Main Article Content
A review of Skidmore, D & K. Murakami (Eds). (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters
Skidmore and Murakami’s collection of essays takes on a dual theoretical and empirical project: first, to define and advocate for dialogical classroom pedagogy; and second, to unearth such practice through microstudies of classroom dialogue. This project divides itself neatly in half: the first six chapters trace the theory of dialogic pedagogy, including the history of discourse, coding, and practices, while the remaining seven are devoted to empirical studies marked by a careful microanalysis of dialogue.
The work distinguishes itself from scholarship on the dialogical the past 20 years, during which works have either been single-authored, deeply-researched, and theoretical (Matusov, 2009a; Wegerif, 2013) or vast collections of essays organized conceptually (Ball & Freedman, 2004; White & Peters, 2011; Ligorio & Cesar, 2013). While special journal editions have brought new focus to unexplored threads of the dialogical, such as the exploration of silence in the classroom or the history of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures (Matusov 2009b), this collection affords considerable latitude to its theoretical and historical frame. A comparable work of conceptual breadth is that of White (2016), whose publication frames classroom research of lower school learners with concepts from Bakhtin. Like White’s work, Skidmore and Murakami paint at once in broad strokes and miniature: on the one hand, the collection situates dialogical pedagogy into its historical context, interweaving the work of early Russian theorists; at the same time, it offers granular studies of classroom dialogue. Since Skidmore authors or co-authors seven of the 13 chapters, the collection somewhat serves as a project of singular intent, one that raises a persistent question as to whether the methodologies in the studies presented in the second half of the work, focused on Conversational Analysis (CA) and the Discourse Analysis (DA), cohere to the ambitions of dialogical pedagogy offered in the first. In the end, the promise that CA affords greater magnification of classroom moments does not overcome what may be a limitation of the methodology to unearth dialogic pedagogy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1985). Structures of social action: Studies conversational analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511665868
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, A., & Freedman, S. (Eds.). (2004). Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981 [1934-1935] Discourse in the novel. (trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (ed.) The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp. 269-422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum (1st ed.). Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Education.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, Science as a progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist 29, 3-13.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Bibler, V. (2009). The foundations of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures program. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(1), 34-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405470102
Brinn, M. (2016). The conceptions of dialogue offered by Bohm and Buber: A critical review. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.
Bubler, M. (1947). Between man and man. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and dialogic pedagogy. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.
Esiyok, J.M. (2016) The small group writing conference as a dialogical model of feedback. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Fecho, B., Peg, G., & Hudson-Ross, S. (2005). Appreciating the wobble: Teacher research, professional development, and figured worlds. English Education, 37(3), 174-199.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1981). Replies and responses in Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.
Guitierrez, K.D. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education,5, 335-365.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hacker, P. (2013). The linguistic turn in analytic philosophy. In The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 4 Feb. 2020, from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238842.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199238842-e-030.
Latour, B. (2014). Anti-zoom. In S. Pagé, L. Bossé, H. H. Obrist, & C. Stabler’s (Eds.), Olafur Eliasson: Contact (pp. 122-125). Paris, France: Flammarion.
Ligorio, M. B., & Cesar, M. (2013). Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2014). Inspiring dialogue. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kremer, J.P. (2016). Giving learners a voice: A study of the dialogical ‘quality’ of three episodes of talk-in-inercation in a language classroom. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.
Matusov, E. (2009a). Journey into dialogic pedagogy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Matusov, E. (2009b). Guest editor’s introduction to parts I and II: The school of the dialogue of cultures pedagogical movement in Ukraine and Russia. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(1).
Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A, Kullenberg, T & Curtis, K. (2019). Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 7, E20-E60.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (1st ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2019). Models of dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-8. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.1684801
Sacks, H, Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Skaftun, A. (2019). Dialogic discourse analysis: A methodology for dealing with the classroom as text. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 7. (pp. A143-A161).
Skidmore, D. (2016) Authoritative versus internally persuasive discourse. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.
Sullivan, P (2012). Qualitative data analysis using a dialogical approach. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Wells, G. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language and Education. 3(4), 251-273.
White, E.J. & Peters, M. (Eds.). (2011). Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
White, E.J. (2016). Introducing dialogic pedagogy: Provocations for the early years. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wodak, R. & Mayer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd edition). pp. 1-33. R. Wodak & M. Mayer (Eds.). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Zhao, X. Skidmore, D. & Murakami, K. (2016). Prosaic chopping: A pedagogical tool to signal shifts in academic task structure. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://play.google.com.