Self: So if I write this as an internal dialogue, is it really a monologue?
I: And if there are three internal speakers, is dialogue actually the word to use?
Me: But loads of people use dialogue for conversation between more than two speakers don’t they?
Self: Back up, back up, why on earth do we want to talk about this word anyhow? We should start there.
Me: Right, right. Ok. Why do we want to talk about “dialogue”? I? You seem to have some ideas about that.
I: Two reasons. First, I keep saying that my teaching style is “dialogical”. I want to unpack that a bit. Second, I’ve got this conference paper on dialogue in children’s books teaching the Bible and theology, and I think more research in that area could be interesting.
Self: Hmm. Ok, so let’s talk about the teaching style thing first.
Me: Well, what do we mean when we say our teaching style is dialogical? What does an ideal classroom look like when teaching is dialogical?
I: That’s just it. An ideal dialogical classroom is not ideal at all in many ways.
Self: Yeah, everybody talks at once, lesson plans go out the window in the first five minutes, and the same idea gets hashed over so much it is dead by the time class is over.
Me: But that just means that the ideal dialogical classroom is different from other ideal classrooms.
I: Sometimes I think it should actually be the DIOBOLICAL classroom, instead of the DIALOGICAL classroom.
Me: Don’t interrupt. An ideal dialogical classroom is one with a small enough class (possibly fewer than 15 people in the room) to have a real conversation about the topic to be covered. A real conversation involves people listening well to one another, not just formulating their own fixed response to the points being made. It also involves a lot of preparation by everyone involved, not just the teacher. And teachers in this case are really facilitators.
I: But that is most of the problem isn’t it? No one prepares adequately. I might be prepared as the teacher or facilitator, but if no one else is prepared then everything goes sideways.
Self: Does it actually go sideways or just in random non-predicted directions?
Me: That’s the other thing about dialogical teaching. We need to be prepared for the unexpected, and allow things to go sideways if sideways is where the conversation goes.
I: I guess the thing I find frustrating is when it feels like I’m doing all the heavy lifting and things actually don’t so much go sideways as nowhere. Sideways could be interesting. Nowhere is not.
Self: Yeah and in all those conversation books, the adult or teacher manages to keep things going, either by telling the children or students when to stop being ridiculous, or by giving the information in the actual lesson.
I: No, not always, there’s that one book where Mother and Mary are discussing what Mary has read. Those are more like the ideal Me described. Plus there’s only the two characters. But the adults in those books do direct conversations pretty obviously. Can teachers ever direct conversation?
Me: Why not? If a teacher is a facilitator, then the facilitator’s job is to keep conversation going and keep it going in the agreed direction. The trick is getting an openly agreed upon direction, instead of the facilitator having a secret agenda direction.
Self: Hmmm. We need to think about this more. Can we actually have a dialogical teaching style in a large classroom setting?
I: And can I actually say my preferred style is dialogical?
Me: What about those conversational books? Do they provide guidance for this kind of teaching, or is it all about adult coercion?