Beyond the Harkness Table: Advancing Student Learning Through Dialogic Teaching Practices, Karen Taylor

Beyond the Harkness Table:

Advancing Student Learning Through Dialogic Teaching Practices

Karen Taylor, Head of Educational Research, The Bridge at Wellington College

 

Abstract

This paper examines dialogic teaching as an educational approach that emphasizes collaborative knowledge construction through structured classroom dialogue. Beginning with the Harkness method adopted at Wellington College, the text explores theoretical foundations, key research findings, and practical implementation strategies. The evidence suggests that dialogic teaching positively impacts student outcomes across multiple domains, including critical thinking, language development, and academic achievement. While implementation challenges exist, research indicates that the benefits justify institutional commitment to dialogic practices.

 

Key words: Dialogic pedagogy, collaborative inquiry, student agency, knowledge co-construction, critical thinking

 

In around 2008, Wellington College adopted the Harkness Seminar as a pedagogical approach for students and it has remained an essential part of the teaching repertoire across the Wellington family of schools ever since. The aim of this method, originating at Phillips Exeter Academy in the 1930s, is to promote deep learning through student-centred discussions. While commonly associated with the iconic oval table, Wellington’s Guy J. Williams points to deeper significance: “The pedagogical philosophy of Harkness lies in a shift in the balance of power” (2014).  Rather than teacher-centred transmission of knowledge, Harkness created an environment in which students engage with their teacher in the co-construction of knowledge. Beyond mere furniture, the Harkness method thus represents and shapes the culture of an educational institution, reflecting core values and promoting a vision of high-quality learning and teaching. The physical arrangement and dynamic of the classroom have both concrete pedagogical and symbolic significance.

Harkness is but one form of dialogic teaching that finds its distant origins in the Socratic method and more modern roots in the social constructivism of Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner and Mikhail Bakhtin as is evident in a focus on the symbiotic relationships between thought and language and language and learning.  Language is by its very nature dialogic, and truth “born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction” (Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p. 110). Social constructivists view learning as a culturally contextualized and collective activity though which learners develop voice and agency with their teacher as facilitator in the uncovering of knowledge rather than an authoritative transmitter of knowledge.

This is not to say that direct instruction or the most common forms of teacher talk in recitation and IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) – a traditional classroom discourse pattern whereby teachers ask questions, students respond, and teachers evaluate those responses – do not have their place in the classroom. However, across the curriculum and throughout a child’s academic career, there are moments when the power of dialogic teaching contributes to the development of essential higher order thinking skills, student agency, and the embedding of democratic processes into the educational environment.

Contemporary Research on Dialogical Teaching

Whilst numerous educational theorists promote various forms of dialogic teaching, certain essential elements remain consistent across these models. Robin Alexander perhaps most clearly articulates the defining features of dialogic learning and teaching as:

• Collective: it involves collaboration in a collective
• Reciprocal: it involves active listening, the sharing of ideas, and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints
• Supportive: the classroom climate is one of psychological and intellectual safety
• Cumulative: participants build upon each other’s ideas in a collective process of meaning making and
• Purposeful: classroom dialogue is planned with specific educational goals in mind; both teachers and students come prepared for this shared endeavour.

According to Alexander, when dialogic teaching is at its best there is evidence of, and I quote:

• Interactions which encourage students to think, and to think in different ways
• Questions which invite more than simple recall
• Answers which are justified, followed up and built upon rather than merely received
• Feedback which, as well as evaluating, leads thinking forward
• Contributions which are extended rather than fragmented or prematurely closed
• Exchanges which chain together into coherent and deepening lines of enquiry
• Discussion and argumentation which probe and challenge rather than unquestioningly accept
• Scaffolding which provides appropriate linguistic and/or conceptual tools to bridge the gap between present and intended understanding
• Professional mastery of subject matter which is of the depth necessary to liberate classroom talk from the safe and conventional
• Time, space, organisation and relationships which are so disposed and orchestrated as to make all this possible (Alexander, 2018, pp. 570-571).

