Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Dialogic Pedagogy Pub Date : 2020-01-06 DOI:10.5195/dpj.2020.312
C. Asterhan, C. Howe, A. Lefstein, E. Matusov, Alina Reznitskaya
{"title":"Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning","authors":"C. Asterhan, C. Howe, A. Lefstein, E. Matusov, Alina Reznitskaya","doi":"10.5195/dpj.2020.312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly 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.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogic Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Scholarly 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对话式教学研究的争议与共识
学术界对对话教育学和课堂对话的兴趣是多学科的,并借鉴了各种理论框架。从积极的方面来看,这产生了丰富多样的研究和证据。然而,尽管人们对教育对话和通过对话学习有着共同的兴趣,但很少有跨学科参与彼此的工作。学术讨论和出版物往往聚集在不同的社区,每个社区都有特定类型的研究问题、他们关注的对话方面、他们提供的证据类型以及严谨标准的构建方式。在本论文中,我们请四位来自不同研究传统的顶尖学者对四种挑衅性言论做出反应,这些言论旨在揭示共识和分歧的领域[1]。就主题而言,挑衅分别与理论基础、方法论假设、教师角色以及包容性和社会阶级问题有关。我们希望这些贡献将激发关于对话教育学研究和理论的跨学科和跨学科的讨论。[1] 本文的作者是五位学者、对话的煽动者和四位受访者。作者的出现顺序是按字母顺序确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogic Pedagogy
Dialogic Pedagogy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning Pedagogical work of Mikhail M. Bakhtin (1920s – early 1960s) The Golden Cage: Growing up in the Socialist Yugoslavia. Power, ideology and children: Socialist childhoods in Czechoslovakia Memoirs of a socialist childhood in China: socialism, nationalism and getting ahead
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1