Anthony Wotring<\/strong> The adoption of innovative pedagogy without clear guidance in adapting teaching approaches to English language teaching contexts has led to disconnects in meeting students\u2019 and teachers\u2019 classroom talk needs. One such innovation, the dialogic teaching approach, centres a principled conception of classroom talk to enhance pedagogical practice. Recently, English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers and researchers have implemented the dialogic teaching approach to address the limited quality of classroom talk. However, emergent findings have yielded mixed results (e.g., inconsistent improvements in teacher questioning and meagre changes to student response quality). These marginal successes may result from teachers and researchers seeking to adopt the approach\u2019s descriptive and idealised principles without adequately addressing classroom realities. This paper explores an educational design research project that sought EFL teachers\u2019 and students\u2019 feedback in adapting dialogic teaching principles within a South Korean university\u2019s EFL curriculum. This project intended to yield a prescriptive design framework to enable the contextualising of dialogic teaching for EFL instruction. Grounded in a hybrid deductive and inductive analysis of this project\u2019s empirical evidence, the present paper\u2019s findings offer researchers and teachers an evolved understanding of dialogic teaching, its utility in EFL teaching, and how pedagogic innovation may be implemented dialogically.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Dialogic teaching, educational design research, English language teaching<\/p>\n The English language teaching (ELT) field has often framed the challenge of implementing pedagogical innovation as an issue of translating theoretical principles into contextually appropriate practice. This challenge is evident in previous research investigating various aspects of teachers\u2019 classroom practice, such as when teachers purportedly employ the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach yet persist in conducting classrooms lacking genuinely communicative tasks (Nunan, 1987). Insights gleaned from previous research are valuable in that they offer descriptions of how classrooms are conducted and reveal potential connections between theory and practice.<\/p>\n However, in this paper I explore this challenge from a different perspective. In addition to seeking methods for translating theoretical principles into teaching practice, research should also consider how practice can inform theory. Framing the relationship of theory and pedagogy this way necessitates a research methodology that allows for the contextualisation and evolution of theory in light of real-world practice. In my attempt to contextualise an innovative pedagogical approach, namely the dialogic teaching approach (Alexander, 2020), I have turned to the educational design research (EDR) approach to facilitate this investigation.<\/p>\n EDR provides a powerful approach to elicit feedback and collaboration from teachers and students about pedagogy and course design. Doing so not only supports teacher learning of innovative practices but also lays the foundation for developing theoretical learning in the form of design principles for future effective implementation. EDR offers an innovative framework for pedagogical implementation that has yet to be widely employed in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Core to the EDR approach is an iterative process for designing and refining input principles, supported by teachers\u2019, researchers\u2019, and students\u2019 feedback (McKenney & Reeves, 2019).<\/p>\n Input design principles serve as the basis for initially designed solutions (Herrington et al., 2009). These initial principles, however, evolve following implementation cycles of curricular designs, transforming teachers\u2019 knowledge of how teaching can be accomplished by producing principled frameworks grounded in empirical findings. Drawing on data from one such EDR project, this paper explores the experiences of teachers and students engaged in an EFL curriculum and pedagogy design and re-design process. Teacher and student participants collaborated to align a tertiary EFL course with principles from the dialogic teaching approach to address localised pedagogical issues. Among these concerns were the poorly defined qualities of talk targeted in classroom discourse, problems of curricular design and implementation misalignments, and the persistent gap between theoretical approaches and teacher pedagogy. These problems are notably all too common among university EFL education in similar contexts (Cui & Teo, 2023; Shea, 2019; Wotring et al., 2021). The research team, comprised of EFL teachers and students, and myself as a researcher, turned to dialogic teaching\u2019s principles to act as our input principles, set standards for classroom talk, and provide the tools to improve our talk quality (Alexander, 2020).<\/a><\/p>\n The dialogic teaching approach falls within a family of dialogic pedagogies, with the unifying aim of better understanding and utilising talk to further learning. Dialogic pedagogies can range in emphasis from using talk to increase students\u2019 content knowledge, such as in the accountable talk framework (Michaels et al., 2008), to Freire\u2019s dialogical method that aspires to democratise public education as a tool for liberation (Freire, 2017; Shor & Freire, 1987). The dialogic teaching approach (Alexander, 2020) offers a principled understanding of classroom dialogue, conceiving talk as a multifaceted meaning-making tool connecting speakers’ social, cognitive, and emotional dimensions (Alexander, 2020; Wotring et al., 2024). Such an understanding of dialogue offers EFL teaching the potential to modify teachers\u2019 questioning practices, enhance the quality of classroom discourse, and \u201coil the wheels of dialogue to go further on\u201d (Doukmak, 2014, p. 30). The approach\u2019s framework is underpinned by a set of principles to identify and support talk, and thereby learning.