Dialogue between Teachers and Students - Literature review Example

DIALOGUE SCHOOL WHAT TYPE OF DIALOGUE DO I WANT TO SEE IN SCHOOLS NOWADAYS? Abstract Dialogue School: What type of dialogue do I want to see in schools nowadays? Dialogue between teachers and students “Ideas which are not communicated, shared, and reborn in expression are but soliloquy, and soliloquy is both broken and imperfect thought” (Dewey 1954 as cited in ). Martin Dewey rarely uses the word “dialogue” but the concept where the term originates is in the core of Dewey’s epistemology, social and political philosophy, and educational theory . For Dewey, education is gained from reconstruction and reorganisation of experiences that eventually enhances a person’s ability “to direct the course of his subsequent experiences” Dewey (1916) as cited in . In other words, education is interactive and begins with experience and further reconstruction of experiences. Reconstruction of experience in education according to is best explained by exploring the connection between experience and thinking. For instance, experience in Dewey’s theory has two interconnected phases – “trying” (the first phase where a person try or do something) and “undergoing” or acting upon the consequences of the first phase (p.173). Experience therefore is interaction with the world, a continuous experimentation to determine the relationship of things around us and enduring (undergo) the consequences of acting upon them. Thinking in this context as explained by is the precise and deliberate attempt in establishing connections between things and judging what we did and its consequences (p. 173). The democratic social, political, and educational philosophy of John Dewey, Martin Buber, Paulo Freire, Maxine Greene, and others placed dialogue in the centre of teaching and educational process . Martin Buber saw dialogue as a vehicle for teacher-student relationship and in particular addressing issues associated with moral, aesthetic, adult, and community education . Paulo Freire on the other hand (as cited below), conceptualised dialogue as an educational practice involving respect, an instrument of deliverance from non-dialogical and anti-communicative educational practices, and an educational tool for creating program content that is constituted and organised by students’ view of the world . “In contrast with the anti dialogical and non-communicative ‘deposits’ of the banking method of education, the program content of the problem-posing method – dialogical par excellence- is constituted and organized by the students’ view of the work, where their own generative themes are found” Freire (1970, p.101) as cited in . Similarly, although approached from feminist perspective, Maxine Green proposes the use the term “public space” which in essence is “a place of dialogue and possibility” Greene (1988) as cited in . This public space or place of dialogue in according to Greene is a fundamental challenge to education that she believed should appreciate human diversity and offer space where they can become different and grow . Describing education as interactive and a cycle of learning that generally requires sharing of ideas, John Dewey introduced dialogue as an instrument of growth and development in democratic setting where learners freely interact and dialogue with others in order to reason and participate in learning process . For this reason, most modes of education today are dialogical where the teacher is often involved in both implicit and explicit dialogue with students. According to , in the desire to help students reach their goals, teacher typically offers two types of dialogue in the classroom simultaneously. The first type of dialogue occur when the teacher explicitly and directly present and discuss values, ideas, and problems with students. The second type is a dialogue occurring simultaneously with the first type whenever the teacher indirectly allowing her or his own values becomes visible and reflected to students (p.3). This is because teaching is not only a method of transferring information but helping people understands and do things better thus teaching involves negotiation of meanings and understanding . For this reason, teacher and students with different perspectives, intellect, and personality enter into different types of dialogue in order to negotiate meanings. The type of dialogue used in school according to is context dependent. For instance, the “teacher-student and teacher-class dialogue” is characterised by traditional teacher-led-initiation-response-evaluation or IRE which in essence is asymmetrical because the power to negotiate is held by the teacher alone (p.218). In contrast, the power in “Between student” type of dialogue is evenly distributed in the classroom. This type of dialogue according to , is focused on the importance of talk, development of a classroom culture of dialogue, and recognising the value of classroom interaction in the successful completion of the task. The “Within student dialogue-student and text” type was developed from the idea of Vygotsky in the 1920s concerning learner’s “inner speech”. This idea proposes that the learner often has to engage with a ‘text’ (reading books or