3,201
edits
Teaching Approaches/Dialogue: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
no edit summary
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) |
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The term dialogue is intended to imply a deeper level of analysis or explanation than that which concerns itself only with the surface meaning of talk as isolated expressions made by individuals. When we talk about dialogue, we are talking about the joint enterprise of talk, as a cumultative (building up over time) activity which is aimed at some purpose or other. In education, the purpose we are most often interested in is learning, in a rather broad sense. | |||
In classrooms such dialogue occurs in a variety of settings, including [[Teaching Approaches]Whole Class]] work and [[Teaching Approaches/Group Talk]] in [[Teaching Approaches/Group Work]] contexts. Research indicates that the most effective sorts of dialogue are | |||
# Often not reflected in classroom talk | |||
# Are not simply question and response (IRF) exchanges, but are [[Teaching Approaches/Dialogic Teaching|dialogic]] in nature | |||
== What do we mean by dialogue? == | == What do we mean by dialogue? == | ||
{{adaptedfrom|Purposes and characteristics of whole-class dialogue|DialogueIntro|The difficulties of defining dialogue begin with the question of how many can take part before it turns into something else. In ordinary conversation, the managing of turns is a shared responsibility, and competition for 'having one's say' in groups larger than, for example, half a dozen makes a diversion into parallel conversations very likely. Most classroom talk, in contrast, involves a centralised communication system. Teachers direct the talk by doing most of it themselves, combining lengthy exposition with many questions, allocating the right or obligation to answer those questions and evaluating the answers. The transmission of knowledge creates very unequal communicative rights to those who 'know' and those who do not. This is why the sequence of (teacher) initiation - (pupil) response - (teacher) evaluation has emerged from so many research studies as the 'essential teaching exchange'<sup>1</sup> In whole-class questioning, it carries risks that a single right answer will be taken as representing a class-wide understanding and a single wrong answer as a common failure to get the point. }} | {{adaptedfrom|Purposes and characteristics of whole-class dialogue|DialogueIntro|The difficulties of defining dialogue begin with the question of how many can take part before it turns into something else. In ordinary conversation, the managing of turns is a shared responsibility, and competition for 'having one's say' in groups larger than, for example, half a dozen makes a diversion into parallel conversations very likely. Most classroom talk, in contrast, involves a centralised communication system. Teachers direct the talk by doing most of it themselves, combining lengthy exposition with many questions, allocating the right or obligation to answer those questions and evaluating the answers. The transmission of knowledge creates very unequal communicative rights to those who 'know' and those who do not. This is why the sequence of (teacher) initiation - (pupil) response - (teacher) evaluation has emerged from so many research studies as the 'essential teaching exchange'<sup>1</sup> In whole-class questioning, it carries risks that a single right answer will be taken as representing a class-wide understanding and a single wrong answer as a common failure to get the point. }} | ||
