Dialogic Teaching Boosts STEM Students’ Argumentation Skills

A quasi-experimental study conducted at Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia suggests that dialogic pedagogy significantly enhances the argumentation skills and motivation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students in English language classes. The research, published in the Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, examined whether an instructional approach centered on dialogue and inquiry could improve students’ ability to formulate claims, provide evidence, and engage with counterarguments. The study found that students exposed to dialogic pedagogy outperformed their peers in a conventional comparison group, showing marked improvements in both quantitative assessments and qualitative measures of engagement.

The study was designed to address a gap in English language teaching for STEM students, who often struggle to express complex ideas effectively despite having adequate basic speaking skills. The researcher noted that conventional English language teaching often relies on memorization and teacher-led instruction, which may not adequately prepare students for the critical thinking and problem-solving demands of STEM fields. By implementing a dialogic approach, the study aimed to foster a learning environment where students actively construct knowledge through questioning, explanation, and collaborative discussion.

The participants were 47 grade 11 students from the STEM incubation center at Bahir Dar University. This center serves students with a specific interest in innovation and technology, enrolling approximately 50 to 55 students annually who are divided into two sections. The students were assigned to two groups: an experimental group that received dialogic pedagogy instruction and a comparison group that continued with conventional teaching methods. The selection of this specific center was purposive, as it offered a flexible schedule and a curriculum that allowed for the integration of project-based and problem-solving activities.

The intervention lasted for three months and involved a series of redesigned classroom activities aligned with dialogic pedagogy principles. These activities included collaborative problem-solving, reflective dialogue circles, Socratic question circles, and critical discussions. The teacher’s role shifted from a primary source of information to a facilitator, encouraging students to present evidence-based arguments, consider multiple interpretations, and engage in open dialogue. The researcher also provided structured feedback and facilitated peer-feedback sessions to help students identify gaps in their reasoning and improve their argumentative strategies.

Data collection employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to capture the multifaceted impact of the intervention. Quantitative data were gathered through oral presentation tests administered before and after the intervention, as well as a 15-item Likert scale questionnaire measuring student motivation. The oral presentation tests were evaluated using rubrics that assessed claim formulation, provision of reasons and evidence, logical organization, handling of counterarguments, and audience awareness. Qualitative data were collected through participant observation using a six-item checklist and key-informant interviews with five students from the experimental group.

An independent t-test confirmed no significant statistical difference between the groups before the intervention began. However, post-intervention results revealed a significant divergence. The experimental group achieved a mean score of 15.7 on the oral presentation test, compared to 10.95 for the comparison group. Statistical analysis using an independent t-test showed a significant difference between the groups, with a p-value less than 0.05, indicating that the dialogic pedagogy contributed to a measurable improvement in argumentation skills.

Further analysis using One-Way MANOVA examined specific components of argumentation. The experimental group showed superior performance in all four sub-skills: claim formulation, providing reasons and evidence, logical organization and counterarguments, and audience awareness. For instance, in claim formulation, the experimental group had a mean score of 4.10, whereas the comparison group scored 2.84. Similarly, in audience awareness, the experimental group scored 3.89 compared to 2.61 for the comparison group. These results suggest that dialogic pedagogy not only improves overall argumentation but also strengthens specific rhetorical and logical competencies essential for academic and professional communication.

The study also found significant improvements in student motivation. Pre-intervention, the experimental group had a mean motivation score of 2.708, indicating low levels of emotional engagement and active participation. Post-intervention, this score rose to 4.5833. A paired sample t-test confirmed that this increase was statistically significant, with a p-value less than 0.05. Observational data supported these findings, noting that after the intervention, the majority of students were more willing to take intellectual risks, share opposing viewpoints, and collaborate with peers. Students reported that the interactive nature of the activities made the learning process more engaging and relevant to their interests.

Qualitative data from interviews provided further insight into the students’ experiences. Students described how the dialogic approach helped them understand the structure of argumentative speech, particularly the importance of providing evidence and considering the audience. One student noted that previously, they did not know how to support their arguments with evidence or pay attention to audience awareness. Another student highlighted that the use of references and citations in their presentations helped them convince their audience more effectively. The topics selected for discussion were of general interest, allowing students to engage in dialogue without requiring specialized expertise, which fostered a sense of confidence and participation.

The findings align with previous research suggesting that dialogic pedagogy enhances critical thinking, reasoning, and language skills. The study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of dialogic approaches in language education, particularly for STEM students who require strong communication skills to complement their technical knowledge. The results indicate that by prioritizing student voices and fostering a supportive environment for dialogue, educators can improve both the cognitive and motivational aspects of language learning.

The study acknowledges several limitations. The data were gathered using self-reported instruments, such as questionnaires, which may be subject to bias. The study was conducted in a specific context, the STEM incubation center at Bahir Dar University, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other educational settings. However, the mixed-methods approach and the use of both quantitative and qualitative data provide a robust foundation for the conclusions drawn.

For educators and curriculum designers, the study suggests that integrating dialogic pedagogy into English language courses for STEM students can be an effective strategy to enhance argumentation skills and motivation. The approach encourages active participation, critical thinking, and collaborative learning, which are essential skills for success in higher education and the workforce. By shifting the focus from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered dialogue, educators can create a more dynamic and engaging learning environment that prepares students for the complexities of modern academic and professional communication.

The research highlights the potential of dialogic pedagogy as a viable alternative to conventional instructional methods in English language teaching. The significant improvements in argumentation skills and motivation observed in the experimental group demonstrate the value of fostering a dialogic classroom culture. As STEM education continues to emphasize the importance of communication and critical thinking, the findings of this study offer practical insights for educators seeking to enhance their teaching practices and support student development in these crucial areas.

Subject of Research: The impact of dialogic pedagogy on STEM students' argumentation skills and motivation in English language instruction

Article Title: The use of dialogic pedagogy to enhance STEM students’ argumentation skills and motivation in English language classes

Article References: Birhan, A. T. (2026). The use of dialogic pedagogy to enhance STEM students’ argumentation skills and motivation in English language classes. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 11(1), Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-026-00433-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40862-026-00433-5

Keywords: dialogic pedagogy, STEM education, argumentation skills, English language teaching, student motivation, quasi-experimental design, Bahir Dar University, critical thinking, classroom interaction, academic communication, dialogic, pedagogy