Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Dialogic pedagogy 2020-01, Vol.8
Main Authors: Asterhan, Christa S. C., Howe, Christine, Lefstein, Adam, Matusov, Eugene, Reznitskaya, Alina
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
classroom dialogue
controversy
Cultural Differences
dialogic pedagogy
Dialogs (Language)
Discussion (Teaching Technique)
Faculty Development
Interpersonal Communication
multi-disciplinary
Pedagogy
Persuasive Discourse
Scholars
Social Bias
Social Class
Teacher Student Relationship
teaching
Teaching Methods
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2325-3290
2325-3290
DOI:10.5195/dpj.2020.312