learning

Reply
anna sfard
25/8/2019 02:47:29 pm

Hi Rupert,

It is a pleasure, as always to read your latest blog on dialogue. This time, I am also happy to see myself invited to, well, a dialogue!

If I feel the need to talk back, it is because I believe you and I agree where you think we don’t. My position on dialogic education might have been slightly misinterpreted. Indeed, after describing my stance briefly, you declared: “Nevertheless, I think that we do need dialogic education in both maths and science.” Saying this, you imply that we – you and I, with Frank Fischer reportedly on my side, disagree about the desirability, or even the very possibility, of dialogic education in mathematics and natural sciences. And yet, nothing could be farther from what I really think. Like you, I do believe in the need for, and the possibility of, dialogic education in science and maths. So where does your contrary impression come from? It comes, I think, from the fact that you and I use the adjective dialogic a bit differently.

It seems we do agree that the presence of multiple perspectives is the core property of dialogicality. Thus, for both you and me, as well as for some luminaries on whose shoulders united we stand, dialogic education is one in which multiple voice may be heard. To put it differently, even if one perspective seems to be promoted, it is professed explicitly as but one of the many possibilities. True, this preferred perspective may appear to the promoters as more useful than any other (after all, there must be a reason for its being their favorite). Still, if you are a dialogic thinker, you see it as an always-contestable product of a human attempt to describe reality rather than as an authorless (or God-given, or nature-told) reflection of the world “as it really is”.

In the chapter you refer to, I presented this latter requirement a bit differently, but in an equivalent way: I defined dialogic education as one that encourages the learner to be dialogically engaged, and i defined the latter type of engagement as one that expresses itself in the student’s constant alertness to the possibility that her conversational partners are coming from a perspective (a discourse) different from her own (and this may manifest itself, for instance, in their differing uses of the same words 😊). Moreover, dialogically engaged participant tries to get to the core of her partner’s thinking – to understand the inner logic of this partner’s reasoning. According to how I read your work, you won’t disagree with this either. Thus, as long as dialogic education is one that fosters the learner’s openness to the possibility of multiple perspectives and her readiness to interact across difference, we are also in agreement about the need for dialogic education in maths and science.

But here comes the point where our understanding of the word dialogic seems to part ways. Whereas for you, the features mentioned so far – recognizing and respecting the difference – seem to suffice to define dialogic interaction, I go a bit further and ask what the learner is supposed to do with the difference, once she spots one. For me, the definition of dialogic engagement must include an answer to this question. And this answer for math and science has to be, I believe, a bit different than for history and literature. Your proposal that “progress in dialogic education is 'not simply from A to B but from A to A + B'” does apply, in my opinion, to the second pair, but not to the first. In this former case, getting acquainted with different perspectives – say Ptolemean and Copernican visions of the universe – is important, but the learner is expected to become well versed in only one of them. Indeed, dialogicality is not so much about actually taking multiple perspectives as about being aware that what you currently choose to believe is just one of possible versions.

Let me sum up using the illustration below [i tried, but didn't succeed to include a caricature, picturing two people standing on two different sides of the big digit 6 - or is it 9? - written on the floor, one of them shouting "This is six" and the other "This is nine!"] : to be dialogic, you don’t have to change sides or to be simultaneously present on both of them. On the contrary, you may be dialogic also while adamantly sticking to your version – while opting for only A or only B (such preference entails particular ways of acting and is indicative of one’s desired identity; thus, much more than logic and empirical evidence is on stake here). To be dialogic it suffices to acknowledge that what your partners say makes perfect sense in their world. Once you are aware of this, you also realize that shouting out your arguments for A, be them as rational (to you) as they may, is to no avail – there is little chance it will make the holders of the other perspective switch from B to A.

Reply
anna sfard
25/8/2019 02:49:48 pm

cont.
And if the two of you do converge on A one day, it will be more because of a twist in your partners’ desired identities – their choice of a community to which they wish to belong – than because of your rational argumentation. The main achievement the dialogically inclined teacher can aim for would be if every participant recognizes the fact that all perspectives, even if seemingly at odds with one’s own, do have their logic.

