Ornstein and Hunkins (2014) stated that “schools must realize that
they are part of and are designed to serve to some extent the interests of
their local communities” (p.154). Similarly, according to Dewey (1916), schools
must reflect the society’s democratic ideals. In fact, the school culture is a
reflection of the societal culture, and like any other social institutions, schools
shape democratic dispositions of the youth. This close connection between
schooling and democracy has become the major interest of debates centered
around the role of schools in creating thriving democratic cultures (Dadvand,
2015).
Teachers are responsible for the quality of democratic education in
schools. In fact, educators can contribute to democratic education through the establishment
of a collaborative learning environment, the adoption of dialogic approaches to
pedagogy, the development of students' critical thinking skills, and the
provision of opportunities for both deliberative communication and sharing of
responsibility for decision-making (Dadvand, 2015). My focus is on the role of
dialogic teaching to promote democracy. According to Alexander (2008), “Democracies
need citizens who can argue, reason, challenge, question, present cases and
evaluate them. Democracies decline when citizens listen rather than talk, and
when they comply rather than debate” (p.184). In effect, the dialogic instructor
is concerned not only with the development of learners’ cognitive ability, but also
with the appreciation of learners’ voice through cultivating social human
beings who can express their point of view and at the same time recognize and
respect others’ opinions (English, 2016). From this perspective, one can relate
between the basic principles of dialogic teaching and Gardner’s theory of
multiple intelligence.
Gardner (1993) explicitly described the nine forms of individual
intelligence: linguistic, logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal,
intra-personal, naturalistic, and spiritual. In my opinion, applying principles
of dialogic teaching in classrooms allows students with both linguistic and
interpersonal intelligences to express their viewpoints much more confidently. In
fact, students who are linguistically intelligent are able to think in words
and to use language to present their ideas, express their feelings, and
persuade others (Gardner, 1993). This closely relates to the theoretical foundations of
dialogic teaching- the theory of social constructivism- which emphasize the
power of language to help children develop cognitively (Lyle, 2008). According
to Vygotsky (1978), what a child is able to say will be internalized and become
part of his own thinking (Sedova, Salamounova, & Svaricek, 2014). In addition, students with
interpersonal intelligence are able to understand and interact effectively with
people through understanding the feelings of others and entertaining multiple
perspectives (Gardner, 1993). This kind of intelligence supports the means of
dialogic teaching which are reasoning and argumentation that enrich and refine
students’ understanding by exposing them to multiple perspectives (Skinner, 2010).
Moreover, teaching students to dialogue and deliberate with others
can produce responsible citizens who democratically participate in communal and
societal talks about the critical local and global issues (Juzwik,
Borsheim-Black, Caughlan, & Heintz, 2013). Educating such citizens requires
teachers to engage them in active discussions of controversial topics, and to
socialize them into democratic communicative norms for rational deliberation
(Segal, Pollak & Lefstein, 2016). Such norms coincide with the ground rules
of talk - key features of exploratory dialogic talks- and with principles of
accountable talk where pupils learn to contribute productively to classroom
discourse in ways that are accountable to the learning community (e.g. building
on others’ responses), accountable to standards of reasoning (e.g. making
inferences and logical connections), and accountable to knowledge (e.g. supporting
arguments with evidence) (Segal et.al., 2016).
In addition, a key challenge to the realization of dialogic
discourse that seeks to foster deliberative democracy, is the empowerment of marginalized
students (Segal et.al., 2016). In fact, teacher-student interactions are
considered to be major sites of inequalities due to the fact that sometimes
teachers might not know the best way to use the background information they
have about their students (Kaur, 2012). Therefore, dialogic teachers should
take responsibility for facilitating the engagement of student voice in
whole-class discussions. For example, instructors could problematize the National Curricula by connecting curricular topics to controversial social issues that are relevant to students' lives, and by attending to issues that learners raise (Segal et.al., 2016). Another example would highlight the educators’ role to
productively broaden their repertoire of roles to incorporate partner, devil’s
advocate, and mediator in addition to more authoritarian roles,
in order to model dialogic discourse and offer space for rebellious student voices
(Segal et.al., 2016). In addition, dialogic educators should accept that not
every student’s voice will be heeded in every whole-class discussion. The
critical point is not to privilege the same student voices in every session, and
to search for ways to proactively offer space for disenfranchised voices.
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching.
Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). New York: Dialogos.
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching.
Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). New York: Dialogos.
Dadvand, B. (2015). Teaching for Democracy: Towards an Ecological
Understanding of Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2), 6.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to
Philisophy of Education. Macmillan.
English, A. R. (2016). Dialogic Teaching and Moral Learning: Self‐critique, Narrativity, Community and ‘Blind Spots’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, ,
50(2), 160-176.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2013). Inspiring dialogue: Talking to
learn in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.
Kaur, B. (2012). Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 485-492.
Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and
reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and education,
22(3), 222-240.
Ornstein, A., Hunkins, F. (2014). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles,
and Issues (5th edition). Boston: Pearson (second half of textbook).
Sedova, K., Salamounova, Z., & Svaricek, R. (2014). Troubles with
dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4),
274-285.
Segal, A., Pollak, I., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Democracy, voice and
dialogic pedagogy: the struggle to be heard and heeded. Language and
Education, 1-20.
Skinner, D. (2010). Effective Teaching and Learning in Practice.
London: Continuum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thank you Maria for spotting light on a very useful approach that could be useful in our classrooms .The term ‘dialogic teaching’ is now in common use but like all such terms means different things to different people. Dialogic teaching increases the power of talk to stimulate and extend students’ thinking and advance their learning and understanding. It helps the teacher more specifically to notice students’ needs, frame their learning tasks and assess their progress. It gives the student the power for lifelong acquirement and active citizenship. Dialogic teaching is not just any talk. It is as seperate from the question-answer and listen-tell practices of traditional teaching as it is from the casual conversation of informal discussion.
ReplyDeleteDialogic teaching is one of the teaching methodologies that promote collaboration and fosters democratic atmosphere whereby equity and fairness will take place among learners.Moreover, as you have mentioned that most studies support the advantages of dialogic method as it evokes interdisciplinary approach in connecting various disciplines and stimulating controversial topics for learners ro actively seek for answers. Furthermore,dialogic mode of teaching spot the light on students to be the active agents in the didactic process rather than the teachers to be the only dominant factor;so that the learners will be the ones searching and investigating to support their dialogues.However, the main threat to this mode of teaching is the readiness and the ability of teachers or educators in properly conducting this method in pedagogy and relate it to real lifeel experiences. I advice for continuous orientations through workshops that promote reflections for teachers to successfully maintain this mode in teaching. Since the main concern or aim in pedagogy where all teachers and educators should aim for is to prepare learners from a holistic approach to actively cope in this continuously changing world,to be citizens who serve their community and appreciate democracy in their lives.
ReplyDeleteThe quote by Ornstein and Hunkins (2014) was what stood out to me the most in this blog. As educators, it is important to teach our students about democracy and community. Using the different types of multiple intelligences, students use their strengths to express what they want to do to benefit their community. Dialogic learning is learning that takes place through dialogue. For example, as mentioned above, students who excel in linguistics may be able to voice their opinion in society. Dialogic teaching is important because it provides ongoing talk between the teacher and the student. In this way, and specifically for this topic, students are given as much opportunity to contribute and much as the teacher, and this really highlights the importance of communication, community, and democracy. However, there are some limitations mentioned by Kaur (2012). What I would suggest is further research on the subject for improvement.
ReplyDeleteWonderful Work commenting on each other others work and making connections to your areas, thus expanding our understandings.
ReplyDelete