TY - JOUR
T1 - Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning
AU - Asterhan, Christa S.C.
AU - Howe, Christine
AU - Lefstein, Adam
AU - Matusov, Eugene
AU - Reznitskaya, Alina
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/1
Y1 - 2020/1
N2 - 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 disagreement1. 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.
AB - 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 disagreement1. 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091513946&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5195/DPJ.2020.312
DO - 10.5195/DPJ.2020.312
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85091513946
SN - 2325-3290
VL - 8
SP - S1-S16
JO - Dialogic Pedagogy
JF - Dialogic Pedagogy
ER -