Dialogic Learning: a Social Cognitive Neuroscience View

Home , Dialogic learning, Dialogic pedagogy

(IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014. DIALOGIC LEARNING: A SOCIAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE VIEW

Dr. Ali Nouri, Department of Educational Sciences, Malayer University, Iran E-mail: [email protected]

Received: October, 25.2014. Accepted: December, 12.2014. Review Articles UDK 371.3 371.332 616.8:37

Abstract. This paper represents an exploration of of these understanding, several studies have the educational value of dialogue as a teaching strategy devoted to exploring the potential contribu- in contemporary classrooms in light of recent evidences tions of recent advances in social and cognitive grounded in knowledge produced by social and cognitive neuroscience research for educational theory neuroscience research. The relevant literature suggests and practice (Immordino-Yang and Damasio, that dialogue is a unique feature of humans and no other 2007; Meltzoff et all, 2009; Immordino-Yang, animal is able to dialogue as they do. Humans are biologi- 2009; 2011; Lieberman, 2012). These stud- cally wired for dialogue and interaction with one another ies strongly verify the profound importance in socially and culturally shaped contexts. This dynamic of social interaction on human learning and interdependence of social and cognitive processes plays emphasize the value of recurring social com- a critically important role in construction of knowledge ponents of learning in making the curriculum and cognitive development. It is also well established that and managing the process of teaching. social processing in the brain is strongly interrelated with Taken together, these studies have the processing of emotion. Children therefore, are social shown some success in identifying the neu- learners who actively construct meaning and knowledge robiological processes of social learning and as they interact with their cultural and social environ- its potential implications for the school cur- ment through dialogue. In conclusion, recent advance riculum and classroom practice. Nevertheless, in cognitive and social neuroscience is providing a new neuro-cognitive bases of “dialogic learning” basis for the communicative conception of learning in (Van der Linden and Renshaw, 2004; Wegerif, which authentic interaction and dialogue are key compo- 2011) - as a form of social learning- is still nents. This suggests new avenues of research that need to largely unknown. empirically investigate the role of dialogue on students’ By this in mind, this paper takes into mind and brain development. account to explore the state of dialogic learn- Keywords: Dialogue, Dialogic Learning, Neu- ing in light of recent evidences that mainly roscience and Education, Pedagogy. grounded in knowledge produced by cognitive and social neuroscience research. Such inter- pretation represents some facts that are neces- sary for a more comprehensive understanding 1. INTRODUCTION of the state of dialogue in education, and in shaping further investigation in this area. Educators have long known that schools are social contexts and social interaction is a major force in children’s development. Evi- 2. THE NEUROSCIENCE BASES dence from social neuroscience is shedding OF DIALOGIC LEARNING new light on the neural underpinnings of such social functioning and its relation to learning inside and outside the classroom (Blake- Dialogic learning throughout this paper more, 2010; Immordino-Yang, 2011). In light is referred to teaching through dialogue as well as for dialogue in which dialogue is not simply Corresponding Author treated as a means to the end of knowledge Dr. Ali Nouri construction but more importantly treated as Department of Educational Sciences, Malayer an end in itself (Wegerif, 2011). University, Iran A comprehensive understanding of dia- E-mail: [email protected] logic learning requires integrating knowledge