<\/p>\n Alexander\u2019s (2017) principles for dialogic teaching establish aspects of talk necessary to harness dialogue\u2019s potential. The dialogic teaching principles support an understanding of \u201chow patterns of talk may open up discourse space for exploration and varied opinions, and how teacher and student decision-making about content is presented and discussed\u201d (Boyd & Markarian, 2015, p. 273). The following dialogic principles (Alexander, 2017, p. 38) characterise dialogic classroom talk and functioned as this project\u2019s input design principles:<\/p>\n Heron et al. (2021), when researching dialogic teaching in higher education contexts, subdivides these principles along different aspects of learning, namely the affective (the collective, supportive, <\/em>and reciprocal <\/em>principles) and the cognitive (the cumulative <\/em>and purposeful <\/em>principles). Dialogic teaching principles, as currently constructed, describe the characteristics of talk and instruction that should occur in dialogic classrooms. However, teachers and researchers intending to apply these principles in university, EFL contexts would note the need to modify these principles. For example, tertiary students can offer a greater degree of input into their learning needs and require less \u201csteering\u201d than younger learners. Further, these principles, when functioning as input for curriculum design, do little to specify how teachers may translate these characteristics into practice that fosters dialogic exchanges.<\/p>\n When realised as classroom practice, the dialogic teaching approach has resulted in developments that are both pedagogical (i.e., enhanced learning for students) and professional (i.e., developed teacher practices). Alexander\u2019s (2018) randomised control study demonstrated both outcomes when working across 78 British primary schools. He attributed these successes to the dual aim of teacher and student improvement, which \u201ccontrasts with approaches that pin their hopes and advocacy on teachers adopting set patterns of talk\u201d (Alexander, 2018, p. 586). Boyd and Markarian\u2019s (2015) study reflects this attempt to reorient both teacher and student talk. Although the teacher in this study used discourse structures that ostensibly closed avenues for discussion, the dialogue during the class\u2019s literature discussions revealed students and teachers engaged with each other\u2019s ideas as a community of learners. That is not to say dialogue must necessarily occur in oral exchanges, quite the contrary as learners’ utterances in online spaces can similarly be oriented to collective learning (see, e.g., Chan & Chung, 2024; Heron et al., 2021). The significance here is that classroom practice attempted to realise this principled understanding of dialogue to achieve improved student and teacher learning, which may explain why language-learning classrooms have started to turn towards this approach.<\/p>\n Studies investigating the implementation of the dialogic teaching approach for EFL learning have found increases in students\u2019 reasoning and contributions, and in teachers\u2019 dialogic questioning practices (Cui & Teo, 2023; Lee, 2016; Shea, 2019). For example, Shea (2019) conducted an action research project that sought to characterise the impacts of a Japanese university EFL teacher\u2019s modified talk moves to elicit and extend student contributions. His findings did evidence some positive interactional patterns (e.g., some increases in sustained student participation), however, these marginal successes were outweighed by discourse moves that limited students\u2019 contributions possibly due to his own \u201cmisguided assumptions about effective talk\u201d (Shea, 2019, p. 797). Similarly, Cui and Teo\u2019s (2024) investigation into a Chinese university\u2019s English language teacher\u2019s implementation of dialogic questioning demonstrated some increase in the quality of classroom exchanges and students\u2019 critical thinking. Despite this teacher\u2019s expanded questioning practices, their findings revealed \u201cmissteps, pitfalls and challenges in implementation\u201d (Cui & Teo, 2024, p. 129). These challenges in the implementation and opening of the classroom dialogue are attributed to the teacher\u2019s limited experience with such moves.<\/p>\n Limiting the success of these early attempts could be a result of their implementation methodologies. Research approaches, such as action and practitioner research, maintain a purposefully narrowed focus on improving teacher practice. The above studies utilised teacher-centred implementation strategies as the means to realise the idealised, principled dialogic talk. Largely absent from prior research are the impacts of dialogic teaching\u2019s implementation in the opposite direction \u2013 that is, how teacher and student talk can transform descriptive dialogic teaching principles into prescriptive guidance for EFL learning. The outputs of EDR studies can facilitate teacher development and improve student learning, but they also allow insights from the classroom to transform theory (Herrington et al., 2007; Nieveen & Folmer, 2013).<\/p>\n Educational design research studies represent a \u201cfamily of approaches that strive towards the dual goals of developing theoretical understanding and designing and implementing interventions in practice\u201d (McKenney & Reeves, 2021, p. 84). Whereas interventionist methodologies aim to develop teacher practices (see Burns, 2016; Doqaruni, 2022; Vu & Burns, 2014), less attention is given to developing theoretical understandings when conceptualising innovation in ELT. Design principles are prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive, in nature (McKenney & Reeves, 2019), with the intent that the results from design research studies may inform effective future pedagogic inquiry and implementation. EDR studies are structured to generate prescriptive findings, such as the results from recent EDR implementations in ELT, differentiating this research model from other modes of inquiry.