listening while the teacher reads and language-based activity independent of teacher. However, there is insufficient evidence to verify the quality of this type of dialogue thus seldom applied by teachers (p.218). The “teacher-student dialogue” is the most common type of dialogue as it is characterised by reduction teacher’s exclusive speaking right, development of democratic classroom and creative awareness in both teacher and students . Moreover, this type of dialogue is known for fostering two types of interaction – teacher class and teacher-student- that clearly reflect the objectives of teacher-student dialogue throughout the course. For instance, teacher-class interaction is commonly applied in guided instruction and practice such as test review, class discussions and brainstorming, grammar and editing activities while teacher-student allows group working, off-task or informal discussion . Since the success of a dialogue between teacher and students depends on the nature of the interactions, the teacher conducting a “teacher-student dialogue” in the classroom must be flexible and responsive to each student not as members of the group but individual with own desires and goals . In one study conducted about teacher-student dialogue practice in selected lessons, the teacher often starts with students’ orientation and explains the essentials of the topic. During the dialogue, students were asked to take a position and encouraged to explore this position . Dialogue of this type often takes advantage of the opportunity provided by “assisted performance” where participants can defined and negotiate tasks and construct meaning. According to , teachers and students in this type of dialogue both regulate their engagement, learning, and task thus commonly characterised by the following (p.152): a. Teacher and students are provided with a least two speech turns. b. Turns are focused on a single subject. c. Turns involved more than simply providing an answer (Yes, No, I don’t know, and others do not qualify as dialogue). d. Teacher provides clues, asks open-ended questions, and discourse that sustain conversation on a single topic. e. Dialogue about contents, procedures, non-academic issues, and others. How can I take this dialogue to the community? Introducing democratic teacher-student dialogue to the community is not an easy task because according to it logical requires building dialogical capacity in a larger population, trust, and dealing with a number of opposing beliefs. For this reason, a good strategy aimed at acquiring widespread interest should be developed. For instance, it should be a strategy that recognises the type of community (ex. democratic, authoritarian, oppressive, visionary, and others), the dominant type of conversation (ex. collegial, conflictual and others), established collective assumptions, and the presence of dialogue-friendly elements in the community (p.309). suggested a strategy similar to the type of dialogue used in social research where the community serve as informants, advisors, and collaborators in order to eliminate structural and cultural barriers to communication between the community and researchers. This type of dialogue holds a number of Paulo Freire’s dialogue components such as respect for coequal roles, praxis or activities that is based on knowledge generated by the participants, voice, and recognition of lived experience as critical and valid source of knowledge. Therefore, the community and advocates of the dialogue can engage in a comprehensive discussion, developed knowledge, and progress by examining relevant contextual elements in the community such as living conditions, social relations, the choices that are available for community members and potential actions that may be taken to realise desired changes (p.163). What type of dialogue should be in the community? As discussed in previous section, the ideal type of dialogue for the community is one that is democratic such as teacher-student dialogue, participatory and similar to dialogue being implemented in social research, and characterised by Freire’s essential dialogue components. In the study conducted by for instance, an anti-violence project aiming to preventing violence in the community launched a public dialogue based on key partnerships (schools, police, community organisations, and others) and community mediation strategy (p.399). Since dialogue and praxis is central to the Freire’s process of humanisation, it is important that a dialogue for the community embodies the notions of human dignity and respect. The dialogue should be capable of encouraging people to work together in a mutual, reciprocal, trusting, and cooperative ways. It should promote horizontal communication between those who are mutually engaged and capable of developing a sense of confidence and trust. Therefore, imposition of one’s assumption, values, and perception of the world should be avoided because it is silencing and disempowering and therefore anti-dialogue. More importantly Freire’s praxis is rooted in dialogue thus only possible through humility and dialogical relations based on freedom. For this reason, such dialogue should be from arrogance, indifference, and discord. Community