Abstract
In this paper, we extend Bakhtin's ethical philosophical ideas to education and introduce a dialogic authorial agency espoused approach. We then consider this approach in opposition to the mainstream technological espoused approach, while focusing our contrasting analysis on student’s authorial agency and critical dialogue. We argue that the technological approach assumes that the "skills" or "knowledge" are garnered in pursuit of preset curricular endpoints (i.e., curricular standards). Since the goals of the technological approach are divorced from the students’ personal goals, values, and interests, they are incompatible and irreconcilable with what we idealize as the true goal of education, education for agency. The authorial agency approach to education (Dialogic Education For and From Authorial Agency) emphasizes the unpredictable, improvisational, eventful, dialogic, personal, relational, transcending, and ontological nature of education. The authorial agency of the student and of the teacher are valued and recognized by all participants as the primary goal of education – supported by the school system and broader society. The approach defines education as a learner’s leisurely pursuit of critical examination of the self, the life, and the world in critical dialogue. The purpose of authorial agency pedagogy is to facilitate this process by promoting students’ agency and unique critical voices in socially desired practices – critical voices, recognized by the students themselves and others relevant to the particular practice(s). Ultimately, in the authorial education for and from authorial agency, students are led into investigating and testing their ideas and desires, assuming new responsibilities and developing new questions and concerns. Finally, we describe and analyze the first author’s partially successful and partially failing attempt to enact a dialogic authorial approach. It will allow the reader to both visualize and problematize a dialogic authorial approach. We will consider a case with a rich “e-paper trail” written by 11 undergraduate, pre-service teacher education students (mostly sophomores), and the instructor (Peter, the first author, pseudonym) in a course on cultural diversity. The case focuses on the university students (future teachers) and their professor discussing several occasions that involved interactions between Peter and one minority child in an afterschool center. Our research questions in this empirical study were aimed at determining the successes, challenges, and failures of the dialogic authorial pedagogical approach and conditions for them
Highlights
Purpose of Peter’s college courseThe goal of the Diversity in Community Contexts course was for preservice teachers – mostly middle class, white and suburban females – to learn how to build good relations with mostly Latino/a minority urban working class children
We argue that our notion of Dialogic Education For and From Authorial Agency (DEFFAA) – i.e., education focusing on promoting the student’s authorial agency in a critical dialogue as the main purpose of the teaching and learning practice, – is incompatible with having preset curricular endpoints (Taubman, 2009)
A dialogic authorial pedagogical approach starts with a certain quality of the teacher being with the student
Summary
The goal of the Diversity in Community Contexts course was for preservice teachers – mostly middle class, white and suburban females – to learn how to build good relations with mostly Latino/a minority urban working class children. Unlike what could be experienced in a traditional school practicum, the afterschool site where the program was located had an open-ended structure, in which children and preservice teachers have opportunities to engage in activities, which are of interest to the children and where children can reveal their strengths (Matusov & Smith, 2011).. The course aimed to provide opportunities to the future teachers (12 female, 1 male) to engage with the children in playing games, conducting technology and art projects, and so on. The class provided a safe learning environment for both university students and afterschool minority children. The teaching curriculum of the class was constituted by the instructor’s (Peter’s) dialogic provocations around the preplanned list of topics and by emergent issues at the practicum that both the instructor and the students brought to the class and web discussions weekly mini-projects and the final project for the class
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.