This article describes high school students’ responses to events in the novel, The Things They Carried, leading to their collaborative rewriting to create their own narrative versions of these events. It draws on “enactivist” theory of languaging, an approach to language that focuses on its use as social actions to enact and build relationships with others (Cowley, 2011; Linell, 2009). The focus is on “in-between” meanings constituted by “shared intentionality” (Di Paolo & De Jaegher, 2012) in readers’ transactions with authors’ portrayals of events in texts as well as in responding to uses of languaging in characters’ interactions. Analysis of four students’ rewriting events from the novel indicated that they drew on their responses to the novel to portray tensions in their characters’ interactions as well as their own experiences of coping with these tensions. Students also benefitted from collaboratively creating their narratives through sharing their different perspectives on events in the texts, suggesting the value of using collaborative rewriting activities to enhance students’ literary responses and awareness of how languaging functions to enact relationships.
{"title":"Students' Use of Languaging in Rewriting Events from The Things They Carried","authors":"R. Beach","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2017.181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2017.181","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes high school students’ responses to events in the novel, The Things They Carried, leading to their collaborative rewriting to create their own narrative versions of these events. It draws on “enactivist” theory of languaging, an approach to language that focuses on its use as social actions to enact and build relationships with others (Cowley, 2011; Linell, 2009). The focus is on “in-between” meanings constituted by “shared intentionality” (Di Paolo & De Jaegher, 2012) in readers’ transactions with authors’ portrayals of events in texts as well as in responding to uses of languaging in characters’ interactions. Analysis of four students’ rewriting events from the novel indicated that they drew on their responses to the novel to portray tensions in their characters’ interactions as well as their own experiences of coping with these tensions. Students also benefitted from collaboratively creating their narratives through sharing their different perspectives on events in the texts, suggesting the value of using collaborative rewriting activities to enhance students’ literary responses and awareness of how languaging functions to enact relationships.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43661255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Presented here are fragments of my book The cartography of inner childhood in the translation from Russian. The main hero of this book is our childhood experience. Or, rather, the book is about our remembrances of our childhood experience. Some people would exclaim, “These remembrances are extremely subjective, utterly personal and therefore untrue!” I wonder, however, if one’s ultimate subjective experience may very well be one’s innermost human core, exactly what is important about any person. For an ‘objective’ external onlooker, the childhood of different children is largely indistinguishable. All children play certain games, absorbedly listen to fairytales, react to various events, and so on. In fact, nearly all modern psychology research testifies to these ‘childhood uniformities’ and their typologies. The reason for this supposed uniformity is a flaw in the main approach of modern psychology. Modern psychology often focuses on universal, generalizable, predictable, and regular principles, which is the standard of the science. Anything else is viewed as non-scientific. How else it can be?! The problem with this conventional approach to psychology, however, is that the human being is the only ‘object’ in the Universe that is defined by a subjective cognizing world of her or his own, building above the subjective lived experiences and feelings and redefining them – a world, unique for each person, which cannot possibly be viewed from outside, except for some of its outward objective artifact manifestations of this subjective cognizing world. That is why the childhood of each one of us is not simply a childhood of some external events or a childhood of typical or universal, but rather a childhood of absolutely unique and un-borrowed inner life that makes every person’s internal experience absolutely precious. This very situation compels one to look most carefully into ‘the inner child’ each of us is capable of re-discovering in her-or himself. The structure of the book is the following: Each chapter presents excerpts of the memoirs of one of the world-famous people, after which, there is a commentary analysis. Presented here are only three of those memoirs: by Orhan Pamuk, George Orwell and Ingmar Bergman.