development is a people-centred practice and grounded in a certain relationship between people thus from dialogical view, it requires willingness to understand and recognition that any attachment to beliefs, ideas, and identity should be avoided. According to , most community practitioner engage in dialogue are often observed valuing relationship associated with honour and searching for mutual understanding that can lead to openness and solidarity. Similarly, most successful dialogue-based community development is generally tolerant, opens to one another’s perspective, and experienced less resistance and difficulty (p.6). This is because community dialogue is not just about resolving disagreement or conflict of interest but getting people talk thus open, tolerant, honest, and unattached practitioners often get more support and succeed in facilitating communication between people. The alliances across differences can increase dialogue potential in the community because one of the major problems is local culture along with different values and domination within and between cultures. Moreover, according to , there is an increasing number of individuals nowadays engaging in dialogue particularly when it involves community development. For instance, research shows that Intergroup dialogue is practiced in various communities because such dialogue enable social interaction regardless of diversity, facilitate learning about others that increases the probability of having more participants. This dialogue is unique in the sense that it support that notion that stimulation of individual development engaging people from different background, perspective, and experience in a public dialogue . The rationale for this type of dialogue came from several businesses, education, psychology, and sociological research supporting the notion that members of community are increasingly becoming demographically diverse thus culturally sensitive policies will not work. Another is the evidenced provided by psychological research supporting that social and cognitive development is best achieved through social interaction that does not need to reconcile different embedded views. For instance, developing an ability to see things based on somebody else perspective can be achieved through social interaction mainly because the person receiving the new idea will progress to see that other side of the issue and later learn to accept another person’s point of view . What is my original prospective of dialogue? Dialogue was initially thought of as a straightforward process of communicating each other’s idea. However, as Dewey, Buber, Freire, Greene, and others illuminate the principles and role of dialogue in realising the goal of individuals and society, the concept seems to become complex. For instance, when Dewey noted that connection between experience and reconstruction of experience to education, the long enduring idea of education having an end is immediately replaced by thoughts of an endless process defined by experience. The concept of experience at first seems complex but learning the connection between experience and thinking, it became clear the experience is something we do in school where students often try to make sense of things by inquiry and exploration. Moreover, it is now clear that thinking is an accurate and deliberate attempt to understand the act and its consequences. Similarly, the scarcity of dialogue in public spaces as noted by Greene that distorts our ability to appreciate human diversity changed the original prospective of dialogue as a simple and less important social device changed into a more positive and precise prospective. For instance, the role of education to open spaces where they can be themselves and grow through exchanges of information or dialogue becomes clear and encouraging in the sense that such role contribute to good life and a humane society (Green, 1998 as cited in . Moreover, the cycle of learning where sharing of ideas or dialogue that Dewey describe as a vehicle responsible for transforming growth and development was completely unknown and never taken into account in assessing the value of dialogue in education. For instance, the idea that an individual learning within a democratic setting is expected to engage in meaningful dialogue with others, inquire, reason, and participate in the process of governance was never considered as an objective. In fact, there was no awareness of the fact that ideas that are not communicated and shared are nothing but flawed assumptions. What is the distinction from these dialogues? The primary distinctions between dialogues discussed earlier are the scope of dialogue and emphasis given to a particular entity. In Dewey for instance, aside from representing his democratic, social, political, and educational philosophy, his vision of dialogue in terms of education include continuing dialogue, conversation, and discussion. Jewish existentialist philosopher Martin Buber on the other hand used the term “real meeting” to highlight the human relationship with natural objects, persons, and spiritual beings that are not in Dewey or Freire’s philosophy of dialogue . Similarly, other philosophers such as