Questioning in Bakhtinian dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper examines differences between Bakhtin’s dialogic view and argumentation theories with respect to questioning and analyzes the significance of these differences for the theories of pedagogy. In argumentation theories, a question is thought to be shared among the parties in a discussion. In the fields of argumentation and education, in particular science education, not only is a question shared, but also an answer is integrated into one among the participants (Schwarz and Baker 2017). Bakhtin’s view on questioning, advanced in his later writings, shows how new questions emerge continuously in answers to the previous questions so that a question is not shared by a questioner and an answerer. Using the Bakhtinian framework in the analysis of some Japanese pedagogical thoughts and classroom interactions, it is shown that each student can develop her/his own unique understanding of the topic – not the shared, integrated understanding – by finding out a new question in seemingly wrong answers, or by discovering different questions in the same problem. Finally, the reason why new questions emerge in question-and-answer exchange is investigated within a constructivist perspective from cognitive science.
Article Details
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.
References
Alexander, R. J. (2005). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. London:Dialogos.
Andriessen, J. & Baker, M.J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R.K. Sawyer, (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Asterhan, C. S. C., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 8. 1–16. DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2020.312
Azegami, K.(1990). Kodomo no sikou no michisuji wo taisetsunishite: 3 nennsei rika ‘kamidama teppou’ no jissen.[Respecting children’s paths of thinking: 3rd grader’s science class on ‘bamboo gun’. ] Dai 33kai shakaika no shoshi wo tsuranuku kai zenkoku shuukai[Paper presented at 33rd national assembly of the research group for carrying out the social studies’ original aims.] Kyoto, Japan. August, 1990.
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J. & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education (pp. 76–88). Abbington, Oxon: Routledge.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bang, M., Faber, L., Gurneau, J., Marin, A. & Soto, C. (2016). Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 23(1), 28–41. DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572
Barajas-López, F. & Bang, M. (2018). Toward indigenous making and sharing: Implications for mathematics learning. Annual Perspectives in Mathematics 2018: Rehumanizing Mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and Latinx Students, 13–22. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Berland, L. K. & Lee, V. R. (2012). In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 1857–1882. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
Boyd, M. P. (2016). Connecting “man in the mirror”: Developing a classroom dialogic teaching and learning trajectory. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16(2), 1–26. DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.02.03
Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. DOI: 10.1080/03057260701828101
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of physics, 50(1), 66–71. DOI: 10.1119/1.12989
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P.Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 49–70). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s–eye–view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy.(From the “pieces” side of the fence) In S. Vosnidou (Ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 35–60). New York, NY: Routledge.
Duschl, R.A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education argumentation. Discourse in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. DOI: 10.1080/03057260208560187
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheji, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentaton Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation. 2nd. ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Felton, M. & Crowell, A. (2022). Argumentation as a collaborative enterprise: A study of dialogic purpose and dialectical relevance in novice and experienced arguers. Informal Logic, 42(1), 171–202.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haneda, M., Teemant, A. & Sherman, B. (2017). Instructional coaching through dialogic interaction: Helping a teacher to become agentive in her practice. Language and Education, 31(1), 46–64. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2016.1230127
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N. Vrikki, M. & Wheatleyl, V. (2019). Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact upon student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 465–512. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2002). Young Children’s Naive Thinking about the Biological World. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Itakura, K. (2019). Hyposthesis-Experiment-Class (Kasetu): With Practical Materials for Fun and Innovative Science Classes. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248, 120–130.
Medin, D. L. & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s Asking?: Native Science, Western Science, and Science Education. MA: MIT Press.
Miyazaki, K. (2019). Dialogic lessons and triadic relationship among pupils, learning topic, and teacher. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 7, 58–87. DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2019.239
Miyazaki, K. (2020). How dialogic teachers create the dialogic classroom: Lessons from Japanese teachers. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education (pp. 227–237). Abbington, Oxon: Routledge.
Morson, C. S., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nagano elementary school attached to the Faculty of Education, Shinshu University (Ed.). (2010). Kokoro to Karada wo hiraite tomoni manabu Kodomo to Kyoushi [Children and the Teachers Who Learn Collaboratively with Their Bodies and Minds Being Open] (Report No. 54).
Omland, M., Ludvigsen, S. R. & Rødnes, K. A. (2022). The role of querying: Investigating subject-oriented meaning-making. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 33(4), 100599. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100599
Perelman, Ch. (1977). L’ empire rhétorique: Rhétorique et Argumentation. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. VRIN.
Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation - Histoire, théories, perspectives. [Argumentation –History, Theories, Perspectives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Rapanta, C. & Felton, M. K. (2022). Learning to argue through dialogue: A review of instructional approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 477–509. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-021-09637-2
Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S. & O’Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Rosebery, A., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M. & Warren, B. (2010). The coat traps all your body heat: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences,19(3), 322–357. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2010.491752
Schwarz, B. B. & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J. P. III, diSessa, A. A. & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. DOI:10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toyoda, H. (2007). Shudan shiko no jugyou zukuri to hatsumon ryoku: Riron hen (Jugyo-ryoku appu heno chosen vol. 12) [Making Lessons of Group Thinking and the Skill of Questioning: A Theory (The Challenge for Raising the Lesson Skills)]. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho.
Tsukamoto, Y. (2014). Kodomo wa kyoushi no “hatsumon” towa kotonaru “toi” wo motsu. [Children have different questions from “teacher posed question.”]. Chiba-Keisai-Daigaku-Tanki-Daigaku-bu Kiyo [ the Proceedings of Chiba Keizai College], 10, 25–37.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). The cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 55–66. DOI: 10.1080/00461520709336918
Walton, D. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005237527730
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.