1.  Introduction

In the global era, easy access to the internet has made all kinds of information, although unstructured and unorganized, available to everyone, everywhere. As a result, it is upon each individual to carefully and critically examine, categorize, and select the received information to distinguish valid and reliable information from falsehood and fabrication. Accordingly, training constructive, creative, and critical citizens requires shifting the focus of school programs from strategies and methods, which are based on rote learning, to critical thinking and knowledge creation (Myers, 2012).

In general, critical thinking has been investigated from philosophical and educational perspectives (Lai, 2011). Researchers in the philosophical tradition emphasize the qualities and standards of thought. A limitation of the definition of critical thinking from this viewpoint is that it does not conform to reality (Sternberg, 1986, as cited in Lai, 2011). Given the focus of the philosophical approach on the ideal critical thinker and people’s capabilities, this approach seems to have less concern for how people think. Researchers in education have also commented on critical thinking, including Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues, who greatly contributed to teachers’ instruction and assessment of higher-order thinking skills by presenting the taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom et al., 1984). Their taxonomy for information processing skills contains a hierarchy from the lowest level, comprehension, to the highest, evaluation. Three of the highest levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) usually represent critical thinking (Kennedy et al., 1991). An advantage of the educational approach over the other two is that the definition of critical thinking is based on class experiences and observations, which is not true of the cognitive psychological and philosophical approaches (Sternberg, 1986, as cited in Lai, 2011). On that basis, we have attempted in this research to use definitions that are in accordance with the educational approach.

Also, the Critical Thinking Community defines critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (Scriven & Paul, 2007). According to Paul and Elder (2008), critical thinkers always try to: (1) raise vital questions (and issues) and formulate them clearly and precisely, (2) gather and assess relevant information, (3) come up with a very well-reasoned conclusion, (4) be open-minded to any ideas, and (5) communicate effectively. In fact, the prerequisite for the economic, cultural, social, and political development in any society is the existence of people who are well-educated and thoughtful which, in turn, depends on the existence of a dynamic and active education. Therefore, it can be concluded that any social development results from an efficient and proper education, and this depends on several factors including the use of new and active educational methods, including dialogue-based education model (Mansoori et al., 2016).

The underlying theory of learning for the dialogue-based education model can be linked to constructivists such as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and especially social constructivists such as Lev Vygotsky. Social constructivism is a meaningful process of learning through interaction between individuals (Benus, 2011). Vygotsky, who introduced the concept of ‘scaffolding’, showed that the teacher's interaction with learners and learners’ interaction with their peers are quite effective in the process of learning. In fact, in the process of relying on a teacher or a skilled person’s continuous support, learners move progressively toward their potential performance and the actual learning phase. Therefore, the dialogue-based education model can be useful in developing collective understanding and knowledge during the process of ‘scaffolding’ (Game & Metcalfe, 2009).

One of the most important criteria for dialogue is questioning and question-raising, where each of the participants needs to ask questions regarding the ambiguities and misunderstandings emerging during the dialogue process. Bakhtin (1981) maintains that dialogue and conversation can be differentiated in terms of questioning. If an answer does not present a new question, for instance, it is excluded from dialogue (Walshe, 2013). In dialogue education, the guide raises questions to extract thoughtful answers and have further questions generated, for the construction of meaning and comprehension (Oregon, 2009; Walshe, 2013; Worthy et al., 2012). In a dialogue interaction, the guide and the participants not only exchange ideas but also acquire new meanings by asking original questions (Chan & Van Kraayenoord, 1998). Boyd and Markarian (2011) state that the teacher’s open questions on issues suggested in class that demand more than one answer from the learners increase the number of participatory learner interpretations. In fact, the original questions result in thinking and reflection, promotion of comprehension, and explanation and elaboration of relevant information by the learners. By raising these questions, the teacher both promotes the learners’ answers and cultivates a dialogue atmosphere. These questions vary from the learners’ personal knowledge and experience of different issues. Moreover, the guide should suspend his knowledge and experience, and promote dialogue between the learners through questioning. In such a climate, the learners need to argue by reflecting on the ideas through evidence and instances after identifying the assumptions (Lyle, 2008). In fact, participants learn better when encounter questions during the dialogue interactions on different topics and issues raised in the classroom (Skidmore, 2006).

