Chapter 4.2: Regrets About Our Polyphonic Dialogic Research
Here we summarize the major limitations and regrets we experienced in our project. We discuss three different conceptualizations of polyphony and dialogue, each of them accepting one aspect of our research (polyphony or dialogue) as more prominent than the other. In terms of the recruitment of the participants for this project, we may have failed to attract more participants with a strong discursive dialogism approach, and thus failed to focus on potentially important pedagogical issues inherent in this approach. In addition, since we were not present in the actual pedagogical events described by our participants, we may have dealt more with the “espoused theories” than with the “theories-in-action” of our Bakhtinian educators. We were also surprised and disappointed by the limited scale of dialogues about the teaching cases on the online forum we organized. We discuss different reasons that may have limited such a discussion.
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Lensmire, T. J. (1997). The teacher as Dostoevskian novelist. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(3), 367–392.Google Scholar
- Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
- Morson, G. S., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tobin, J. J., Davidson, D. H., & Wu, D. Y. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Yazdanpanah, N. (2015). Pedagogy of addressivity: Peace education as evaluation. In C. Del Felice, A. Karako, & A. Wisler (Eds.), Peace education evaluation: Learning from experience and exploring prospects (pp. 273–286). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar