This study presents a model for radical, dialogic, intersubjective education. Integrating the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Malcolm Knowles, Richard Arnett, and Paulo Freire, the article defines education in a hermeneutic, dialogic community. Dialogic instruction highlights relationships among teachers, students, and content. Content is the major emphasis of the instructional conversation. Dialogic instruction includes a sharing of power. The actions of a dialogic instructor can be understood on a continuum with an autocratic instructional style at one end and an overly permissive style on the other. In the middle of the continuum are dialogic-enabling behaviors, which make possible a radical pedagogy. The features of this style are listening and respect, direction, character building, and authority. Student comments provide examples of these features.
The article lays out a framework for intersubjective instruction informed by dialogic theorists such as Hans-Georg Gadamer (1982: 1960), Richard Arnett (1986, 1992), Paulo Freire (1972), and also theorists of adult learning such as Malcolm Knowles (1990) and Jane Vella (1995, 2002). Dialogic instruction promises many benefits—engagement of learners and teachers, relevance, the infusion of democratic values in the educative process, the building of character, and the establishment of a community for the educative enterprise (Dewey, 1981; Friere, 1972). Many teachers at all levels of education may wish to infuse dialogic features into their instruction, but they may lack clarity about such a terrain.
Dialogue is a topic as old as Classical Greece. Socrates is reported as using dialogic questioning in teaching (Plato, 1999). However, this dialectic method is far different from the theories of dialogue evolved during the twentieth century by the thinkers cited above and by Martin Buber (2005). Socrates’ method featured a power imbalance and the master being always right. Socrates ended the dialogue knowing approximately what he knew at the outset, little or nothing more. The radical approach presented in this essay describes a change of power relations toward egalitarianism in the classroom where all parties are open to learning.
Theorists write about the emancipation of individuals. For example, the life-long project of Michel Foucault was to problematize power and social relations (Bernauer & Ramussen, 1994). Foucault referred to himself as a teacher. However, it is ironic that Foucoult’s method of teaching was the lecture. Lecture is centered on the teacher, and does not reveal the power or voice of students. Dialogic community involves the voice of all participants. In this article, I include the voices of students in describing practices that change power relations in the instructional conversation.
Our society is concerned with the performance of our schools at all levels from preschool through higher education. Many fault educators for lax standards and poor performance. However warranted the examination of standards, there remain other causes of poor performance in schools. Other contributions to poor performance include alienation, poor relationships, and a lack of community. In the words of educators writing on the topic of relationship in education: “The low expectations, breakdown of social order, and academic failure are only symptoms of the much deeper problem of alienation” (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004. p. 6).
This article unfolds definitions of intersubjectivity relevant to education, to community, to learning, and to teaching. Then, the article explores the activity of teaching in a dialogic community with four major features— listening and respect, direction, character building, and authority. Comments by students from different countries in classes where I was the teacher illustrate these features. The article also presents a continuum of instructional roles beginning with autocratic behaviors at one end and coursing to overly permissive behaviors at the other. In the middle of the continuum are dialogic (or hermeneutic) behaviors productive of intersubjective relations.
In dialogic education, students, teachers, and content are related intersubjectively. Different disciplines have contributed to the understanding of such relations. One source for understanding the intersubjective nature of instruction is the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer (1982: 1960; Smith, 1993). Gadamer proposed a dialogical mode of knowing through shared conversation regarding the interpretation of texts.
An educational community is intersubjective in nature when all parties relate to one another as having a sense of agency and a unique perspective. In such a community there is not a knowing subject (e.g., the teacher) and a known object (e.g., the student or the content of instruction). Rather, all three elements—the teacher, the student, and the content—relate in an intersubjective, interpretive community. In this community, roles such as teacher and student are still significant. However, the nature of the dialogic conversation changes power relations in contrast to conventional pedagogy. Particularly, the nature of the conversation is such that the students become agents in the hermeneutic community. Students’ roles change from being passive learners to becoming co-creators. In expressing his or her perspective, a student co-creates along with other students and the teacher a shared world in which difference is expressed and respected. Power is shared mutually in this co-created community.