The use of dialogue in teaching and learning processes differs from the other forms of interaction in which the teacher usually asks closed-ended questions, and the learners compete in an attempt to express the correct answer. In contrast, education, in the form of dialogue, takes place through a relatively long interaction between the teacher and the learners as well as learners and their peers in a collaborative and mutually supportive environment with the aim of helping learners understand and compare different ideas, and practice thinking through expressing different concepts (Alexander, 2000). In a research aimed at analyzing the interaction between 12 teachers and their students in a science course, Mercer et al. (2009) noted that teachers need to apply various types of interaction, especially dialogue, in order to enhance the students' everyday understanding of different phenomena including scientific understanding. The ultimate aim of dialogue-based education is to help learners enhance their new conceptual relationships and their knowledge base level (Oh & Reamy, 2014). By providing an active and participatory communication environment for learners, dialogue presents a series of coordinated, collective, conscious, and deliberate communicative actions to create common understanding, gain insight into problems, and solve conflicts (Neumann-Boxer, 2012). Despite the emphasis on the development of intellectual skills by many scholars, especially engaging students in critical thinking and questioning in modern education systems, this view has failed to overcome the presuppositions of traditional education. In fact, to enhance the effectiveness of the measures taken to teach thinking skills, the quality and quantity of teacher-to-students and student-to-student interactions need to go through fundamental changes (Trickey & Topping, 2004). Even though school activities are aimed at children and teenagers, evidence suggests that current curricula have not been able to foster thinking, questioning, and criticizing skills in students. How is it possible for children to keep on learning and acting in their societies if they do not think individually and collaboratively and do not work together in groups while studying (Tabatabaee & Mousavi, 2011)?

There should be some prerequisite principles and conditions including informal, unplanned rules that subconsciously guide people’s patterns of interaction with each other in public as cultural norms (Bicchieri, 2006).  In fact, the methods of interaction reflect the rules and values of the society where we live (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). In fact, dialogue interactions in every society are affected by the social, cultural, economic, and historical backgrounds of that society (Roper & Weaver, 2004). For example, people in a society may not be very willing to get involved in conflicts and confrontations and prefer to adapt themselves to hierarchical relations. It is even possible that some people in the hierarchy consider themselves pivotal and others marginal (Wals & Schwarzin, 2012).

Therefore, this study aims to address the research gap by investigating the effectiveness of the dialogue-based education model on the critical thinking skills of Iranian primary students. Through examining both quantitative and qualitative aspects, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dialogue-based education model’s role in enhancing the critical thinking skills of the participants of the study. Our research endeavors to contribute valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between dialogue and critical thinking, and how such critical thinking skills can prepare learners to adapt and thrive in the rapidly changing educational landscape of today's world. The inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative measures will offer a more nuanced perspective on the effectiveness of the dialogue-based model, and the findings will have practical implications for educators, researchers, and policymakers, guiding them in maximizing the benefits of dialogue-based education to create effective and engaging learning experiences. This study was guided by the following research questions:

1. To what extent does the use of a dialogue-based education model impact Iranian primary students' critical thinking skills?
2. What are the attitudes and perspectives of Iranian primary students towards the use of the dialogue-based education model?

