Past, Present, and Future of Educational Research in Europe implies not only advancing knowledge on central educational issues, such as discourse uses in education, but also deepening into which research methods suit best the nature of the problem examined.

This panel explores the implications of successful uses of dialogue within diverse learning environments in the US and Spain. Each project conceptualizes the use of dialogue and “multivoicedness” as central to the constructs of learning and identity. Furthermore, it deepens into the importance of using dialogue in the interactions between researchers and participants as a tool to deepen in the understanding of dialogic learning and to gain coherence between the object of study and the methodological tools.

Presenter 1 shows how dialogism in Interactive Groups (IG) in a Spanish school is enhanced by the cultural funds of knowledge of Romani community volunteers, as well she stresses the importance of using communicative research methods to advance knowledge on dialogic learning in classroom settings. Presenter 2 chronicles the experiences of disenfranchised US high school students as they seek out dialogic spaces to advance their artistic pursuits. Presenter 3 investigates how ePortfolios are used in the university to create dialogic learning spaces for prospective U.S. teachers. Presenter 4 describes how the educational heart of critical reading of texts can be fruitfully understood as an attempt to disclose for the student how human practices are themselves disclosive.

Objectives

This panel provides empirical analyses of the meaning and processes of dialogic learning in different socio-cultural contexts in the US and Spain, as well as it shows the importance of the qualitative approach employed in these studies to gain coherence between the object of study (learning and developing identities through discourse) and the methodological tools used to examine such problem. It reveals possibilities and challenges of creating dialogic environments in classrooms and teacher education programs. Bakhtin’s (1986) concept of “heteroglossia” is adopted to address the overarching theme of “multivoicedness” in this panel.

Significance                                                                                

Through empirical evidence, this panel interrogates the efficacy of the theoretical concept of dialogic learning as enacted by students, teachers, and communities in diverse national contexts. It shows that quality learning environments in classrooms and teacher education programs can be achieved through inclusive dialogue among social actors. Also, foregrounding dialogue in a particular context moves us away from technical understandings of dialogue and towards a transformational conceptualization of inclusive education. This panel presents empirical examples of how the theory of dialogic learning is connected to practice in disparate locales. It also encourages educators and researchers to consider the applications of this approach in diverse contexts.

Structure and content

The session (90 minutes) will begin with a brief introduction by the chair and a summary of the commonalities between the studies presented regarding the research methods employed (10 minutes). Each presenter will describe their work (10 minutes/presenter), followed by 15 minutes of main methodological lessons learned from the four studies regarding the scientific study of issues on language and education, 10 minutes of critique by the discussant, and 15 final minutes for questions and dialogue with the audience. 

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. CREA. (2006-2011). INCLUD-ED. Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion from education in Europe 028603-2. Sixth Framework Programme. Priority 7: Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society. European Commission. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield. Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235-245. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London; New York: Routledge. Wells, G., & Mejía Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428. Coles, A.L.; Knowles, J.G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:ergin & Garvey Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 2nd Ed. London: Routledge/Falmer. Goodson, I & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings: learning from lives. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. McLeod, J. & Thomson, R. (2009). Researching social change. London: Sage. Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6 (3), 205-228. Wegerif, R. (2002). Walking or dancing? Models of learning to think in education. International Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13(1). 51-70. Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching & Teacher Education, 17 (5), 613-21.