George Herbert Mead also contributed to a model of the intersubjective nature of relations in education (Biesta, 2004). Mead’s course on the philosophy of education at the University of Chicago included the description of a co-orientational community “communication . . . [is] a process in which, through the coordination of action, meanings are shared and a common world is brought into existence” (Biesta, 2004; p. 15). This idea parallels Richard Arnett’s visions of a dialogic community (1992) or Gadamer’s vision of a hermeneutic community. In such a community, partners must cooperate to establish a mutual world in which they may or may not agree. What is important is how partners must coordinate to establish meaning between them selves (Pearce and Pearce, 2004). Communication and meaning are established between people.
Of course the primary mission of education is to deliver content knowledge in specific disciplines, programs, and courses. However, in addition to the what of communication (information), practices in the how of educational process as well as shared inquiry regarding the why of practice augment content. Relations of the teacher with content and the teacher with student form an integral part of the instructional process. Also crucial is the relation between student and student. Indeed, these relations affect students’ relation with the content and the content itself. Overall, these relations are formulated, maintained, and altered through conversation. Figure 1 shows these three intersubjective elements.
Figure 1: The Intersubjective Relationships where Teachers, Students, and Content all Have Perspectives in a Hermeneutic Community
The relationship between the teacher and student affects the relationship either has with the content of instruction. For example, a student who dislikes a teacher may be encouraged also to dislike the content. A teacher who dislikes a student may present the content in a different manner with different details and consequently affect the relationships among all parties in the conversation.
Gadamer laid out principles for conversations through which the interpretation of texts can be accomplished in a hermeneutic (or dialogic) community. For Gadamer, a hermeneutic community engages in praxis—dialogic conversations about concrete actions and reflections upon them taking place within a context of historic truths also open to inquiry. Dialogic conversations take place between equals (fellow subjects). Hence, dialogue is intersubjective. Subject matter is shared among interlocutors not as an object but as a subject with its own particular perspective. Interpretation is open-ended inquiry and not a search of unalterable, objective truth.
Perhaps drawing on the work of Martin Buber (1923, 1958), Gadamer saw dialogic partners in an I-thou relation rather than an I-it, objective relation. In an I-thou relation, each partner listens to the other with the possibility that what the other person says may be true. Partners are vulnerable both in their expression of self as well as in their openness to encountering new understanding and ideas. The teacher is no longer the master in charge of all knowing. The teacher is a co-learner with the students.
Again, the primary mission of education is to deliver subject matter within a discipline. According to Gadamer, the conversation must focus on the subject matter under discussion. The meaning emerges from the hermeneutical dialogue attending the text rather than from the subjectivity of the partners. To be sure, ideological and historical assumptions color the views of dialogic interlocutors. Such prejudice is inevitable. However, partners must be open to new understandings, indeed, their prejudices (and in particular: differences in prejudices) inform the conversation and create potentials for new understanding.
The field of adult learning also contributes to a dialogic understanding of instruction (Knowles, 1990; Freire, 1972; Vella, 1995, 2002). Knowles makes a distinction between pedagogy, which implies the education of a child, and andragogy—the education of adults. Andragogy is dialogical and has the following features (Knowles, 1990; Vella, 1995):
Building on the work of Martin Buber, communication scholar Richard Arnett (1992) explains dialogic education as character building through shared conversation in a community. In other words, the how of the education process (the nature of the conversation) as well as who the partners become are essential to what is learned.
Understanding the between-ness of the learning conversation draws on the symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead and on the work of John Dewey (Biesta, 2004). Also, both of these educational theorists explained how communication contributes to the constitution of self in the educational process.
Education theorists have added to our understanding of how intersubjectivity enhances pedagogy (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004). As in adult learning, central concerns are intrinsic motivation, enhanced self-esteem, caring, and variance in teaching methods. The idea is to let the relation lead the way rather than ideology even if paradoxes emerge. “For example, a teacher who has established a relation with a particular student may understand that the student needs more structure and even coercion than the teacher would like to give. The recognition of relation, not a fixed ideal of teaching, steers the teacher’s choice of methods.” (p. vii).
The experience of a teacher in dialogic education can be paradoxical. The teacher in dialogue with students neither wants to lose their voice nor does she or he want to muffle the voices of students. The dialogic teacher needs to be an authentic scholar, yet still needs to be vulnerable to the voices of others. The challenges are many. For example, teachers in a hermeneutic community need to be intense listeners but may find themselves at times failing to listen well to others. In this segment, I explain the role of the dialogic teacher using four major features: 1) listening and respect, 2) directing the conversation, 3), character building, and 4) authority. These features distribute along a continuum of instruction, which is summarized later in this article in Figure 2. This continuum has autocratic instruction at one end and overly permissive instruction at the other. Autocratic instruction imposes content on the students who often passively accept it and retreat into non-engagement. Overly permissive instruction includes soft relativism in which all views are equal and none are held with passion or preference. In the middle of the continuum is dialogic-enabling instruction, which is productive of hermeneutic community. This is the area of conversation Martin Buber (1965) called “the narrow ridge” where intersubjective conversation generates knowing and personal relations in community.
Listening is pivotal in relationship development, and there are many aspects of listening creative of intersubjective relations. Key is how the instructor listens to students. Conversation is the basis for a hermeneutical community, and listening is the basis for the instructional conversation (Coakley & Wolvin, 1997). The quality of listening in a class setting is affected deeply by the listening of the instructor. Intense listening by the instructor as well as intervention by the instructor to teach listening affects the manner in which students listen to the subject matter, to the teacher, and to each other. Particularly in communication courses, the teacher is in the enviable position of being able to teach and talk about listening itself. Coakley and Wolvin (1997), referring to K-12 education, claimed that parents were also significant partners in helping students learn to listen.
Respect is inherent in dialogic-enabling instruction, which invites dialogic listening. The word respect has Latin roots meaning to look again. Respect for another requires careful observation. Bill Isaacs in his book, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, wrote “To respect someone is to look for the springs that feed the pool of their experience” (1999, p. 110).
One challenge facing instructors is the diversity of learning styles in the classroom (Mamcher, 1996). Not only do students vary in intellect and motivation, they also vary in how they process information, in perception. According to learning style researchers, extroverts want to work ideas out publicly while introverts want time to think about ideas alone. Down-to-earth people want concrete facts and deadlines while intuitive persons want freedom to work on projects. More cognitive types want rules and completion while those who perceive more emotionally want harmony and support. Those with a tendency to evaluate want tight standards while those who naturally perceive all perspectives want freedom. Respect is a significant help in addressing all these varying needs in the classroom, regardless of the style of the teacher.
Respect is essential to effective listening. Yet, often we are quick to judge others rather than hear them out. We rush in to fight before we understand and express our respect for the other. Many claim we live at a time when the quality of respect is decreasing (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1999). Our societies are marked by a loss of everyday civility and courtesy. Road rage, parking anger, everyday violence, and political and religious polarization are on the rise. Perhaps also our ability to respect one another interpersonally is diminishing.
There are ways teachers can increase respect in the classroom. Ruthellen Josselson in her book, The Space Between Us: Exploring the Dimensions of Human Relationships, explains how mutual respect is fundamental to relationships:
“This ‘moving with’ (as opposed to ‘getting ahead of’ or ‘gaining control of’) others has not been encouraged. It is clear that we have come to the edge of our capacity as a species to wield power over one another or to solve problems with force and domination. Either we live interdependently or we all vanish. Our survival necessitates seeing what connects us, looking at what occupies the space between” (p. 93).