2. Literature Review

In a qualitative study, Ching-Chiang and Fernández-Cárdenas (2020) explored ways of reducing marginality and promoting inclusion through dialogic and transformative learning in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) education. They argued that the main advantage of dialogic learning might lie in providing opportunities to empower teachers and increase students' participation. The research demonstrated dialogical education as a way to initiate transformational processes in the school. Further, concerning the students' response to dialogic pedagogy, Juuti et al. (2020) observed that students’ interest was higher in dialogic talk situations than in non-dialogic talk situations. It was revealed that dialogic talk is associated with learners' interests and concerns. Vrikki et al. (2019) probed the occurrence of dialogue forms that are widely regarded as productive in English primary schools and found somewhat frequent usage of many such forms in primary classrooms. Moreover, the teacher’s power to shape classroom dialogue was highlighted. Regarding dialogic-based training of teachers, Rodriguez et al. (2020) identified positive consequences for the future practices of the participating teachers. The teachers were capable of addressing school problems and applying their newly acquired knowledge to their job. The researchers reported the extensive impact (in terms of learning, attention, interest, reflection, etc.) of such training on the teachers which also led to better learning outcomes for learners. Through a longitudinal case study, Flecha and Soler (2013) reported on a dialogic school-based transformation among Roma families and revealed how its implementation impacted the whole process of schooling and improved the Roma children's academic performance and engagement. Prior to such transformation, these students had constantly experienced failure and had few actual learning opportunities. However, interaction, dialogue, and small-group work led to an increase in children’s learning and showed how Roma children benefitted from dialogic learning interactions.

The findings of a research by Hashmyan-Nezhad (2003) indicated that students’ intellectual skills are not adequate to confront the issues of today's world and the Information Age. This suggests that in the Iranian education system instead of focusing on how to recognize issues, learn from each other, foster thinking, acquire abilities to identify issues in their environment, analyze problems, and more critical thinking skills, the emphasis is on rote memorization and conservatism; the teaching methods lack modernism, creativity, and foresight. For example, in most countries, especially American and European countries, some measures have been taken, inspired by the “Philosophy for Children” program developed by Matthew Lipman in the 1970s, such as changes in curriculum and the content of books, and implementation of dialogue-based education to promote thinking, especially critical thinking (Marashi et al., 2008). Given this, dialogue-based education can be considered a missing link among educational patterns, which is closely related to the principles and assumptions of Constructivism.

Despite the emphasis of experts and research findings on the effectiveness of dialogue in learning and developing students' critical thinking, it has long been neglected in Iran's educational system. For example, after reviewing the books authored on teaching methods and techniques, no indication of dialogue was found. Only some implicit mentions of dialogue have been made under the topic of group discussion and cooperative learning, for which no particular framework has been provided (Fardanesh, 2011). Furthermore, the critical evaluation of the research background in Iran reveals that studies have mostly focused on the theoretical foundations using the Descriptive analytical method of Socratic dialogue, and none of them has focused on proposing a coherent and organized framework and model (Chenari, 2008).

Likewise, dialogue is not practiced in the Iranian education system despite its significance in education. The absence of dialogue in the process of teaching and learning may be due to the domination of traditional and inactive methods, teacher-centered monologues in classrooms, and the lack of a specific framework for applying dialogue. Accordingly, considering the role and importance of dialogue in improving the processes of learning and teaching, the present study tries to determine the impact of dialogue-based educational model on students’ critical thinking development in the Iranian context of elementary schools. Further research in this area will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the dialogue-based education model's role in learning and inform the design of effective curricula, lesson plans, and educational approaches.

3. Research Method

Adopting an applied approach, the present study employed a quasi-experimental design including a pre-test, a post-test, and a control group. The statistical population of the study consisted of 5th-grade male students in a primary school in Dehgolan, a small town in Western Iran, in 2021. Using multistage cluster sampling, 44 students were selected from the population. Twenty-one students were randomly assigned to the experimental group, and the other twenty-three students were assigned to the control group. The questions in the questionnaire were prepared in accordance with the age and cognitive development of elementary children and were mostly presented to them visually. In the experimental group, the different topics of the science textbook were taught through the dialogic method for a period of two months, consisting of three two-hour sessions per week, a total of 24 sessions. However, in the control group, the traditional teacher-centered method was implemented.

