Dialogic Learning: a Social Cognitive Neuroscience View
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(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 learn- ing 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