There are skills and insights that increase respect for other people. The first skill is to listen to the whole person.Often, we are quick to judge another person by just part of what they say, which is literal listening. We take a particular thing they say, or we focus on a particular literal opinion they express, and we miss other aspects—feelings, relationships, paradoxes, mysteries, and complexities. We make a mistake by reacting to others without respect.
Carl Rogers (1961, 1977) was an influential therapist who wrote about unconditional positive regard, which is the perception that people are basically good. Unconditional positive regard is an other-orientation of appreciation and respect without judgment or evaluation. Another aspect of unconditional positive regard is acceptance of the other person as they are.
Many people find acceptance of another difficult, particularly when the other person appears to have vastly different beliefs or appears to do something reprehensible. At these times unconditional positive regard is a challenge. One way of going about respecting someone with whom we may differ is to be empathic. Empathy is the ability to see from the other person’s point of view. Even the most seemingly reprehensible people at least justify their actions to themselves. We don’t have to agree with them or even like them. But we can challenge ourselves to respect them as being human and sharing with all other human beings the universal trait of trying to survive the best way they have figured out so far.
A third skill in developing respect is to find our mutuality with others, particularly in those who annoy us. It is not too difficult to respect those whom we naturally admire, but it is a challenge to respect those people who annoy us.Respecting people who annoy us can be important, particularly for those of us who tend to be judgmental, which probably is most of us.
There is a lot in common between ourselves and the world we live in, and there is a lot in common between ourselves and the people we meet. This is true in an important way with those people who annoy us. Isaacs (1999) points out that there is an underlying wholeness or coherence to life.
When we perceive something in the world such as someone’s behavior we do not like, we say to ourselves, “This, too, is in me.” This perception turns the tables on the common assumption “The enemy is out there.” Rather, we gather insight from the well-known Pogo cartoon by Walt Kelly, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”
As Isaacs states, “Whatever the behavior we hear in another, whatever struggle we see in them, we choose to look for how these same dynamics operate in ourselves” (p. 124). For example, another person who just joined your group of old pals may express their distain for the degree to which people in the group are unfriendly or “stuck up.” You could take offense, but you wait a moment. As the origins of the word respect mean, you look again. You can see perhaps that they are in need of being accepted. You see also your own need to be accepted and also the times when you feel like an outsider. You may ask this person, “Sometimes I feel like an outsider, not accepted by the groups I work with. Is this how you feel? Can you tell me about how you feel personally about what it’s like to be an outsider?” Such questions on your part, if sincere, can alter conversations and relationships away from isolation and toward respect.
A fourth insight that can shift conversations away from acrimony and toward respect is relating to others as teachers. Each conversation and relationship we have with others is an opportunity to learn. Even if others seem strange, we can learn from them, particularly if we respect the possibility that there is something in them from which we can learn. Respect has a symmetrical quality, a dual perspective, which makes every encounter an opportunity for growth. The topic of respect involves the additional qualities of forgiveness and forbearance. Respect has a moral underpinning (Lickona, 1983) and “does not burst forth, fully formed [but] instead develops slowly . . . moral development, like all other forms of human development, begins in love” (p. 40). Or, as Jane Roland Martin once wrote, “The ability to take the point of view of another is a basic element of morality itself” (In Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1999, p. 236).
Members in an American graduate class on the topic of organizational communication gave some interesting commentary regarding listening and respect. In this class we were reading and talking about theories and practices of dialogue. We took some time to go round the room asking each person to tell their own story about a difficulty and breakthrough they had experienced in their life. Afterwards and even much later, the students remarked on the experience. Comments included, “We each took a turn and we went deeper and deeper. The listening and trust were intense. Each person talked about astonishing moments in their lives.” “The atmosphere in the room changed as each person told their story. It showed how dialogue works.” I have found that not each invitation to dialogue leads to a remarkable conversation. However, some invitations lead to extraordinary conversations no one could have anticipated.
