In this article the authors raise their concern about the way in which students with different levels of competence in the language of instruction (English in this case) acquire a second language. They also address the issue of the types of conditions which are necessary in order for dialogic interaction to be effective in the classroom when these students are acquiring a second language
In the first section, a review of the different theories on language learning is carried out, which helps to provide a response to the questions which have been raised. In the second section, the need to create opportunities to use the second language in real and meaningful situations is also raised, based on the results of three case studies. Learning through dialogue is presented as being a much more effective approach to teaching and learning a second language than traditional approaches, which were based on the teacher merely providing instruction and subsequently developing the information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (Y. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
BerryM. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approch to exchange structure.CoulthardIn M.MontgomeryM. (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120–145). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
3.
ChomskyN. A. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Trad. cast.: Aspeectos de la teoría de la sintaxis.Barcelona: Gedisa, 1999].
4.
ChristieF. (1993). Curriculum genres: Planning for effective teaching.CopeIn B.KalantzisM. (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 154–178). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
5.
ChristieF.MartinJ. R. (Eds.). (1997). Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school.London: Cassell.
6.
CobbP. (1995). Mathematical learning and small group interaction: Four case studies.CobbIn P.BauersfeldH. (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 25–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
DavisG. (2001). A comparison of student-led discussions: Class meetings and novel discussions.WellsIn G. (Ed.), Talk, text and inquiry (pp. 60–77). New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
DeweyJ. (1966). Democracy and education.New York: The Free Press [Trad. cast. Democracia y educación.Madrid: Morata, 1995]
9.
DonoahueZ. (1998). Giving children control: Fourth graders initiate and sustain discussions after teacher read-alouds.Networks, 1 (1), http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/∼ctd/networks/.
10.
GallasK. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula.New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
GaltonM.HargreavesL.ComberC.PellT.WallD. (1999). Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on.London: Routledge.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as socialsemiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.London: Arnold [Trad. cast. Lenguaje como semiótica social.Bogotá: FCE, 1986].
14.
HasanR. (2002). Semiotic mediation and mental development in pluralistic societies: Some implications for tomorrow's schooling.WellsIn G.ClaxtonG. (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Socio/cultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 112–126). Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
KrashenS. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.New York: Longman.
16.
LampertM.RittenhouseP.CrumgaughC. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse.OlsonIn D. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
LemkeJ. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values.Norwood, NJ: Ablex [Trad. cast.: Aprender a hablar ciencia. Lenguaje, aprendizaje y valores.Barcelona: Paidos, 1997].
19.
LotmanY. M. (1988). Text within a text.Soviet Psychology, 26 (3), 32–51.
20.
McmahonS. I.RaphaelT. E.With goatleyV. J.PardoL. S. (Eds.). (1997). The Book Club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk.New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
NassajiH.WellsG. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher-student interaction.Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 333–363.
22.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation.WaxmanIn H. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research. (pp. 257–276). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.
23.
PalincsarA. S.MagnussonS. J.MaranoN.FordD.BrownN. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GIsML Community.Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 5–20.
24.
VarelasM.PappasC. C.RifeA. (2004). Dialogic inquiry in an urban 2nd grade classroom: How intertextuality shapes and is shaped by social interactions and scientific understandings. In RothW.-M.YerrickR. (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of research on teaching and learning (pp. 139–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
WellsG. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann [Trad. cast.: Aprender a leer y a escribir.Barcelona: Laia-Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 1988].
26.
WellsG. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Trad. cast.: Indagación dialógica, hacia una teoría y una práctica socioculturales de la educación.Barcelona: Paidós, 2002].
27.
WellsG. (2001a). The case for dialogic inquiry.WellsIn G. (Ed.), Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry (pp. 171–194). New York: Teachers College press.
28.
WellsG. (Ed.) (2001b). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry.New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
WellsG.Mejía arauzR. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (3), 379–428.
