159 research outputs found
Sort by
Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy
Get PDFIn September 2011 in Rome at the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research conference, Eugene Matusov (USA), Kiyotaka Miyazaki (Japan), Jayne White (New Zealand), and Olga Dysthe (Norway) organized a symposium on Dialogic Pedagogy. Formally during the symposium and informally after the symposium several heated discussions started among the participants about the nature of dialogic pedagogy. The uniting theme of these discussions was a strong commitment by all four participants to apply the dialogic framework developed by Soviet-Russian philosopher and literary theoretician Bakhtin to education. In this special issue, Eugene Matusov (USA) and Kiyotaka Miyazaki (Japan) have developed only three of the heated issues discussed at the symposium in a form of dialogic exchanges (dialogue-disagreements). We invited our Dialogic Pedagogy colleagues Jayne White (New Zealand) and Olga Dysthe (Norway) to write commentaries on the dialogues. Fortunately, Jayne White kindly accepted the request and wrote her commentary. Unfortunately, Olga Dysthe could not participate due to her prior commitments to other projects. We also invited Ana Marjanovic-Shane (USA), Beth Ferholt (USA), Rupert Wegerif (UK), and Paul Sullivan (UK) to comment on Eugene-Kiyotaka dialogue-disagreement. The first two heated issues were initiated by Eugene Matusov by providing a typology of different conceptual approaches to Dialogic Pedagogy that he had noticed in education. Specifically, the debate with Kiyotaka Miyazaki (and the other two participants) was around three types of Dialogic Pedagogy defined by Eugene Matusov: instrumental, epistemological, and ontological types of Dialogic Pedagogy. Specifically, Eugene Matusov subscribes to ontological dialogic pedagogy arguing that dialogic pedagogy should be built around students’ important existing or emergent life interests, concerns, questions, and needs. He challenged both instrumental dialogic pedagogy that is mostly interested in using dialogic interactional format of instruction to make students effectively arrive at preset curricular endpoints and epistemological dialogic pedagogy that is most interested in production of new knowledge for students. Kiyotaka Miyazaki (and other participants) found this typology not to be useful and challenged the values behind it. Kiyotaka Miyazaki introduced the third heated topic of treating students as “heroes” of the teacher’s polyphonic pedagogy similar to Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novel based on Bakhtin’s analysis. Eugene Matusov took issue with treating students as “heroes” of teacher’s polyphonic pedagogy arguing that in Dialogic Pedagogy students author their own education and their own becoming. Originally, we wanted to present our Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy in the following format. An initiator of a heated topic develops his argument, the opponent provides a counter-argument, and then the initiator has an opportunity to reply with his “final word” (of course, we know that there is no “final word” in a dialogue). However, after Eugene Matusov developed two of his heated topics, Kiyotaka Miyazaki wanted to reply to both of them in one unified response, rather than two separate replies. Jayne White, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Beth Ferholt, and Paul Sullivan wrote commentaries about the entire exchange and these commentaries should be treated as part of our Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy. We hope that readers, interested in Dialogic Pedagogy, will join our heated Dialogue-Disagreement and will introduce more heated topics
Forced Choices: Role Play and the Problem of Disappearing Syntax
Get PDFWe begin with the observation that some Korean elementary school children in English class, confined to a single situation and even a single language exponent in a role play, appear to produce far more coherent dialogue than the previous week when they were allowed completely free choices in language. We note that at the same time as their dialogue becomes longer, their sentences become shorter (tall and thinner on the printed page), and we suggest that the grammatical complexity is consciously unpacked as discourse complexity. When we turn to a large corpus of longitudinal and cross sectional data, we see, however, that “thinner” dialogue with short utterances is not always more creative, at least not grammatically. We see that the children are deliberately and consciously choosing more elliptical and less creative expressions when they speak. We generalize from this data to show that the problem is no mere artifact of the data sample. We theorize from this generalization to show that the development of the child’s free will in syntax is related to a long chain of such constraints, leading from instincts to habits to intelligent choices oriented toward the immediate environment to acts of free will which are genuinely voluntary and which admit no sovereign but the child’s developing self. Indeed, we shall argue that the exercise of this sovereignty is precisely how the child develops a self in the first place
A Response to Eugene and Kiyo’s Dialogue-Disagreement on Dialogic Pedagogy
Get PDFThank you for asking me to respond to the text that you have created, Eugene and Kiyo. I will write about the “freedom from,” which Eugene raises and which Kiyo addresses at the end of the text. Kiyo points out that when the teacher’s primary active engagement with the learner is to respect the learner’s freedom from, then ‘engaging with others actively to facilitate their learning and the development of their agency’ (pedagogy itself) is hindering the development of self-generated authorship (or making people responsive)
Dialogue on Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy
Get PDFIt appears that in September, 2011, Rome experienced much more than a dialogue on dialogic pedagogy but a gladiatorial clash of personalities and ideas. Heat, we are told, was generated (above, p.1) and in the dissipation of this heat on to the page, even the reader gets hot and flushed. We are told that arguments “fail” (above, p.16); that terms “are not clearly defined” (p.21), breakthroughs in classification (e.g. epistemological dialogical pedagogy) are tackled and dragged down to personal eccentricities “his so-called epistemological dialogical pedagogy” (p.22), politeness tries to get a grip periodically, “I agree. But maybe I agree with Kiyo only to a point” but shouting (e.g. capital letters/underlining terms – e.g. “NOT the exclusive practice” (p.26)) and assertions take over. Accusation fly - sometimes to the point of legal charges “I charge the Epistemological Pedagogical Dialogue II with...” (p.29)