the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire put his notion of dialogue in the centre of social, political, educational, and religious philosophy with emphasis on liberation of the oppressed. Aside from being approached from a feminist view Maxine Greene’s dialogue is unique in connecting dialogue with public spaces that provides opportunities for appreciating human diversity and the role of education in accommodating this diversity. Unlike Dewey, Buber, Fierre, Greenes’ dialogue is critical to its positive effect on individual and society. This in particular is dialogues higher purpose and global role in ensuring human freedom and social order (Greene, 1998 as cited in . In contrast, sine Freire was inspired by Buber and Sarte who emphasised the difference between dialogues where a party dominates over the other, he developed a dialogue symbolizing the inequalities in society. For instance, unlike Greene’s artistic and grand vision of dialogue, Freire is more focused on the tensions between permanence and change in education . This in particular is reconciling opposing points view through dialogue that Dewey also recognised. Both philosopher saw the beneficial effect of the plurality of communities within education because its democracy and constant renewal through problem posing . However, Freire’s dialogue seems more assertive of social change compared to all dialogue as he uses the term “critical dialogue” that in reality aimed at changing the existing pedagogical structure and dominant dialogue which he believed is vertical and a “dialogue of the elite”. For instance, Freire’s treatment of dialogue according to , was in the service of this transforming praxis with a primary objective of preparing for dialogic encounter against the oppressors . In terms of education, John Dewey‘s dialogue seems more complete and contributing to our understanding of the purpose of dialogue in education. His dialogue is more critical of the scholastic dialectical method in education as an effective way to organise and present the truth. In fact, Dewey’s realistic approach in educational dialogue was contributed his knowledge of social and political foundation of society where the goal of individual and community is growth. Moreover, his strong conviction about democratic life is reflected in his vision of dialogue as sharing, expression, and the notion of society members conversing in diverse ways . References Ahmad, K. (2008). Recognizing Student Needs, Facilitating Student Learning: Teaching and Learning for Generation 1.5 Students: Morgan State University. Arends, D., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for Student Learning: Becoming an Accomplished Teacher: Taylor & Francis. Banathy, B. H., & Jenlink, P. M. (2006). Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Elias, J. (2010). Philosophical Reflections on Dialogue. New York: Springer. Ellerman, D. (2006). Helping People Help Themselves. Michigan, US: University of Michigan Press. Engebretson, K. (2010). International Handbook of Inter-religious Education: Springer. Ginsburg, M. B., & Gorostiaga, J. (2003). Limitations and Possibilities of Dialogue among Researchers, Policymakers, and Practitioners: International Perspectives on the Field of Education: Taylor & Francis. Kjellin, M., Mansson, N., & Vestman, O. (2009). Values in Student Teacher's Educational Practice. [Qualitative, Quasi-experimental study]. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1(1), 1-13. Lee, G. (2007). The Teacher-student Relationship in an EFL College Composition Classroom: How Caring is Enacted in the Feedback and Revision Process. USA: The University of Texas at Austin. MacLusky, J., & Cox, R. (2011). Teaching Creative Writing In The Primary School: Delight, Entice, Inspire!: Delight, entice, inspire! : McGraw-Hill Education. Miller, L., & Hess, K. (2007). Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving: Cengage Learning. Oglesby, D. T. (2008). Using a Special Education Dialogue Guide for Knowledge Transfer Within a Community of Practice: A Case Study: The George Washington University. Palmer, J., Bresler, L., & Cooper, D. (2002). Fifty Major Thinkers on Education: From Confucius to Dewey: Taylor & Francis. Pinar, W. F. (1998). The Passionate Mind of Maxine Greene: 'I am ... not yet': Taylor & Francis. Schihalejev, O. (2010). From Indifference to Dialogue?: Estonian Young People, the School and Religious Diversity: Waxmann. Schoem, D. L., & Hurtado, S. (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace: University of Michigan Press. Tan, C. (2012). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on Achieving Educational Success: Springer. Taylor, M., Schreier, H., & Ghiraldelli, G. J. (2008). Pragmatism, Education, and Children: International Philosophical Perspectives: Rodopi. Volet, S., & Vauras, M. (2013). Interpersonal Regulation of Learning and Motivation: Methodological Advances: Taylor & Francis. Weigand, E., & Feller, S. (2009). Language as Dialogue: From Rules to Principles of Probability: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Westoby, P., & Dowling, G. (2013). Theory and Practice of Dialogical Community Development: International Perspectives: Taylor & Francis.  Read More