www.ijcrsee.com (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014. from a variety of disciplines in the natural and demonstrated that human infants more readily social sciences. In this endeavor, we need to learn and reenact an event when it is produced explore the neural and biological underpin- by a person than by an inanimate device. Fur- ning of dialogue and synthesize with our edu- thermore, Cacioppo et all. (2007) reported cational and psychological understating in this that, attachment and communication in human area. To this end, this paper aimed to drive a children are so important that infants respond set of notable insights from the neurobiologi- to faces and attempt to elicit a response soon cal underpinning of dialogic learning based on after birth. converging evidence in cognitive and social Taken together, if social communication neuroscience. Among a variety of insights is a driving force during hominid evolution, which deserve to be highlighted in this review then children should have a strong and inher- are the following: ent motivational bias to engage in social activ- ities and the forms of social communication that were important during hominid evolution 2.1. Humans are biologically wired (Geary, 2002). According to this view, learn- for dialogue and communicating ing with others is usually more effective than with one another learning alone, and reflective dialogue is cen- tral to this social process (Goswami, 2008). The interactive interpersonal nature of dialogic Recent research in “evolutionary edu- learning helps to develop new knowledge and cational psychology” (Geary, 2002) provided scaffold individual learning (Wegerif, 2007). us with much evidence that early humans These new insights therefore would support primarily learned through social interaction. recruiting more dialogue-based and coopera- In this perspective, humans are social beings tive learning opportunities in making the cur- and their brains develop in social and cultural riculum and designing the process of teaching contexts. They are innately preprogrammed and learning. to learn from and about others through social interaction (Geary, 2008). Our social nature defines what makes us human, what makes 2.2. The transmission of us conscious or what gave us our large brains information between humans (Adolphs, 2003). The success of social inter- mediated by dialogue action, according to Frith and Frith (2001) depends on the development of brain systems that are geared to processing information in the Humans are not the only species who social domain. On this view, we have a social their learning is affected by social interac- brain that evolutionary developed to learn tion, but they are only social beings who are through shared experiences. One consequence innately preprogrammed and biologically of these evolutionary pressures appears to have wired to form communication with others and been the development of a large scale network themselves through dialogue. Dialogue there- in the brain. In support of this idea, there is a fore, is a unique feature of humans and no correlation across primate species between the other animal is able to dialogue as they do. In size and complexity of their social communi- such a view, dialogue must be understood as cation and the relative volume of neocortex. a “part of our historical progress in becoming Among primates, humans possess both the human beings” (Shor and Freire, 1987, p. 13). highest encephalization ratio and live in the In a recent study, Goldin et all. (2011) inves- largest groups (Adolphs, 2003; Lieberman, tigated the universality of a kind of dialogue 2012). that Socrates (469-399 BC) conceptualized Furthermore, recent findings show that more than 24 centuries ago. They adopted infants and young children are born with a bio- a remarkable lesson of geometry by which logical propensity for social interactions. They Socrates intended to teach Meno’s slave to have an intense interest in people and their discover how to generate a new square with behavior and possess powerful implicit learn- twice the area. Fifty-eight educated adults and ing mechanisms that are affected by social adolescents were asked a series of 50 ques- interaction (Meltzoff et all. 2009). Draw- tions identical to those posed by Socrates. ing on a set of studies, Meltzoff et all. 2009 Their study showed a remarkably consis- reported that young infants are predisposed to tent between participants’ answers and those attend to people and are motivated to copy the offered by Meno’s slave. More interestingly, actions they see others do. Their studies also the vast majority of participants produced the