The data collection tool was the Critical Thinking Questionnaire, designed and normalized by Shabani (2008) for primary students, which consists of 27 questions based on three factors of diagnosis, comparison, and judgment. Content validity and face validity were verified by 10 experts in psychometrics. Also, factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the questionnaire, demonstrating a high correlation between the three factors of critical thinking. Also, the Kuder-Richardson formula was used to estimate the reliability of the Critical Thinking Test, which was from 67% to 70%. Finally, the data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance test. Dialogue-based education was conducted based on the designed model of Mansoori et al., (2016), which includes two stages: 1. Formation of dialogue loops and 2. Implementation of dialogue-based education. The dialogue-based educational planning scheme is composed of the following components:

1. Dialogue loops
2. Context
3. Objectives
4. Assessment

Based on Figure (1), dialogue loops first need to form between the learners. Then, teaching begins in light of the context, objectives, and assessment components. Dialogue loops have three components that are required for actual dialogue loops to form. The elements of a dialogue loop are detailed below.

• Participants: In view of the theoretical foundation of dialogue, it is common to use notions like facilitator, coordinator, or guide rather than teacher. Moreover, the notion of participant or group member is used rather than learner or student, each holding its own responsibilities.
• Facilitator/Coordinator: raising questions on the issues and topics that exist in the group members’ or participants’ living environments and providing information and resources to develop critical thinking are among the coordinator’s responsibilities. Others include organizing the classroom, assigning participants to dialogue loops, doing authentic exercises and assignments, and scientific and participatory activities, and encouraging the individuals to trust each other for effective learning and change (Alexander, 2000; Shor, 2012). According to Paulo Freire, an effective coordinator is one who raises stimulating questions and persuades the participants to raise such questions (Freire, 2007). The Presence of a skillful facilitator is conducive to the group members’ adherence to the principles and conditions of dialogue. Besides getting the group engaged in dialogue, the facilitator should instruct the participants to participate in the dialogue interactions independently and to become increasingly aware of their own actions and behaviors in the formation of dialogue (Roper & Weaver, 2004).

Figure (1): Conceptual model of dialogue-based education (Mansoori et al., 2016)

• Group members: these include individuals who get involved in a dialogue by adhering to and considering the conditions, principles, and criteria effective on the formation of dialogue loops. Arjen et al. (2012) argue that the formation of a dialogue interaction is subject to two areas: personal and interpersonal. For instance, each person’s willingness, preparedness, and competence are effective in the formation of a dialogue interaction.
• Prerequisite principles and conditions: These denote the circumstances in the absence of which another form of communication (such as discussion, conversation, debate, etc.) would replace the dialogue. These conditions involve a secure, threat-free space where the individuals participate in dialogue and raise questions with mutual trust and absolute sincerity.
• Arbitrary criteria: The prerequisite principles and conditions of dialogue are necessary for the formation of dialogue loops but not sufficient. These criteria are arbitrary and are set by the group members to achieve mutual comprehension and public agreement and should be observed by all the participants. The criteria include clarification of one’s own reflections, question-raising, active listening, participants’ respect for each other, communication, suspension of judgments and avoidance of prejudgments, and sympathy (Nistani, 2011). An effective principle that needs to be observed by the group members is sympathetic listening, i.e., listening to and getting involved in others’ points of view even if contrary to one’s own opinions or beliefs (Heath et al., 2006). Effective strategies in sympathetic listening include the examination of perceptions and presumptions, provision of feedback for assessment of the impacts of different measurements, and expression of non-evaluative and non-aggressive comments (Baraldi, 2006). Ellinor and Girard (2023) suggest four fundamental, interrelated principles for dialogue: suspension of judgments, identification of assumptions, active listening, and inquiry or reflection. Observation of the arbitrary criteria ensures that successful dialogue is carried out.

Therefore, dialogue education is a basic method of suggestion of arguments and examination of the learners’ presumptions using a sequence of thought-provoking questions. The students are regarded as thinkers and decision-makers in this type of education. Learning takes place when the teacher encourages the learners to question, explain, and analyze issues (Burbules& Bruce, 2001; Sherrod & Wilhelm, 2009; Worthy et al., 2012). Black et al. (2003) state that it is essential for the establishment of a dialogue atmosphere to consider a waiting time for the learners to raise questions and answers and to develop a sense of self-confidence. Lodge (2005) identifies six types of questions that the participants can ask each other during dialogue, as follows:

• Explanatory questions: What do you mean by …? What are you trying to say? What is your main point? What does this have to do with …?
• Questions exploring the assumptions: What have you assumed? What are your a