To conclude, Rupert, it seems to me that we are in a full agreement; or, to put it differently, that the only disagreement between us regards the question of whether we agree or not. Of course, one has to be dialogically engaged to notice that that the difference between us may be in word use rather than in how we envision the perfect classroom 😊!

Thank you for initiating this enjoyable and useful conversation,
anna

Reply
Rupert Wegerif
26/8/2019 08:40:50 am

Thanks for this really interesting and valuable response Anna. Having read your work I know that we agree on a great deal and so I wondered if I was misrepresenting you in my blog. I apologise if so.

Your point that there is a difference between what we do with dialogic awareness of different perspectives in maths and science as opposed to history and literature is a good one. The section below most gave me pause for thought:

'Whereas for you, the features mentioned so far – recognizing and respecting the difference – seem to suffice to define dialogic interaction, I go a bit further and ask what the learner is supposed to do with the difference, once she spots one. For me, the definition of dialogic engagement must include an answer to this question. And this answer for math and science has to be, I believe, a bit different than for history and literature. Your proposal that “progress in dialogic education is 'not simply from A to B but from A to A + B'” does apply, in my opinion, to the second pair, but not to the first. In this former case, getting acquainted with different perspectives – say Ptolemean and Copernican visions of the universe – is important, but the learner is expected to become well versed in only one of them. '

So in mathematics Godel demonstrated that there is no single self-consistent system but nonetheless we teach children to unpack the implications of one system of axioms. Same in science - we are aware that there may be other ways to frame reality but we teach students to work within a single productive frame.

This is certainly true of practice - maths and science are taught like that - but I am not sure if this is the best way. History and Literature can also be taught like this eg history from only one world-view and literature from one ethnicity, one class and with one set of values. Given the fascinating debates now about foundations in both science and maths might it not be an idea to teach for this debate in schools? A bit more Feyerabend and less Lakatos?

But I can see that your challenge to the A to A + B model of learning is sometimes entirely right in education - clearly sometimes in teaching we do teach A to B within a larger context - e.g drilling the times table or rote learning of dates in history and spellings in languages - so perhaps the issue here is granularity. At the highest level I think we agree knowledge is dialogic but at some points within that education is necessarily monologic - the question is when and where to be monologic and when and where to be dialogic.

Subjects are different in the degree of consensus that can be assumed. So I think you are probably right that more monologic teaching is appropriate in maths than in, say, citizenship. Thanks for that important point.

Reply
anna
27/8/2019 03:02:53 pm

Thank you, Rupert. We continue to converge, it seems. To bring us even closer, i'd like to clarify one thing: According to my understanding, a preference for a certain perspective is not automatically contradictory with dialogism. Yes, you can teach Copernican astronomy or Euclidean geometry and still do it dialogically. Dialogicality is the onto-epistemological stance, according to which no vision of things, not even the one that is currently favored, should be presented as "the ultimate one" - as the one that reflects the reality "as it really is". This, for me, is the defining feature of dialogic teaching. Thus, if you are dialogically minded, you try to entice the learners into Copernican or Euclidean discourse because of its particular usefulness, not because of its being "the correct (true) one". Yes, also in dialogic pedagogy, there is much room for preferences. Otherwise, what would there be for learners to "dialogise" (argue) about? Isn't this current conversation, in which you and I are trying to arrive at a convergence of our favored perspectives, a genuine dialogue?

Reply
Rupert
27/8/2019 04:26:00 pm

Good points. At the risk of ending the dialogue through unanimity I have to say that I totally agree with you here!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rupert Wegerif. Professor of Education at Cambridge University. Interested in Dialogic Education, educational technology and teaching for thinking and creativity.

    Top posts

    • Dialogic Education
    • Chiasm: dialogic research methodology
    • The 'rise above' button
    • Dialogic vs Dialectic​
    • Types of talk
    • Groundhog day, Nietzsche and the meaning of life​
    • Knowledge or Skills? 
    • ​Understanding Dialogic Space

    Archives

    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    July 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed