In both classroom and tuition settings, I’ve seen first-hand how easy it is for reading instruction (particularly with dyslexic or disengaged learners) to become overcomplicated, overly performative, and disconnected from student voice.

Well-meaning, support strategies often arrive wrapped in jargon and procedural checklists; while some are genuinely useful, they can also distract from a much simpler truth: reading is storytelling, which is a conversation that helps build connection. This can mean ‘connection’ in every sense- better inter-personal connections between readers (or parental influence, for example), and building cognitive connections to support better understanding. 

Too often, students who need calm, confidence-led scaffolding are instead placed in highly structured but inflexible programmes, leaving little space for creativity, reflection, or joyful unpredictability. And for parents and educators alike, it’s hard to know which part of the support system to trust. Every day I see parents online asking ‘what reading programme do you use?’, and every school I have worked in has had different approaches- sometimes these work quite well, but often they don’t justify the expense and require specific and strategic roll-outs that mean they are not so effective. This comes, I believe (as with a lot of interventions) at the cost of prioritising the really important stuff- talking to kids. 

Dialogic reading is hugely evidence-based, developed by Whitehurst et al (1988)- it is all about children taking an active role in their reading with peers and/or a more knowledgeable other. 

When I was teaching full-time in the classroom, in high-pressure contexts, reading was not a chore but a lifeline to instill a sense of routine and calm. Even the most resistant teenagers love being read to, and in the most receptive moments, you can see collective momentum built on humour, curiosity, and a shared willingness to wrestle with text. Dialogic learning was central to that; a comment about a poem might turn into a ten-minute detour about justice, identity, or whether Lady Macbeth is just misunderstood.

One of the key things I do miss about classroom teaching is the dynamic back and forths. Littleton and Mercer (2000) refer to it as ‘inter-thinking’, giving a pro-social name to what is essentially cognitive processes of schema-building. For my master’s I dug my teeth into constructivist philosophy, from Vygotsky’s (1978) starting points, advocating for the notion that collaboration helps create a person’s reality. Reading is a place where this feels so special, because you have the story-world, the author’s perspective and the reader’s perspective all working together- add to this the perspectives of those in the room and it can be magic. 

Part of my rationale behind building inclusive, online group classes is because the value is undeniable, and selfishly I miss the atmosphere. There’s so much value in the shared space – when it’s safe, scaffolded, and inclusive. But tutoring has offered me something different and equally powerful. In 1:1 sessions, especially with dyslexic, EBSA, or home-educated students, the pace changes. I can listen more carefully, respond more precisely and build a dialogue not just about the text, but around how the student sees themselves as a reader and thinker. 

But then, there is the danger of being ideological when it comes to reading- Perhaps here I was servicing the socio-emotional needs, but for our most struggling readers, early-intervention and a clear identification of the specific challenges are crucial for improving reading ability- and when the stakes are so high (see any research that makes links between reading and quality-of-life outcomes), we can’t afford to get it wrong.

What does dialogic reading look like in practice?

In tuition, I use dialogic approaches in a consciously responsive, low-pressure way. Drawing from the work of researchers like Alexander (2006) and Myhill (2018), I integrate:

• Open-ended, critical questions (e.g. “Why might the writer choose this?” “How else could we see it?”)
  
  
• Co-construction of meaning, rather than extraction of “right” answers
  
  
• Opportunities for reflection and choice, especially when selecting texts or responses
  
  
• Meta-cognitive talk, gently woven in (“What helped you notice that?”)
  
  

For example, in a recent session, I worked with a Year 10 student who in one moment would say ‘I don’t know’ and then in another moment say something really perceptive- but I could see their frustration in trying to communicate their ideas. If I had framed the reading as having correct comprehension-based answers, or over-focused on the meaning of individual words, I would have missed the bigger picture. This student’s reading skills were strong, it is the articulation that they needed support with. So instead of decoding-focused drills, we shared a short fiction piece, chunking it down and asking a variety of questions to get at the deeper themes. The result? A 45-minute stretch of sustained reading, discussion, and some moments of laughter at the surreal nature of this dystopian world – with better confidence. 

Balancing personalisation with stretch

This approach aligns with studies that show dialogic talk increases cognitive engagement and comprehension (Howe & Mercer, 2017), especially for neurodivergent and high-ability students who need space to stretch their ideas.

Dialogue in reading isn’t just about making things easier. It’s about making things accessible and expansive. My role as an inclusive tutor is to notice those insights, to listen for the spark behind a hesitant answer, and to design from that point forward. I draw from critical literacy pedagogy and try to build pathways that move from what the student notices to what they can question, challenge, and create.

Yes, phonics, fluency and reading interventions matter- but with a detailed grasp of this knowledge behind you, it means you can have the freedom to build something more meaningful and deeper: communicative trust and engagement. 

So I guess now I am in a space where I want to make an early identification of the core literacy needs, and then harness the best possible tools I have at my disposal to be able to support that child; psychological attunement and engagement can support and actively feed into explicit literacy teaching. 

References

• Alexander, R. (2006). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk.
  
  
• Myhill, D. (2018). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning through spoken language.
  
  
• Howe, C. & Mercer, N. (2017). Exploring Dialogic Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
• Littleton, Karen, and Neil Mercer. (2013) 2013. Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis. https://www.perlego.com/book/1613111/interthinking-putting-talk-to-work-pdf.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552

Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Improving literacy in secondary schools (Guidance Report). https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/eef-guidance-reports/literacy-ks3-ks4/Simple_View_of_Reading_2021-11-15-083742_dwzx.pdf