www.ijcrsee.com (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014. same mistakes that Meno’s slave made. Their both in the long and short term, is the contin- results imply that the Socratic dialogue is built ual building of new knowledge by integrating, on a strong intuition of human knowledge and differentiating, and consolidating facts, con- reasoning which persists more than 24 centu- cepts, skills, and relationships about the phys- ries after its conception. ical and social world according to culturally While dialogue relies heavenly on oral defined strategies (Fischer and Immordino- language, it can and should not exclusively Yang 2002). be reduced to verbal communication. There Neuroscientists now confirm that the are multiple forms of representation in which learning brain has a highly robust and well humans naturally interact with self, others and developed capacity to change in response to their surrounding world motivating a flow of social demands. For instance, Maguire et all. meaning (Wegerif, 2007). Bereiter and Scar- (2000) showed that grey matter volume in damalia (2005) made this point very clear posterior hippocampus of taxi drivers was sig- when they regard the dialogue as a form of lit- nificantly higher relative to those of control eracy and describe it as “the ability to engage subjects’ and that the grey matter volume cor- productively in a discourse whose purpose is related with the amount of time spent as a taxi to generate new knowledge and understand- driver. Posterior hippocampus is a region of ing”. This dialogic understanding according the brain known to be essential for memory to Wegerif (2007) provides us with a way to and navigation. Kandel (1998) also empha- appreciate how different modalities of repre- sized on the important contribution of social sentation can work together and how different interaction on changes in the structure and levels and types of dialogue can be integrated function of the human brain. He noted: into flows of meaning. Just as combinations of genes contribute In this regard, dialogic learning can to behavior, including social behavior, so can be considered as one of the most influential behavior and social factors exert actions on the approaches in teaching and learning which brain by feeding back upon it to modify the both teachers and students co-construct their expression of genes and thus the function of knowledge and represent their understand- nerve cells… These changes not only contrib- ings by actively engaging in a challenging ute to the biological basis of individuality but discourse. presumably are responsible for initiating and maintaining abnormalities of behavior that are induced by social contingencies. (p. 460). 2.3. Dialogue plays a critically In her influential paper, “A tale of two important role in construction of cases: Lessons for education from the study knowledge of two boys living with half their brains”, Immordino-Yang (2007) presents the story of compensation for basic skills in two adolescent Educators have long known that con- boys, Nico and Brooke, both of whom under- struction of knowledge and cognitive devel- went surgery to control severe epileptic sei- opment is strongly influenced by social and zures. During these surgeries, Brooke lost his cultural factors. Vygotsky (1978) has deeply entire left hemisphere and Nico lost his entire shown this importance of social and cultural right hemisphere. Her study highlights the contexts in learning and cognitive develop- remarkable importance of the organizing role ment. Basing on Vygotsky, the dynamic inter- of emotional and social experiences in brain dependence of social and cognitive processes development. In her subsequent article, “The is essential in construction and reconstruction Stories of Nico and Brooke Revisited: Toward of knowledge. The prime example of this is a Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue about Teach- his conception of the “zone of proximal devel- ing and Learning”, Immordino-Yang (2008a) opment”. He defines the zone of proximal has concluded that “both boys’ motivations to development as “the distance between the comprehend and produce affective prosody actual developmental level as determined by reflected their desires to engage effectively in independent problem solving and the level of the social context. They wanted to talk and be potential development as determined through talked to, and they wanted to accomplish this in problem solving under adult guidance or a culturally and socially appropriate manner” in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 51). New data also indicate that early mas- (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). tery of language requires learning in a social In addition, recent research in cognitive context to acquire the language spoken in their science indicates that cognitive development, culture (Meltzoff et all, 2009.). In this sense,

www.ijcrsee.com (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014. social factors are the key influences in devel- Thus, mirror systems are essentially networks oping our learning and development. Students in the brain where systems for perception, and thus are social learners who actively construct systems for action, converge and feed into knowledge and meaning as they interact with one another (Damasio and Meyer, 2008, as their social and cultural contexts. cited in Immordino-Yang, 2009). In this way, These findings are suggestive with mirror systems, at the most basic level enable respect to the forms of social learning such as the internalization of the goals of another’s dialogue that will most aid knowledge con- actions, including actions that belie emotional struction and cognitive development. These states, onto the substrate of one’s own self results are consistent with the behavioral (Immordino-Yang, 2008b). It means that we research supporting the impact of dialogic are constantly reading each others’ actions, learning on students’ cognitive abilities. More gestures and faces in terms of underlying specifically, the results of a recent study indi- mental states and emotions, in an attempt to cated that the dialogic learning condition, figure out what other people are thinking and compared to the non-dialogic, resulted in a feeling, and what they are about to do next. more positive effect on the critical thinking This is known as “theory of mind” or “mental- competences of the students, both in terms of izing” (Blakemore, 2010, p. 744). generative fluency of reasoning and quality of These findings validate Bandura’s value orientation (Frijters et al, 2008). social-learning theory and support this idea Therefore, as far as the thought and that learning is influenced by observation of knowledge is created and developed in an inter or interaction with others (Bandura, 1986) and subjective approach (García, 2012), school reflect the value of the social relationships in curriculum needed to provide learning oppor- the classroom and the extended school. The tunities for social interaction in which the key message here is that much of learning is active construction of knowledge can flourish. not intended in advance and students learn from teacher’s actions, reactions, and interactions with other students. On the ground of 2.4. Dialogue is a key element for these findings, the role of dialogue is becom- emotional involvement ing more important, as much of social interaction is dependent on it. Accordingly, school curriculum should provide opportunities to In addition to the interrelations between engage students and teachers and other mem- social and cognitive development, social pro- bers of the school community in professional cessing was found to have substantial impact dialogue to negotiate about their work and on the emotional brain. Findings from brain other relevant topics as a way of contributing research are consistent with the view that to the creation of a better society. Teachers in early social experience plays a critical role in this context not only teach, but they also par- the development of basic affective processes. ticipate in true dialogues with and learn from Based on these findings, early adverse experi- students (Nouri, 2014). ences such as disruption of the mother-infant relationship can cause severe adverse effects on the neural and behavioral development 5. CONCLUSIONS of the child (Cirulli et all. 2003). It has also well established that cognitive processing in Dialogue is an interactive process of the brain is closely interrelated with the social construction of meaning which has been rec- processing of emotion. The structures of the ognized as a method of learning and thinking brain that are most involved with functioning about the time of Socrates to the present. There of social events are also extensively connected is a range of various perspectives from philos- with processing and regulating of emotional ophy (e.g. Buber, 1970; Bakhtin, 1986; Haber- states (Hari and Kujala, 2009; Adolphs, 2003). mas, 1987), psychology (e.g. John-Steiner and Furthermore, social neuroscience find- Tatter, 1983; Pickering and Garrod, 2004) and ings indicate that humans have individual education (e.g. Dewey, 1930; Freire, 1970) mirror neurons that allow them to regulate focused on the significance of dialogue as their social interactions (Rizzolatti and Craigh- an indispensable component of the process ero, 2004). Mirror neurons are networks in the of both learning and knowing (see Pihlgren, brain which are activated both when we per- 2008 for a comprehensive review of the theo- form an action and when we observe the same retical literature of dialogue in education). class of actions performed by someone else. There are also an increasing number of