Developing a model of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary and post-secondary mathematics instruction
Get PDFThe accepted framing of mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as part of mathematical knowledge for teaching has centered on the question: What mathematical reasoning, insight, understanding, and skills are required for a person to teach elementary mathematics? Many have worked to address this question in K-8 teaching. Yet, there remains a call for examples and theory in the context of teachers with greater mathematical preparation and older students with varied and complex experiences in learning mathematics. In this theory development report we offer background and examples for an extended model of PCK – as the interplay among conceptually-rich mathematical understandings, experience in and of teaching, and multiple culturally-mediated classroom interactions
Education/obrazovanie as an experience of an encounter
Get PDFExperience is something which cannot be received like knowledge from someone else. Experience is what you live through yourself. Therefore experience is something that belongs only to the person him/herself. It is his/her absolutely individual and irreplaceable testament to reality. Every person without exception has HIS/HER absolutely unique experience of the encounter with culture (= experience of education/obrazovanie). The multiple trajectories of this inner experience are the most profound and significant result of the educational process. And the increase in the diversity of such trajectories of inner experience can be seen as a key indicator of what we call the quality of education/obrazovanie.Video 1 https://vimeo.com/88029209 Video 2 https://vimeo.com/8803250
Commentary on Eugene and Kiyo’s dialogue on dialogic pedagogy
Get PDFThis fascinating dialogue raised many questions. In this commentary I will focus on just three questions that particularly stimulated me to further reflection: ‘why classification?’; ‘what is ontology?’ and ‘where does agency come from?
Dialogue on ‘Dialogic Education’: Has Rupert gone over to ‘the Dark Side’?
Get PDFThis email dialogue that we record and report here between Eugene Matusov and Rupert Wegerif, exemplifies Internet mediated dialogic education. When Eugene emailed Rupert with his initial (mis)understanding of Rupert\u27s position about dialogic pedagogy Rupert felt really motivated to reply. Rupert was not simply motivated to refute Eugene and assert his correctness, although Rupert is sure such elements enter into every dialogue, but also to explore and to try to resolve the issues ignited by the talk in New Zealand. Through this extended dialogue Rupert\u27s and Eugene\u27s positions become more nuanced and focussed. Rupert brings out his concern with the long-term and collective nature of some dialogues claiming that the – "dialogue of humanity that education serves is bigger than the interests of particular students and particular teachers.…" – and so he argues that it is often reasonable to induct students into the dialogue so far so that they can participate fully. On the other hand, Eugene\u27s view of dialogue seems more focussed on personal responsibility, particular individual desires, interests and positions, individual agency and answering the final ethical "damned questions" without an alibi-in-being. Rupert claims that dialogic education is education FOR dialogue and Eugene claims that dialogic education is education AS dialogue. Both believe in education THROUGH dialogue but education through dialogue is not in itself dialogic education. For Rupert dialogic education can include ‘scaffolding’ for full participation in dialogue as long as dialogue is the aim. For Eugene dialogic education has to be a genuine dialogue and this means that a curriculum goal cannot be specified in advance because learning in a dialogue is always emergent and unpredictable. Our dialogue-disagreement is a relational and discursive experiment to develop a new genre of academic critical dialogue. The dialogue itself called to us and motivated us and flowed through us. This dialogue is much bigger than us. It participates in a dialogue that humanity has been having about education for thousands of years. We hope that it also engages you and calls you to respond
A paradigmatic disagreement in "Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy" by Eugene Matusov and Kiyotaka Miyazaki
Get PDFI read with a great pleasure the heated dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy between Eugene Matusov and Kiyotaka Miyazaki. It provided me with one of those rare occasions where I could both witness, and also join, the workings of two minds as they struggled with and against each other to construct, de-construct, and reconstruct their visions of dialogic pedagogical approaches to education. As I was reading, I had a lot of questions and remarks. I try to summarize them here – while many are still left on the margins of the original manuscript
Hip-Hop Hamlet: Hybrid Interpretive Discourse in a Suburban High School English Class
Get PDFThis study investigates the collaborative composing processes of a group of five high school seniors who constructed interpretations of each of the five acts of Shakespeare’s Hamlet through the medium of spoken word performances. The group composing processes were analyzed to identify how the students drew on conventions from the spoken word tradition to phrase and perform their interpretations. Findings indicate that across the five spoken word performances, the retelling of the Hamlet narrative involved a set of decisions that were both constrained and afforded by the rap medium. The students’ discussion of how to rewrite the story in the condensed poetic form of a rap required them to clarify events from Shakespeare’s version and both summarize them and interpret them both in their discussion and in their own text. Their interpretive work involved the incorporation of a variety of rap and other pop culture conventions such that their deliberation regarding word choice and accompanying performative elements necessitated careful consideration of the meaning that they found in Shakespeare’s version of the story, itself an adaptation from extant cultural narratives. The study concludes with a consideration of their spoken word interpretations as comprising a hybrid discourse that enabled exploratory interpretive talk that contributed to their understanding of the drama through the collaborative composition of their own representational text