Abstract
In this chapter, I continue developing the concept of “dialogic analysis” in social sciences aimed at studying authorial subjectivity rather than studying objective subjectivity as the positivist analysis does. Based on Bakhtin’s insights about the necessity to account voices in social sciences, a case is made for dialogic analysis of dialogic pedagogy, in which researchers’ mind and heart involved in producing authorial judgments about observed, experienced, and interviewed educational practice of dialogic pedagogy. I applied dialogic analysis for a turning event of my own teaching to analyze why it felt “turning” for its participants. The issue of the teacher’s prioritization of students’ themes emerging in classroom dialogue is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All class sessions were audiotaped for students who missed the class could listen the class discussion if they chose that. The analysis below involved transcription of a portion of the audio record.
- 2.
A colleague of mine who allows free attendance to his big lecture class told me that on average out of 100 students about 10 show up in his lectures.
- 3.
At the end of each class meeting the students were required to write a brief “exit reflection” answering questions on what they have learned, their feedback comments on the class meeting itself, their proposals on what to study next, etc.
- 4.
Being raised and socialized in conventional monologic schooling as a student and then a teacher, I view myself as a forever authoritarian monologic teacher who tries to do dialogic pedagogy (similar to the Alcoholic Anonymous approach to “sober alcoholics,” see Matusov, 2001).
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1991). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2013). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogic pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Marjanovic-Shane, A., Meacham, S., Choi, H. J., Lopez, S., & Matusov, E. (2017). Idea-dying in critical ontological democratic dialogue in classrooms. Invited submission for the special issue on “Dialogical approaches to learning: epistemological, ontological and axiological dimensions”. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.
Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00002-6.
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Matusov, E. (2015). Legitimacy of non-negotiable imposition in diverse approaches to education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 3, A174–A211. Retrieved from http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/110/105.
Matusov, E. (2017). Severe limitations of the poietic individual mind. Review of the book. Review of the book [Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.] Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, R1–R8, https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.178. Retrieved from http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/178/135.
Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2017). Promoting students’ ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, E1–E29, https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.199. Retrieved from https://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/199.
Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Gradovski, M. (2019). Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators. New York: Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58057-3.
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–E62, https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.272. Retrieved from http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/272/183.
Matusov, E., & von Duyke, K. (2010). Bakhtin’s notion of the internally persuasive discourse in education: Internal to what? (A case of discussion of issues of foul language in teacher education). In K. Junefelt & P. Nordin (Eds.), Proceedings from the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin Stockholm University, Sweden June 3–5, 2009 (pp. 174–199). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Nikulin, D. V. (2010). Dialectic and dialogue. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Paley, V. G. (1992). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tobin, J. J., Davidson, D. H., & Wu, D. Y. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Acknowledgements
After I finished a more or less satisfactory competed draft of this chapter, I wrote to my former students to provide their feedback that I included in the paper in <<>> brackets. In addition, I asked some of my colleagues for their feedback and I also included their comments in the text of the chapter. The purpose of doing that was to deepen my dialogic analysis by providing more voices that address to and response on my text. Except the last comment by Tina Kullenberg, I chose not to reply to these comments, making them “the last word” before readers hopefully join our dialogue. I am thankful to 4 of my students, participants of studied events,—Tonya, Esther, Olga, and Shakhnoza (all names of the students in the chapter are pseudonyms)—for commenting on my analysis, which I included as a part of the dialogic analysis. Also, I want to thank Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Tina Kullenberg, and Kelly Curtis for their feedback and comments on my prior drafts and suggestions for improvements.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Matusov, E. (2020). Dialogic Analysis of a Lesson on the Educational Controversies of Religious Holidays in a Dialogic Multi-regime College Classroom. In: Lopes-de-Oliveira, M., Branco, A., Freire, S. (eds) Psychology as a Dialogical Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44772-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44772-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44771-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44772-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)