A Vision for Critical Dialogic Education: Implications for Researchers and Educators

• In Event: Critical Dialogic Education: Sustaining Inclusive Discourse Practices in U.S. Schools

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes
In order to contextualize the papers that follow, we describe the characteristics and aims of critical dialogic education, as put forth by AUTHORS (YEAR). We first synthesize scholarship on the role of talk in dialogic classrooms more generally before then outlining the unique features of critical dialogic education and its implications for linguistically minoritized and racialized students. We review existing work that could be placed into this field before then proposing key roles and responsibilities following from this approach that would apply to researchers and educators.

Theoretical Framework
We frame a critical approach to dialogic education in broader traditions that take discourse as a “point of entry for social critique” (Fairclough, 2013, p. 48), one that allows both teachers and researchers to explore how discourse and power are related. This perspective emphasizes the ways in which discourse can further inequitable circumstances but also seeks to use such critiques as a basis for social action and the creation of more equitable classroom environments.

Methods and Data Sources
In this theoretical paper, we draw upon multiple bodies of theory and research, ranging from early thinkers in dialogic traditions (e.g., Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1973; 2003) to more current scholars working in dialogic pedagogies (e.g., Resnick et al., 2015) and in critical traditions such as raciolinguistics (Flores & Rosa, 2015). We also integrate ecological and usage-based theories of additional language development (e.g., van Lier, 2004) relevant to minoritized multilingual students in contemporary classrooms.

Results
Dialogic teaching and learning typically centers on the importance of classroom talk (and at times other modalities of communication), and to be truly dialogic, talk must be co-constructed, intellectually purposeful, adaptive, respectful, and responsive to context, among other commonly cited features (e.g., Alexander, 2017; Haneda, 2017; Mercer et al., 2019). However, a critical perspective goes further. It does not assume that such interactions are beneficial in any form and explores factors that may exclude particular learners from participation. It also sets explicit goals for pedagogical practice that aim to disrupt inequitable power dynamics and their impacts on underserved student populations.

When considering the role of dialogic teaching and learning in American classrooms today, there is growing empirical support for the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach (e.g., Resnick et al., 2015; Sato & Ballinger, 2016), but dialogic classrooms remain rare (Haneda, 2017; Howe & Mercer, 2017; Segal et al., 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2017). In hopes of disrupting this cycle, we propose key roles and responsibilities for researchers and teacher educators that draw upon the critical perspectives offered by CDE in ways that hold promise for sustaining meaningful implementation of critical and dialogic pedagogies.

Scholarly Significance
New-found energy around CDE has the potential to reorient and reinvigorate discussions about why critically and dialogically centered classrooms are more important than ever, particularly for those students whose language assets and racialized identities are marginalized in traditional school settings. It is critical that these discussions also critically examine what roles researchers and educators can and should play in enacting these changes.

Authors

• Amanda Kibler, Oregon State University

• Aida Walqui, WestEd

• Guadalupe Valdes, Stanford University