The above-stated characteristics are significant in that they not only provide teachers with a roadmap for quality classroom talk, but they also imply a classroom culture or ethos towards which we are aiming. Altering the physical space and arrangement of the classroom to support dialogue allows us to challenge traditional notions of authority and expertise. The result is an epistemological shift whereby one recognizes diverse ways of knowing and sources of knowledge in a process of co-construction. Engaging in collective dialogue offers new ways of understanding oneself and the self in relation to others.

Theoretical works on dialogic teaching reveal the ways in which dialogic pedagogy is more than a set of “language moves” initiated by a teacher and ultimately ideally assimilated by students. These works represent both epistemological and ontological stances in regard to the nature of education, our relationship to knowledge, and our relationship to others.[1]

Paolo Freire took an epistemic position in viewing dialogue as a way of learning and knowing (so, in fact, both epistemic and ontological) that could result in critical consciousness.

“Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information.”

Nicholas Burbules recognised both the cognitive and affective elements in dialogic learning and teaching such that exchanges among participants were to be based on key qualities: concern, trust, respect, tolerance, patience and open-mindedness. (Kim & Wilkinson, 2019, 73).  These qualities are particularly significant given the fact that dialogue will always include moments of conflict, tension and disagreement.

“We need to be similar enough for communication to happen, but different enough to make it worthwhile.”

Martin Nystrand emphasised the importance of a multiplicity of perspectives (heteroglossia) and the reciprocal relationship between student and teachers in a cumulative process of questioning that leads to higher-order thinking in the co-construction of knowledge.

“The bottom line for instruction is that the quality of student learning is closely linked to the quality of classroom talk. If we are to understand the structure of discourse in our classrooms and its relationship to our students’ learning, then we must look closely at the interactions and exchanges that constitute what Cazden (1988) calls ‘the language of learning’ “(Nystrand, 1996, 29).

At the same time, focusing on the quality of classroom interactions does not mean that one ignores the quality of content. Lauren Resnick has argued that classroom talk promotes learning when it is accountable to

• reasoning (rooted in logical connections and sound arguments)
• knowledge (grounded in facts and evidence) and
• the learning community (respectful of and responsive to others).

In other words, effective dialogic learning and teaching does not happen by accident. It relies on clearly defined expectations.

While the research noted above is not exhaustive, it illuminates key areas of convergence and divergence in the dialogic teaching literature. Scholars consistently affirm the value of student-centred cultures of inquiry, although their points of emphasis may differ. Some theorists prioritize knowledge co-construction, while others highlight the diverse repertoire of teacher talk available to practitioners. Additional perspectives focus on dialogic teaching’s cognitive benefits or emphasize its profound cultural implications.

 

How Dialogic Teaching Develops Critical Skills

When students are exposed to dialogic teaching methods, they learn to provide and evaluate evidence, identify assumptions and biases, and demonstrate a willingness to change their mind based on the contribution of others in a collective process of knowledge construction and collaborative problem solving. The Lipman and Sharp method of Philosophy for Children (P4C), an educational approach that engages students in philosophical inquiry through facilitated discussions, is particularly strong in establishing collaborative norms for philosophical inquiry, valuing diverse perspectives, and reinforcing democratic values.

The P4C method respects and nurtures the capacity of participants (the method does not have to be limited to children!) to think “critically creatively and attentively, by and for themselves” (Sasseville, 2018) while at the same time developing metacognitive awareness of their thinking as individuals and as a collective.

Challenges in Promoting Dialogic Teaching

One of the pervasive problems in schools is time and the pressure of content coverage. As with any other aspect of learning and teaching that we value as an institution, there needs to be a coherent effort to plan for it across the curriculum and to provide classroom teachers with the training they may need to alter their stance as practitioners and to widen their repertoire of teacher talk. At the same time, attention needs to be taken to find the right balance between dialogic and other instructional approaches depending on context and learning objectives. Finally, assessment practices may need to be modified to account for and evaluate dialogic learning.

Evidence of impact

Evidence suggests that dialogic teaching practices have a positive impact on student learning:

• Alexander (2008, 2018): Significant improvements in student reasoning and comprehension in UK classrooms
• Mercer and Littleton (2007): Improved thinking skills and academic achievement across subjects
• Nystrand et al. (1997): Strong correlations between dialogic discourse and improved standardized test scores
• Reznitskaya et al. (2009) Dialogic discussions improved students’ argumentative writing and critical thinking skills
• Howe et al., (2019) Classrooms with higher quality dialogue had significantly better student outcomes in mathematics and literacy
• O’Connor and Michaels’ (2019) longitudinal research: dialogic teaching approaches improved academic language proficiency and content knowledge
• Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke’s (2018) compilation of international studies showed positive outcomes of dialogic teaching across cultural contexts
• The EEF (Education Endowment Foundation) trial of Alexander’s dialogic teaching intervention (2017): students made approximately two months’ additional progress in English and science
• Sedova et al. (2019): improved student learning outcomes after teachers were trained in dialogic teaching approaches
• Muhonen et al. (2018): dialogic teaching positively impacted student motivation and engagement, particularly for struggling learners.

 

Conclusion

Dialogic teaching offers a powerful approach to education with the potential to transform traditional classroom dynamics into collaborative knowledge-building communities of inquiry. Classrooms that privilege authentic dialogue create environments where students develop deeper understanding, stronger reasoning skills, and more nuanced perspectives.

In preparing students for complex futures, the skills nurtured through dialogic teaching— collaborative problem-solving, critical evaluation of evidence, and respectful engagement with diverse perspectives — are increasingly important. By embracing dialogic pedagogy, we can create a learning environment that not only enhances academic achievement but also nurtures the democratic values and communicative competencies essential for meaningful participation in society.

However, purposeful implementation requires institutional commitment to address practical challenges including time constraints, teacher training, and assessment practices that may not readily capture the complex skills developed through dialogue. Furthermore, classroom practitioners must find the appropriate balance between dialogic approaches and other instructional methods depending on learning objectives.

The journey from the Harkness tables at Wellington College to widespread implementation of dialogic practices represents more than a pedagogical shift; it embodies a philosophical commitment to education as a transformative, collaborative endeavour. Dialogic teaching offers not just an approach, but more importantly a vision for education that honours student voice, promotes intellectual rigor, and cultivates the collective pursuit of understanding.

References

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

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. University of Minnesota Press.

Billings, L. & Fitzgerald, J. (2002), Dialogic Discussion and the Paideia Seminar. American Educational Research Journal. 39(4), 907-941. https://w.w.w.jstor.org/stable/3202450

Freire, P. (1975). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Education.

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, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730.

Kim, M-Y. & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (2019), What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (21), 70-86.

Larroque, C. (2019). Revue. Michel Sasseville, La Pratique de la philosophie en communauté de recherche : entre rupture et continuité avec la collaboration d’Anda Fournel, de Caroline McCarthy et de Samuel Nepton, Presses universitaires de Laval, 2018. Érudit, 46(1), 261-268.

Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice, Language and Education, 22(3), 222 — 240.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152499

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203946657.

Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2018). Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance. Learning and Instruction, 55, 67-79.

Nystrand, M. et al., (1996). Opening Dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.

O’Connor, C. & Michaels, S. (2019), Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research. 97, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.003

Oyler, J. (2016). Philosophy with Children: The Lipman-Sharp Approach to Philosophy for Children. M.A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_226-2 .

Phillipson, N. (2020). A Teacher’s Guide to Dialogic Pedagogy. 21stcenturylearners. https://21stcenturylearners.org.uk/?p=1409

Resnick, L., Asterhan, C., & Clarke, S., (2018). Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind.. UNESCO IBE. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262675.

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952

Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., Svaricek, R., Majcik, M., Navratilova, J., Drexlerova, A., Kychler, J., & Salamounova, Z. (2019). Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 63, Article 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217

Sasseville, M. (2018). Pourquoi et comment faire de la philosophie avec les enfants. Journal de recherches (4), 60-66.

Williams, G.J. (2014), Harkness Learning: Principles of a Radical American Pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogic Development 4(3).

 

[1] “From an epistemological perspective, language is a tool for reasoning and is a means to an end – a way of knowing… the aim of dialogic teaching and its variants is to advance students’ thinking, learning and understanding through dialogue. From an ontological perspective, by contrast, language opens up relations with others that foster reflection, creativity and discovery – a way of being in the world. From this perspective, dialogue is a desirable outcome of education in itself” (Kim & Wilkinson, 2019, 77)