{"title":"The Cartography of Inner Childhood: Fragments from the book","authors":"Alexander M. Lobok","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2017.200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2017.200","url":null,"abstract":"Presented here are fragments of my book The cartography of inner childhood in the translation from Russian. The main hero of this book is our childhood experience. Or, rather, the book is about our remembrances of our childhood experience. Some people would exclaim, “These remembrances are extremely subjective, utterly personal and therefore untrue!” I wonder, however, if one’s ultimate subjective experience may very well be one’s innermost human core, exactly what is important about any person. For an ‘objective’ external onlooker, the childhood of different children is largely indistinguishable. All children play certain games, absorbedly listen to fairytales, react to various events, and so on. In fact, nearly all modern psychology research testifies to these ‘childhood uniformities’ and their typologies. The reason for this supposed uniformity is a flaw in the main approach of modern psychology. Modern psychology often focuses on universal, generalizable, predictable, and regular principles, which is the standard of the science. Anything else is viewed as non-scientific. How else it can be?! The problem with this conventional approach to psychology, however, is that the human being is the only ‘object’ in the Universe that is defined by a subjective cognizing world of her or his own, building above the subjective lived experiences and feelings and redefining them – a world, unique for each person, which cannot possibly be viewed from outside, except for some of its outward objective artifact manifestations of this subjective cognizing world. That is why the childhood of each one of us is not simply a childhood of some external events or a childhood of typical or universal, but rather a childhood of absolutely unique and un-borrowed inner life that makes every person’s internal experience absolutely precious. This very situation compels one to look most carefully into ‘the inner child’ each of us is capable of re-discovering in her-or himself. The structure of the book is the following: Each chapter presents excerpts of the memoirs of one of the world-famous people, after which, there is a commentary analysis. Presented here are only three of those memoirs: by Orhan Pamuk, George Orwell and Ingmar Bergman.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47542000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Triadic dialogue, the Initiation, Response, Evaluation sequence typical of teacher /student interactions in classrooms, has long been identified as a barrier to students’ access to learning, including science learning. A large body of research on the subject has over the years led to projects and policies aimed at increasing opportunities for students to learn through interactive dialogue in classrooms. However, the triadic dialogue pattern continues to dominate, even when teachers intend changing this. Prior quantitative research on the subject has focused on identifying independent variables such as style of teacher questioning that have an impact, while qualitative researchers have worked to interpret the use of dialogue within the whole context of work in the classroom. A recent paper offers an alternative way to view the triadic dialogue pattern and its origin; the triadic dialogue pattern is an irreducible social phenomenon that arises in a particular situation regardless of the identity of the players who inhabit the roles in the turn-taking sequence (Roth & Gardner, 2012). According to this perspective, alternative patterns of dialogue would exist which are alternative irreducible social phenomena that arise in association with different situations. The aim of this paper is to examine as precisely as possible, the characteristics of dialogue patterns in a seventh-eighth grade classroom during science inquiry, and the precise situations from which these dialogue patterns emerge, regardless of the staffing (teacher or students) in the turn-taking sequence. Three different patterns were identified each predominating in a particular situation. This fine-grained analysis could offer valuable insights into ways to support teachers working to alter the kinds of dialogue patterns that arise in their classrooms.
{"title":"Interchangeable Positions in Interaction Sequences in Science Classrooms","authors":"C. Rees, Wolff‐Michael Roth","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2017.184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2017.184","url":null,"abstract":"Triadic dialogue, the Initiation, Response, Evaluation sequence typical of teacher /student interactions in classrooms, has long been identified as a barrier to students’ access to learning, including science learning. A large body of research on the subject has over the years led to projects and policies aimed at increasing opportunities for students to learn through interactive dialogue in classrooms. However, the triadic dialogue pattern continues to dominate, even when teachers intend changing this. Prior quantitative research on the subject has focused on identifying independent variables such as style of teacher questioning that have an impact, while qualitative researchers have worked to interpret the use of dialogue within the whole context of work in the classroom. A recent paper offers an alternative way to view the triadic dialogue pattern and its origin; the triadic dialogue pattern is an irreducible social phenomenon that arises in a particular situation regardless of the identity of the players who inhabit the roles in the turn-taking sequence (Roth & Gardner, 2012). According to this perspective, alternative patterns of dialogue would exist which are alternative irreducible social phenomena that arise in association with different situations. The aim of this paper is to examine as precisely as possible, the characteristics of dialogue patterns in a seventh-eighth grade classroom during science inquiry, and the precise situations from which these dialogue patterns emerge, regardless of the staffing (teacher or students) in the turn-taking sequence. Three different patterns were identified each predominating in a particular situation. This fine-grained analysis could offer valuable insights into ways to support teachers working to alter the kinds of dialogue patterns that arise in their classrooms.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47850653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We define genuine education as students’ active leisurely pursuit of critical examination of the self, life, society and the world. It is driven by the person’s interests, inquiries, needs, tensions, and puzzlements. Thus, it is based on the students’ ownership of their own education, rather than on the society’s needs and impositions on the students. Hence, genuine education cannot be forced on the students, but rather the students need to be supported and guided to find and pursue their own education as their existential need. We view genuine education as students’ authorship based on the students’ learning activism. In our opinion, the primary condition for the students’ ownership of their education is the students’ freedom to participate in making decisions about their education. In our paper, we discuss pedagogical experimentation aimed at promoting learning activism and ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance. However, to our surprise, we found out that merely engaging students in decision making about their own education does not work for many students. After several years of practicing the Open Syllabus pedagogical regime in our undergraduate and graduate classes, we have experienced and abstracted two major mutually related problems: a problem of “culture” and a problem of “self-failure.” The issue of “culture” involved a tension between building a new democratic educational culture while practicing it. We also found that our undergraduate and graduate education students do not follow their own freely chosen educational commitments, and thus they feel betrayed by themselves. Analyzing students’ reflections on the self-failures, we found that they felt pressured by life and institutional survival and necessities. Because of that, they did not have the luxury of prioritizing their own educational self-commitments. In response to this and other concerns, we developed a hybrid pedagogical regime, called Opening Syllabus. We focus on tensions within this new, hybrid pedagogical regime, by analyzing students’ reflections and contributions in class.
