159 research outputs found
Sort by
Theoretical Promises and Methodological Troubles Capturing Dialogical Discourse in Classroom Research
Full text linkA review of Skidmore, D & K. Murakami (Eds). (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual MattersSkidmore and Murakami’s collection of essays takes on a dual theoretical and empirical project: first, to define and advocate for dialogical classroom pedagogy; and second, to unearth such practice through microstudies of classroom dialogue. This project divides itself neatly in half: the first six chapters trace the theory of dialogic pedagogy, including the history of discourse, coding, and practices, while the remaining seven are devoted to empirical studies marked by a careful microanalysis of dialogue.The work distinguishes itself from scholarship on the dialogical the past 20 years, during which works have either been single-authored, deeply-researched, and theoretical (Matusov, 2009a; Wegerif, 2013) or vast collections of essays organized conceptually (Ball & Freedman, 2004; White & Peters, 2011; Ligorio & Cesar, 2013). While special journal editions have brought new focus to unexplored threads of the dialogical, such as the exploration of silence in the classroom or the history of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures (Matusov 2009b), this collection affords considerable latitude to its theoretical and historical frame. A comparable work of conceptual breadth is that of White (2016), whose publication frames classroom research of lower school learners with concepts from Bakhtin. Like White’s work, Skidmore and Murakami paint at once in broad strokes and miniature: on the one hand, the collection situates dialogical pedagogy into its historical context, interweaving the work of early Russian theorists; at the same time, it offers granular studies of classroom dialogue. Since Skidmore authors or co-authors seven of the 13 chapters, the collection somewhat serves as a project of singular intent, one that raises a persistent question as to whether the methodologies in the studies presented in the second half of the work, focused on Conversational Analysis (CA) and the Discourse Analysis (DA), cohere to the ambitions of dialogical pedagogy offered in the first. In the end, the promise that CA affords greater magnification of classroom moments does not overcome what may be a limitation of the methodology to unearth dialogic pedagogy
“My tutor doesn’t say that”: The legitimized voices in dialogic reflection on teaching practices
Full text linkIn the construction of teachers’ professional knowledge, reflective practices are a fundamental tool that responds to the need to connect theoretical principles with practical resources and to the improvement of teaching by means of critical analysis. The Practicum, as a dialogic structure for the explanation and interpretation of teaching practices, provides teachers in training an opportunity to build their own understanding based on dialogue and reflection. Invocation is one of the resources used to legitimize scientific or disciplinary knowledge in joint reflection. Qualified voices are called and made present in classroom discourse to validate descriptions or explanations. We are interested in defining the profile of the invocations introduced in dialogic reflection, as sources of legitimation of knowledge, and identify the patterns in the sequence of the invocations\u27 appearance. This work consists of an exploratory study of multiple cases, in which each case is a classroom unit composed of a tutor and her student teachers. Two cases from the Practicum in a Primary Education Teacher Degree were selected. A category system was developed for the analysis of invocations and organized into four dimensions: academic or professional knowledge, experiential knowledge, invocation of truth, and invocation of ideology or values. Results allow us to highlight some relevant conclusions. Invocations are a widespread resource in a process of dialogic reflection to legitimize the interpretation of educational practices. The participation of student teachers in dialogic reflection is possible and abundant thanks to the experience of the Practicum, which provides a validity criterion for their arguments, supported by the invocation to the authority of teaching experiences. In this study, tutors’ efforts to connect pedagogical principles with personal experiences in the Practicum have not clearly translated into student reflections in the same direction. The paper finishes paying attention to the competencies and training that Practicum tutors need
A Student\u27s Response to Dr. Matusov’s article, “A Student’s Right to Freedom of Education”
Full text linkThis essay is a commentary on Dr. Matusov’s article “A Student’s Right to Freedom of Education”, and it will reflect on Dr. Cresswell’s and Dr. Dyck’s technology-free classroom experiment as well as some of the thoughts and opinions expressed in Dr. Matusov’s article. In particular, this essay will examine and raise some objections to Dr. Matusov’s thoughts and opinions and argue for a more nuanced and tempered view of the nature of the student’s right to freedom of education. The technology-free experiment and Dr. Matusov’s objection to it will be explored and met with arguments in support of the experiment and the possible benefits of a technology-free learning environment. The remainder of the essay will largely consider Dr. Matusov’s thoughts on the student’s right to freedom of education and will offer arguments both for and against some of Dr. Matusov’s thoughts expressed in his article. Finally, an argument for a more holistic and structured view of authority and freedom in education will be discussed, using some studies on the Finnish education system as an example of one approach to improving education
Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning
Full text linkScholarly interest in dialogic pedagogy and classroom dialogue is multi-disciplinary and draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks. On the positive side, this has produced a rich and varied body of research and evidence. However, in spite of a common interest in educational dialogue and learning through dialogue, cross-disciplinary engagement with each other’s work is rare. Scholarly discussions and publications tend to be clustered in separate communities, each characterized by a particular type of research questions, aspects of dialogue they focus on, type of evidence they bring to bear, and ways in which standards for rigor are constructed. In the present contribution, we asked four leading scholars from different research traditions to react to four provocative statements that were deliberately designed to reveal areas of consensus and disagreement[1]. Topic-wise, the provocations related to theoretical foundations, methodological assumptions, the role of teachers, and issues of inclusion and social class, respectively. We hope that these contributions will stimulate cross- and trans-disciplinary discussions about dialogic pedagogy research and theory.[1] The authors of this article are five scholars, the dialogic provocateur and the four respondents. The order of appearance of the authors was determined alphabetically
Students’ Critical Commentaries: Unfettered Voices
Full text linkChanges to educational practices have been proposed, with some being adopted globally, on a continuous basis. However, student opinions have seldom been invited into discussions. This article was written following an invitation from the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal “to write a critical response to” Eugene Matusov’s editorial “A student’s right to freedom of education”. The inclusion of student voices in educational forums is integral for a more complete understanding of the position of all participants and, whether one considers students to be representative of one of Gramsci’s subaltern classes, students as an active group have historically been denied “the basic rights of participation” (El, H., 2012), with their absence from educational discussions having become the status quo. The following article introduces the critical commentaries from seven students who were members of a university level Discussion and Debate class in Seoul, South Korea. Their views were shaped from their previous schooling experiences and their hopes for positive changes. The students’ commentaries are responded to by Eugene Matusov. It is the hope of this author that this classroom process may act as one potential model for further educators to invite student voices into academic discourse. In the spirit of Gayatri Spivak’s 1998 essay (Spivak and Riach, 2012), it is time to let the subaltern speak
Dialogic pedagogy in graduate teacher education research advisement: A narrative account of three teacher educators
Full text linkResearch methods courses often tend to focus on transferring technical information to students rather than offer a more dialogical approach to learning (Barraket, 2005; Kilburn et al., 2014). By drawing on the concept of self-study (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001), through personal journals and retrospective reflections, this paper explores learning activities introduced in three teacher education graduate research methods courses to support student learning beyond the mastering of research skills or techniques. Narratives of three teacher educators illustrate how teacher candidates can dialogically reflect on research-related topics with peers, bring questions forward for discussion in class and online, apply their emerging technical research skills through collective analysis of a situation, and grow collective knowledge. Teacher candidates recognize the importance of research in their work, although their passion for conducting research is influenced by varied constraints, including research design, programmatic and personal limitations
Promoting Dialogic Pedagogy through Restricting Technologies
Full text linkThis commentary responds to claims Eugene Matusov makes about a student\u27s right to the use of certain technologies in his or her education. We argue that the use, in particular, of adaptive technologies actually has the potential to inhibit a student\u27s free choice (rather than facilitate it) and that through restricting certain technologies, genuine dialogic pedagogy may more successfully be promoted. We also engage Matusov\u27s concept of the radical freedom necessary for education
Challenging the politics of education: Intertwining dialogic pedagogy with a research-based practicum for first-year pre-service teachers
