Don't be a sponge; Be dialogic

One very specific underlying theme that resonates within each of the three texts for today revolves around Bakhtin and dialogism in the classroom. Powell argues that the composition classroom is a place that requires students to engage with issues and questions that are often located outside their comfort zone. Powell quotes Bakhtin: “‘One’s own discourse is gradually and slowly wrought out of other’s words’ and inevitably ‘enters into an intense interaction, a struggle’ with other discourses, resulting in a dialogue that offers new meaning” (p. 161). With this “struggle” in mind, Brooke focuses on roles that students fill in the classroom, both prescribed by the academic environment, and the roles used to undermine the “expected” role. Similar to Bakhtin’s “struggle,” Brooke argues that “writing involves being able to challenge one’s assigned roles long enough that one can think originally; it involves living in conflict with accepted (expected) thought and action” (p. 141). In addition, Nystrand argues that “a dialogic perspective on discourse and learning starts with the premise, then, that discourse is essentially structured by the interaction of the conversants, with each playing a particular social role” (p. 8).

Okay, so the teacher should embody a role that is more equal than authoritative, while students should be knowledge-bringers/-interrogators/-makers rather than sponges that soak up prescribed information.

I wonder how difficult this is going to be? It seems so against what my students will be used to (assuming it’s what I went through for twelve years or so), and we all know how hard it is to break habits. I don’t think it will be that hard for me to play the dialogic role (assuming my lack of teaching allows me to start fresh), but I know it will/might be hard for students to accept a different kind of classroom. With underlife (and some of Durst’s experiences) in mind, even the most radical teaching style will probably result in a few students rebelling in some form or another. Assuming this happens, while I at least know why they might rebel/reject/ignore my teaching style, I’m curious as to how I should approach this. I’m worried that I’ll be put on the spot and not know what to say, and thus revert into mumbling something pathetic and rather incoherent. Or maybe I shouldn’t worry about it, and just accept that it happens to everyone and learn from it. I’ll try not to worry…

The distinction between monologic and dialogic instruction (see chart, Nystrand p. 19) helps to generate ways of tackling the shift from what we/the students have known as learning and teaching to the dialogic form of instruction. I think that using blogs, for example, not only allows for extended learning to take place, but also works dialogically because it requires each writer to generate knowledge and questions that respond to and interrogate past learning, current texts, and experience outside school. Other modes of writing may work in this manner, not only because they are “nontraditional” but also because their form may allow students to make meaning in ways they have been unable to do through traditional script writing. Not every student (or person for that matter) has the same learning style, therefore it may be that they do not share a preferred mode of writing and representation either.