{"title":"Promoting students’ ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance","authors":"E. Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2017.199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2017.199","url":null,"abstract":"We define genuine education as students’ active leisurely pursuit of critical examination of the self, life, society and the world. It is driven by the person’s interests, inquiries, needs, tensions, and puzzlements. Thus, it is based on the students’ ownership of their own education, rather than on the society’s needs and impositions on the students. Hence, genuine education cannot be forced on the students, but rather the students need to be supported and guided to find and pursue their own education as their existential need. We view genuine education as students’ authorship based on the students’ learning activism. In our opinion, the primary condition for the students’ ownership of their education is the students’ freedom to participate in making decisions about their education. In our paper, we discuss pedagogical experimentation aimed at promoting learning activism and ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance. However, to our surprise, we found out that merely engaging students in decision making about their own education does not work for many students. After several years of practicing the Open Syllabus pedagogical regime in our undergraduate and graduate classes, we have experienced and abstracted two major mutually related problems: a problem of “culture” and a problem of “self-failure.” The issue of “culture” involved a tension between building a new democratic educational culture while practicing it. We also found that our undergraduate and graduate education students do not follow their own freely chosen educational commitments, and thus they feel betrayed by themselves. Analyzing students’ reflections on the self-failures, we found that they felt pressured by life and institutional survival and necessities. Because of that, they did not have the luxury of prioritizing their own educational self-commitments. In response to this and other concerns, we developed a hybrid pedagogical regime, called Opening Syllabus. We focus on tensions within this new, hybrid pedagogical regime, by analyzing students’ reflections and contributions in class.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70729721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we discuss how the products of student work during long-term, interdisciplinary curricular units at King Middle School, a grades 6-8 public school in Portland, Maine, through their aesthetic qualities, transformed people’s understanding of what children were capable of. We argue that, to effectively understand student work of this type, ‘cognitive’ and ‘practical’ criteria for evaluation – i.e., as a supposed indicator of what students need to know and be able to do – fail to convey the actual, substantive value of the work, rendering it relatively static and meaningless like much conventional schoolwork. Instead, we argue that aesthetic criteria can help to adequately understand and assess community-based, project work. Moreover, focusing only on student learning throughout the production process occludes the importance of collaboration, communication, and dialogue with an audience: in this case, community experts whose goals and interests must be accommodated as students do their work. The aim of the article is twofold: 1) to present a coherent picture of student project work that adequately captures its complexity both in the process of its production, and in its use-value upon completion; and 2) to argue for the importance of aesthetic criteria in planning and assessing student projects.