Full text linkThe public education system in the United States has long been under assault from neoliberal educational reforms. Those reforms have been characterized by anti-democratic and homogenizing assessment methods and systems that reinforce the banking model of education. In this model, students learn to passively and uncritically consume the knowledge transmitted to them in school. In order to counteract the banking model, this research urged first-year, pre-service teachers (PSTs) in an Introduction with Internship in Bilingual/ESL Education college coursework to engage in a dialogic problem-posing pedagogy grounded in a Freirian perspective. PSTs conducted a mini research-based practicum (RBP) that was six weeks long and required a total of 24-hour field observations across local public elementary schools. The RBP framework consisted of a research question, a mini literature review, practicum observations, findings, a group-written report, and a group presentation. In this study, we analyzed the RBP process and data sources that responded to our guiding question: What counts as good teaching according to PSTs? The major findings included: (a) good teaching means relationship building, (b) good teaching starts with understanding the multiple roles of the teacher, and (c) good teaching is inclusive. We discussed the transformative moves that PSTs went through while engaging in a dialogic problem-posing pedagogy. Teacher-educators (TEs) can benefit from this study, as the viability of the transformative effects of a dialogic problem-posing pedagogy, along with its challenges and coping methods, were discussed
Sink or swim? Responsible situated agency constructed by socioeconomically underprivileged students of English in neoliberal Brazil
Full text linkThis article discusses the results of a four-year investigation on the neoliberal challenges faced by socioeconomically underprivileged students in Brazil who were majoring in English teaching. It is a qualitative study that employs the concept of language as a sociocultural and dialogical practice as well as the concepts of responsibility and agency; it also examines the relationship between these students’ experiences and neoliberalism as seen in language education. The data generated by questionnaires, students’ essays, and semi-structured interviews reveal that the participants’ initiatives to engage themselves in outside classroom interactions acted as counter-centralizing forces. By exercising their responsible situated agency towards their English language appropriation process, these participants react against neoliberal challenges viewed here as hierarchical centripetal forces that constrain their access to different kinds of capital. The study participants are also guided by the agency of spaces promoted by discourses marked by decolonial thinking; however, though these students find different ways to negotiate neoliberal challenges, it is still crucial that the faculty in charge of the investigated context build on existing decolonial practices in the classroom. In doing so, more students can become part of “discursive actions” that foster their responsible situated agency towards a more egalitarian society.
Ethical dilemmas in field placements: The experiences of social work students in Norway and possible implications for social work education
Full text linkThe study reported in this paper focuses on social work students’ experiences of ethical challenges, including dilemmas, during their field placements. Moreover, drawing on dialogical approach and the results of the thematic analysis, the authors discuss what ethical dilemmas the students experience during their in-field practice, and what implications the handling of these ethical dilemmas can have for the organization of social work education. The findings that are reported in this article are the results of the analysis of six sets of data collected with the help of interviews. The interpretive framework used in this study is a dialogical approach. The research strategy has been a qualitative approach, and the data collection has taken place in semi-natural settings. The thematic analysis of the data lead to four major themes of ethical challenges that the students experienced in their field placements. The first theme concerns structural conditions on a macro level that the students were confronted with when in practice. The second theme is about ethical challenges due to the students´ lack of knowledge and experience in the field. The third theme presents challenges in direct work with service users related to the students´ awareness of values and perspectives. The fourth theme concerns ethical challenges that occurred when students interacted with others in the organizations where the field placements took place. We argue that due to the fact that the authorial agency of any learner consists of personal attitudes, goals, values, knowledge, competences, and skills, it is important to organize supervision activities in a way that allows discussions in free and fearless environments so that the student could learn and unlearn knowledge and skills. This means that in-field placements should be viewed as learning arenas for various types of knowledge and skills, including knowledge on themselves, and not just places where the students can gain only strictly professional practical knowledge and try out their theoretical knowledge