www.ijcrsee.com (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014. empirical studies increasingly demonstrating Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowl- the significant impact of dialogic learning on edge Age. Mahwah, New Jersey, and London: students’ thinking and learning (e.g. Frijters et Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. all. 2008; Alfassi, 2009). In almost all of these Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2005). Technology studies, dialogic learning has been represented and literacies: From print literacy to dialogic lit- as a means to improve learning, memory, deci- eracy. International Handbook of Educational sion making, and thinking. And now, recent Policy, 13, 749-761. advances in neuroscience regarding the fun- Blakemore, S-J. & Frith, U. (2005). The learning damental role of social interaction in learning brain: Lessons for education: a précis. Develop- are providing a new basis for the communica- mental Science, 8 (6), 459–471. tive conception of learning in which authentic Blakemore, S-J. (2010). The developing social brain: interaction and dialogue are key components. Implications for education. Neuron 65, 744-747. As a whole, research into dialogic learn- Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (orig. pub. 1923; trans. W. ing is supported by a rich and interdisciplin- Kaufmann). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. ary theoretical and empirical background and Cacioppo, et al. (2007). Social Neuroscience: Progress then it can be considered as “one standard way and Implications for Mental Health. Perspec- of teaching” (Battro, 2010) which persists tives on Psychological Science, 2 (2), 99-123. more than 24 centuries after its conception by Cirulli, F., Berry, A. & Alleva, E. (2003). Early dis- Socrates (Goldin et all. 2010). ruption of the mother-infant relationship: effects Although this conclusion may not be on brain plasticity and implications for psy- adequate to explain all of the neural bases of chopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral dialogue, it provides a useful motivation to Reviews, 27, 73-82. establish and legitimate a strong neuroscience Dewey, J. (1930). Democracy and education. New foundation for dialogic pedagogy. However, York: Macmillan. many issues and avenues of research remain Fischer K W. & Immordino-Yang M H. (2002). to be further investigated in regard to the role Cognitive development and education: From of dialogue on students’ mind and brain devel- dynamic general structure to specific learning opment. It needs empirical research exploring and teaching. In E. Lagemann (Ed.), Traditions whether and how engagement with different of scholarship in education (pp. 2-55). Chicago: kinds of dialogue may change and develop Spencer Foundation. individual brains. The impact of dialogue on Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New students’ attention and motivation should also York: Continuum. be taken into consideration. It thus requires Frijters, S. Dam, G. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded based on authentic dialogue among scientists critical thinking. Learning and Instruction 18, and educators (Nouri, 2013). 66-82. Frith, U. & Frith, C. (2001). The biological basis of Conflict of interests social interaction. Current Directions in Psycho- Authors declare no conflict of interest. logical Science, 10 (5), 151 – 155. García, R. (2012). Out of the Ghetto: Psychological bases of dialogic learning, International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 (1), 51 69. REFERENCES Geary, D. C. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Dif- Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human ferences, 12, 317-345. social behavior. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed edu- 4, 165-178. cation science. Educational Psychologist, 43, Alfassi, M. (2009). The efficacy of a dialogic learning 179 – 195. environment in fostering literacy. Reading Psy- Goldin, A. P., Pezzatti1, L., Battro, A. M. & Sigman, chology, 30(6), 539-563. M. (2011). From ancient Greece to modern edu- Bakhtin, M M. (1986). Speech genres and other late cation: Universality and lack of generalization essays. Trans. V. W. McGee. Austin: University of the Socratic dialogue. Mind, Brain, and Edu- of Texas Press. cation, 5 (4), 180-185. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought Goswami, U. (2008). Principles of learning, implica- and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Engle- tions for teaching: A cognitive neuroscience per- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. spective. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Battro, A M. (2010). The teaching brain. Mind, Brain, 42(3-4): 381-399. and Education, 4(1), 28–33. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative

www.ijcrsee.com (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education Vol. 2, No.2, 2014.

action (V. 2). Life world and system: A critique Neuroeducational Studies. International Jour- of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press. nal of Cognitive Research in science, engineer- Hari, R. & Kujala, M V. (2009). Brain basis of human ing and education (IJCRSEE), 1 (2). social interaction: From concepts to brain imag- Nouri, A. Sajadi, S. (2014). Emansipatory pedagogy in ing. Physiology Rev 89, 453–479. practice. International Journal of Critical peda- Immordino –Yang, M H. (2011). Implications of gogy, 5 (2), 76-87. affective and social neuroscience for educational Pickering. M J. & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mech- theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 anistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and (1): 98-103. Brain Science, 27 (2), 169- 225. Immordino-Yang, M H. (2007). A Tale of two cases: Pihlgren A S. (2008). Socrates in the classroom: Ratio- Lessons for education from the study of two nales and effects of philosophizing with chil- boys living with half their brains. Mind, Brain, dren. Stockholm University. and Education, 1, 66 – 83. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror Immordino-Yang, M. H. & Damasio, A. R. (2007). neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of 27: pp 169-192. affective and social neuroscience to education, Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). What is the “dialogical Mind, Brain and Education, 1 (1), pp. 3–10. method” of teaching? Journal of Education, Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2008a). The stories of Nico 169 (3), 11- 31. and Brooke revisited: Toward a cross-disciplin- Taylor, L M. (2005). Introducing cognitive develop- ary dialogue about teaching and learning. Mind, ment. Psychology Press: Hove & New York. Brain, and Education, 2(2): 49–51. Van der Linden, J. & Renshaw, P. (eds.). (2004). Dia- Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2008b). The smoke around logic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, mirror neurons: Goals as sociocultural and instruction, and teaching. London: Kluwer. emotional organizers of perception and action Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA, in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(2): Harvard University Press. 67- 73. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technol- Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2009). Social neuroscience ogy: Expanding the space of learning. New and its application to education. In S. Feifer & York: Springer G. Rattan (Eds.), The neuropsychology of emo- Wegerif, R. (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how tional disorders (pp. 15–22). Middletown, MD: children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Cre- School Neuropsychology Press. ativity, 6 (3), 179- 190. John-Steiner, V., & Tatter, P. (1983). An interaction- ist model of language development. In B. Bain (Ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct (pp. 79-97). New York: Plenum Press. Kandel E. R. A. (1998). A new intellectual frame- work for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry, 155 (4), 457–469. Lewis, C., Freeman, N H., Kyriakidou, C., Maridaki- Kassotaki, K. & Breeidge, D M. (1996) Social influence on children’s false belief access: Spe- cific sibling influences or general apprentice- ship? Child Development, 67, 2930–2947. Lieberman, M D. (2012). Education and the social brain. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 1 (1) 3 – 9. Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J. & Frith, C.D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97(8): 4398-4403. Meltzoff, A N., Kuhl, P K., Movellan, J. & Sejnowski, T J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325: 284- 288. Nouri, A. (2013). Practical Strategies for Enhanc- ing Interdisciplinary Collaboration in