Advertisement

Chapter 4.1: Lessons We Learned About Bakhtinian Pedagogy

  • Eugene MatusovEmail author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
  • Mikhail Gradovski
Chapter

Abstract

We learned that the most important legacy of Bakhtin’s philosophy is its dialogic framework. All those who we interviewed address and try to challenge the monologism of conventional pedagogy. The dialogic framework for most of the Bakhtin-inspired educators means a difference in the ethical approach—that is, treating each other as “a plurality of [opaque, non-transparent] consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world, [that] combine but are not merged in the unity of the event”; rather than a difference in the shape and form of discourse. Accordingly, we also learned that in order to keep alive and to deepen the meaning of the pedagogical dialogues, a researcher needs to enter into dialogic analysis of the studied dialogues, which involves and provokes the minds and hearts of researchers, research participants, and readers of the research. Ethical dialogism goes beyond any meaning-making discourse and cannot be captured by discourse analysis alone because it is eventful and ethically charged.

We also found that kindling and nurturing students’ ontological engagement is an omnipresent pedagogical desire of all our Bakhtinian educators. Students’ ontological engagement meant that students’ lives generate the educational curriculum, in a form of their own inquiries and puzzlements, and also where the educational curriculum becomes a part of the students’ lives of self-actualization, in the form of new passions, their new commitments, and their new interests. However, in some cases, attempts to provoke sincere ontological engagement have led to problematic pedagogical moves, like the humiliation of the “torpedo touch.” In conjunction with the ontological engagement we found tensions and struggles regarding the status, position, and purpose of ontological engagement, as we discussed educational vortex and teacher–student power relations. Finally, we summarize our findings about the issues of Bakhtin-inspired education in currently monological and authoritarian conventional educational institutions.

References

  1. Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge, MA: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1999). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Greenberg, D. (1991). Free at last: The Sudbury Valley School. Framingham, MA: Sudbury Valley School Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hammer, D., & Zee, E. v. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  7. Lensmire, T. J. (1997). The teacher as Dostoevskian novelist. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(3), 367–392.Google Scholar
  8. Matusov, E. (2015). Four ages of our relationship with the reality: An educationalist perspective. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(1), 61–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.860369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matusov, E., & Brobst, J. (2013). Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its centaur failure: Chronotopic analysis. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Matusov, E., & Miyazaki, K. (2014). Dialogue on dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, SI:ddp-1–SI:ddp-47.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2014.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Skidmore, D. (2000). From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education, 14(4), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skidmore, D. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98–110). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tobin, J. J., Davidson, D. H., & Wu, D. Y. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wells, C. G. (1992). Re-evaluation of the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the Conference for Sociocultural Research, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  19. Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Matusov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
    • 2
  • Mikhail Gradovski
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Independent ScholarPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations