Abstract
In some approaches to dialogic pedagogy research, authentic questions have long attracted attention, since the prevalence of authentic questions has been used as an indicator of the dialogic quality of classroom activities. However, this article offers an analysis of the concept of authentic questions in the research literature and shows that this concept is less clear than is commonly assumed. For instance, descriptions and definitions offered are very heterogeneous even within particular studies, and classifications of authentic questions vary across research literature. The analysis identifies four different, implicit conceptual elements in “authentic question” — some of which cannot be reconciled. The analysis also identifies an important underlying theme, namely mutual recognition and respect, in descriptions of authentic questions. Accordingly, the article concludes with the recommendation that future research on authentic questions includes this theme explicitly in reflections on the identification of authentic questions.
Highlights
In some approaches to dialogic pedagogy research, authentic questions have long attracted attention, since the prevalence of authentic questions has been used as an indicator of the dialogic quality of classroom activities
We need to identify “the magical ingredient” as well to clearly define what makes authentic questions authentic. Whether this is at all possible would require further studies, but a closer look at the research literature suggests that particular variants of authentic questions are implicitly treated as more significant, namely variants related to recognizing the student as a person
As research in dialogic pedagogy has shown us, it is necessary to be more precise in what constitutes actual dialogue and what merely looks like it
Summary
Conceptual analysis can help distinguish between the various layers of meaning attached to the concept of “authentic questions” by comparing explicit and implicit definitions, descriptions and examples in order to identify contradictions, examine possible counterexamples, or possible reconciling interpretations. The difference between the epistemic and social aspects of authentic questions is that the first is concerned with the need to know the answer to the question, while the second is about social relatedness in the form of an interest in the person who is giving the answer This social aspect can be seen in descriptions of authentic questions as those where “teachers take students seriously” In contrast to questions such as “What is his name?,” “How much gold is in the world?” or “What is your view on the election?,” all of which have specific answers that the teacher perhaps just happens to not know, authentic questions in this description are concerned with deeper, philosophical puzzles such as “What is freedom?” or “Is freedom more important than having a job and economic stability?” The following sections show additional reasons that the concept of authentic questions is less clear than is commonly assumed within this research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