<\/p>\n The study by Ji and Pham (2020) illustrates many major features of the EDR approach, demonstrating how this approach is distinctive from contemporary research methods. Their project examined the applicability of the task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach in supporting EFL grammar instruction for Chinese university classes. Typical of EDR studies, their study featured iterative cycles of intervention (i.e., TBLT-informed practices), recursively refined through teacher and student feedback. Within these implementation cycles, their research followed specific phases of design construction to meet identified problems, reflection and evaluation of the implemented solutions, and a re-design prior to subsequent classroom implementations. Such an approach of practical solution generation alongside theoretical refinement is typical of EDR studies (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; McKenney & Reeves, 2019) and differs from other research approaches that may simply focus on current practices or teacher behaviour (Burns, 2016; Cui & Teo, 2023). Notably absent from the Ji and Pham (2020) study, however, is a comparison of input design principles with proposed design principles for future implementation, a key component of EDR studies (McKenney & Reeves, 2021; Nieveen & Folmer, 2013).<\/p>\n An example of design research yielding a principled framework for language teaching contexts can be found in Hung\u2019s (2017) study. Her research focused on the impacts of a \u201cflipped\u201d EFL course for Taiwanese university students, where her originally CLT-informed course moved lecture content to a pre-class phase and shifted the focus of in-class learning to peer and content interaction. This EDR study transformed the original input \u201cF-L-I-P\u201d principles (Hamdan et al., 2013) and proposed refined design principles for flipping future EFL classes. For instance, Hamdan et al.\u2019s (2013) \u201cF\u201d principle states: \u201cFlipped classrooms allow for a variety of learning modes. They create flexible environments in which students choose when and where they learn\u201d (p. 5). Along with the other FLIP principles, Hung translated the \u201cF\u201d principle to one that centred EFL learning, proposing an \u201cF\u201d principle that prompts teachers to provide \u201ccomprehensible input with flexibility, accommodating individual preferences and proficiency levels, as a means for creating acquisition-rich flipped classrooms for L2 learners\u201d (2017, p. 188). Demonstrated in this contextualisation of principled, theoretical knowledge is the transformation from generically describing<\/em> how classroom learning should be, in this case in flipped classrooms, to one that prescribes<\/em> how classrooms can be designed to meet language learners’ needs.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, common among the few EDR studies in EFL contexts, evolved design principles are often separated from the cyclic research process and merely given as concluding or reflective statements (e.g., Egbert et al., 2015; Hung, 2017; Ozverir et al., 2017). Transforming descriptive input principles to a prescriptive design framework alongside the cyclic implementation could provide insights into the adaptation process of innovative teaching approaches. In short, this crucial difference between prescriptive design principles and existing descriptive principles in ELT may be a cause of implementation challenges and the unrealised potential of innovative pedagogy like the dialogic teaching approach.<\/p>\n Therefore, this paper responds to the following research question:<\/p>\n This qualitative inquiry employed an EDR approach to contextualise dialogic teaching principles in an EFL context. EDR studies generate and analyse data to yield design principles, or \u201cprescriptive theoretical understanding developed through educational design research\u201d (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 39). The overarching project\u2019s contextualisation process centred on two complementary aspects: changes in the design and delivery of the EE2 course and changes to the understanding of dialogic teaching. The current paper\u2019s focus is directed at situating the contextualisation of the dialogic teaching principles for EFL learning and teaching within the EDR methodology. As such, the present paper aims to situate the transformation of dialogic teaching principles in EFL contexts alongside data grounded in the collaboration of the students and teachers engaged in this EDR process.<\/p>\n The research team for this seven-month project consisted of myself, as lead researcher, and EFL teachers (n=8) and students (n=6). Table 1 provides relevant participant information, such as their experience with English teaching and learning and degree backgrounds.<\/p>\n Table 1. Participant Information.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nUniversity of Wollongong
\n<awotring![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
uow.edu.au><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Dialogic Teaching: Principles and Previous Implementations<\/h4>\n
\n
<\/a>Educational Design Research and Theoretical Contributions to ELT<\/h3>\n
\n
Methodology<\/h3>\n
Participants and Research Context<\/h4>\n
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej112\/a3pix\/image1.png\")
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej112\/a3pix\/image2.png\")
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej112\/a3pix\/image3.png\")
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej112\/a3pix\/image4.png\")