{"title":"The Use-Value of Real-World Projects: Children and Local Experts Connecting Through School Work","authors":"Alison Rheingold, Jayson O. Seaman","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2017.165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2017.165","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we discuss how the products of student work during long-term, interdisciplinary curricular units at King Middle School, a grades 6-8 public school in Portland, Maine, through their aesthetic qualities, transformed people’s understanding of what children were capable of. We argue that, to effectively understand student work of this type, ‘cognitive’ and ‘practical’ criteria for evaluation – i.e., as a supposed indicator of what students need to know and be able to do – fail to convey the actual, substantive value of the work, rendering it relatively static and meaningless like much conventional schoolwork. Instead, we argue that aesthetic criteria can help to adequately understand and assess community-based, project work. Moreover, focusing only on student learning throughout the production process occludes the importance of collaboration, communication, and dialogue with an audience: in this case, community experts whose goals and interests must be accommodated as students do their work. The aim of the article is twofold: 1) to present a coherent picture of student project work that adequately captures its complexity both in the process of its production, and in its use-value upon completion; and 2) to argue for the importance of aesthetic criteria in planning and assessing student projects.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2017-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48167814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dialogic pedagogy is an approach to education influenced by Bakhtin, Freire, and others. It is an approach that is critical of conventional education, which tends to be didactic and alienating to students. Student engagement is made central as dialogue takes priority over standardization and core cannons of content. Dialogic pedagogy also emphasizes the importance of communities of learners where teachers are co-learners along with students as all parties work on problems together. I seek to raise challenges to Dialogic Pedagogy and these come from scholars working on the “conduct of everyday life” and from Charles Taylor’s notion of “strong evaluations”. The conduct of everyday life involves a focus on first-person subjectivities with an eye to their constitution in social and power relations. Strong evaluations enhance this discussion by addressing how people can engage in decisions that involve weighing options about the qualitative kind of person one is. I outline how education involves a conduct of everyday life where strong evaluations are promoted. Taking such an approach to education grounds two challenges to dialogic pedagogy. One challenge is that students are reticent to engage in strong evaluations and the modern identity is one disposed to disengagement. The converse challenge is that student engagement entails pedagogical eros, which is easily converted into power and abuse by a pedagogue.
{"title":"Disengagement, Pedagogical Eros and (the undoing of?) Dialogic pedagogy","authors":"J. Cresswell","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2016.182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2016.182","url":null,"abstract":"Dialogic pedagogy is an approach to education influenced by Bakhtin, Freire, and others. It is an approach that is critical of conventional education, which tends to be didactic and alienating to students. Student engagement is made central as dialogue takes priority over standardization and core cannons of content. Dialogic pedagogy also emphasizes the importance of communities of learners where teachers are co-learners along with students as all parties work on problems together. I seek to raise challenges to Dialogic Pedagogy and these come from scholars working on the “conduct of everyday life” and from Charles Taylor’s notion of “strong evaluations”. The conduct of everyday life involves a focus on first-person subjectivities with an eye to their constitution in social and power relations. Strong evaluations enhance this discussion by addressing how people can engage in decisions that involve weighing options about the qualitative kind of person one is. I outline how education involves a conduct of everyday life where strong evaluations are promoted. Taking such an approach to education grounds two challenges to dialogic pedagogy. One challenge is that students are reticent to engage in strong evaluations and the modern identity is one disposed to disengagement. The converse challenge is that student engagement entails pedagogical eros, which is easily converted into power and abuse by a pedagogue.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2016-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70729680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper contextualizes contemporary urban teachers’ online dissent in public discussions of education reform in relation to past educational crisis narratives to interpret recent shifts in the structure of education reform dialogue in the United States. It does so by examining the form and content of compositions in which teachers respond to education reform. The analysis is intended to describe the digitally mediated roles teachers are asserting in a complex public debate over the future of education in the United States. The structure and content of education reform discourse has often cast teachers in static roles, which inhibits their active participation in discussions of educational policy. Using Mikhail Bakhtin’s position that language choices serve to stifle and/or reinvigorate dialogue, we examine contributions to online discussions and debate composed ostensibly by urban teachers in response to dominant discourses. The data were analyzed with respect to discursive choices and grouped subsequently as themed arguments and rhetorical moves. We argue that teachers’ strategic responses to education reform challenge stifling truisms that seek to suspend discussion of all other factors besides teacher quality. Teachers’ critical digital compositions thus re-create critical, multi-voiced conversations in place of monologues about school improvement. The online, public compositions point to the dynamic structure of reform discourse that has the potential to benefit those currently faulted for a variety of social problems. Nurturing and even exploiting the dynamic potential of educational reform discourse can create opportunities for teachers, policymakers, and educational researchers to mutually inform one another’s shared interest in educational improvement.
{"title":"Emerging Dialogic Structures in Education Reform: An analysis of Urban Teachers’ Online Compositions","authors":"T. Stewart, George L. Boggs","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2016.148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2016.148","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contextualizes contemporary urban teachers’ online dissent in public discussions of education reform in relation to past educational crisis narratives to interpret recent shifts in the structure of education reform dialogue in the United States. It does so by examining the form and content of compositions in which teachers respond to education reform. The analysis is intended to describe the digitally mediated roles teachers are asserting in a complex public debate over the future of education in the United States. The structure and content of education reform discourse has often cast teachers in static roles, which inhibits their active participation in discussions of educational policy. Using Mikhail Bakhtin’s position that language choices serve to stifle and/or reinvigorate dialogue, we examine contributions to online discussions and debate composed ostensibly by urban teachers in response to dominant discourses. The data were analyzed with respect to discursive choices and grouped subsequently as themed arguments and rhetorical moves. We argue that teachers’ strategic responses to education reform challenge stifling truisms that seek to suspend discussion of all other factors besides teacher quality. Teachers’ critical digital compositions thus re-create critical, multi-voiced conversations in place of monologues about school improvement. The online, public compositions point to the dynamic structure of reform discourse that has the potential to benefit those currently faulted for a variety of social problems. Nurturing and even exploiting the dynamic potential of educational reform discourse can create opportunities for teachers, policymakers, and educational researchers to mutually inform one another’s shared interest in educational improvement.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2016-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70730067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I compare and contrast two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or imagination, thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue among the “consciousnesses of equal rights” (Bakhtin, 1999), where education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual similarities and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners’ subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners’ disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the social organization of educational communities in these two diverse educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two educational approaches regarding both the participants’ critical examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the participants’ agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes and with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves.
{"title":"\"Spoilsport\" in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy","authors":"Ana Marjanovic-Shane","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2016.151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2016.151","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I compare and contrast two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or imagination, thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue among the “consciousnesses of equal rights” (Bakhtin, 1999), where education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual similarities and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners’ subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners’ disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the social organization of educational communities in these two diverse educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two educational approaches regarding both the participants’ critical examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the participants’ agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes and with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2016-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70729667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Modern conventional education is full of impositions on its students. Schools often impose on students where they must be, what they must do and learn, how they must behave and communicate in the places and the ways that the teacher and school define. However, the legitimacy of this imposition – how much of this imposition is necessary, useful, justified, and desirable for education itself – has not been specifically discussed and analyzed yet. The legitimacy of this imposition is especially important to do for innovative education, evaluating and reconsidering its goals and practices of education. Analysis of imposition in education can help to address important questions of why oppression, alienation, if not pedagogical violence, are so prevalent in organized education and whether this is can be avoided or not. The goal of this paper is to consider different approaches to non-negotiable imposition in education, its legitimacy, and justifications and analyze their pros and cons. I consider Totalizing conventional, Capitalist, Progressive, Democratic, Anarchist, and Communitarian educational approaches to non-negotiable imposition and its legitimacy from an educational perspective.
{"title":"Legitimacy of non-negotiable imposition in diverse approaches to education","authors":"E. Matusov","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2015.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2015.110","url":null,"abstract":"Modern conventional education is full of impositions on its students. Schools often impose on students where they must be, what they must do and learn, how they must behave and communicate in the places and the ways that the teacher and school define. However, the legitimacy of this imposition – how much of this imposition is necessary, useful, justified, and desirable for education itself – has not been specifically discussed and analyzed yet. The legitimacy of this imposition is especially important to do for innovative education, evaluating and reconsidering its goals and practices of education. Analysis of imposition in education can help to address important questions of why oppression, alienation, if not pedagogical violence, are so prevalent in organized education and whether this is can be avoided or not. The goal of this paper is to consider different approaches to non-negotiable imposition in education, its legitimacy, and justifications and analyze their pros and cons. I consider Totalizing conventional, Capitalist, Progressive, Democratic, Anarchist, and Communitarian educational approaches to non-negotiable imposition and its legitimacy from an educational perspective.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70729400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995). Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products. Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics. They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies. As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be. In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities. Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development. More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to non-school knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives.
{"title":"Literature Discussions as Mangles of Practice: Sociological Theories of Emergence and/in Dialogic Learning Events","authors":"George Kamberelis, W. Mcginley, A. Welker","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2015.69","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2015.69","url":null,"abstract":"In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995). Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products. Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics. They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies. As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be. In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities. Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development. More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to non-school knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2015-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70729409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：