In summary, listening and respect are features of a hermeneutic community influenced by a dialogic-enabling teacher. Autocratic teachers tend not to listen to students and tend to be defensive when encountering disagreement. Overly permissive teachers also fail to create a class climate in which difference can be explored.
Dialogic practices feature the uniqueness of each teacher and student. Such an approach is not prescriptive of imitation (Arnett, 1992). Each person has her or his own unique style of teaching and of learning. In dialogic education, the conversational playing field is leveled in some ways and not in others. The teacher is still an authority on the subject matter and on the direction and on the content. The role of the teacher remains distinct.
The dialogic instructor needs to have a powerful sense of self. It takes courage to embrace the risks of dialogue. Students may disagree or find the instructor strange, perhaps even weak. Students may disagree among themselves. Being real in a personal relation with students requires what Martin Buber called the essential courage (2005). The dialogic instructor must share his or her voice appropriately with students. Appropriately means the teacher does not have to express everything, just what will fulfill the particular conversation. Knowing what to say and what not to say requires insight—knowing what will fulfill the shared purposes in the conversation.
Also essential is the instructor’s vulnerability to the voices of others. One form of vulnerability is sincere appreciation of the experience of others. If the content allows, then time for the students to explore their own creativity and thinking is effective practice. As one Canadian graduate student in one of our classes in interpersonal communication wrote, “What I appreciated about this class was the opportunity to reflect on my own life. We spend most of the time studying the thinking of others.” An African student in intercultural communication wrote, “This was the best class so far. It was difficult at times because we have not been asked before to be so creative. Still we need to follow our visions.” At times the vulnerability of the dialogic instructor consists of accepting a point of view that is contrary to their own cherished beliefs. A Belarusian student once said in evaluating a group dialogue session, “We have a different way. I prefer to use dialogue with a friend. Dialogue doesn’t work in a group because some people will dominate and don’t listen well to the others. Also, some people in a group like to be quiet.”
In dialogue, each party is open to discovering new knowledge and perspective through the conversation. When we experience such conversations of discovery, we find new ways of looking at the world. This can be contrasted with the ideology of the autocratic instructor. Also, this can be contrasted with the “milk toast” form of soft relativism of the overly permissive instructor who does not care to discover difference. Also, the overly permissive instructor’s voice could be muted or dominated by powerful others. In contrast, the teacher’s voice in the dialogic classroom is enabling of all partners’ voices along the narrow ridge of community, which leads to the next topic, authority.
Richard Arnett (1992), following the work of Martin Buber, argued that formalized roles and responsibilities are not alien to dialogue. On the one hand, in a dialogic classroom, elements of voice are equal among all partners. Each person expresses their ideas germane to content, not only about the information level but also on the level of values—what do these ideas mean for human beings, and what ought to be done concerning these ideas? However, in the dialogical classroom, not everyone has an identical role. Roles can be explicit and distinct. An instructor is an authority figure whether they want to be or not. The best roles for the instructor are: 1) director and designer of the conversation, 2) authority and expertise with the subject matter, 3) inviter and guarantor of the conversational principles of hermeneutic community, and 4) co-learner.
There is a distinction between autocratic instruction and authority. In autocracy, dissent is punished or at least dismissed. The instructor may be an up-do-date scholar, or they may not. The least dialogic combination may be out-of-date content imposed by an autocrat. An example is to be found in some places in the former Soviet Union where, as of this writing, some instructors are still imposing Communist ideology out of habit and an inability to change curriculum.
In contrast, dialogic authority is the expression of expertise inviting a response that may be different. Such authority relies on up-to-date scholarship and expertise regarding the content of instruction. Yet, such authority includes the tentativeness that ought to be the nature of any discipline generating knowledge. Such authority invites other views, acknowledges them, and responds to them in an open dialogue.
On one occasion with an American graduate class, I facilitated a dialogue without a particular topic. Students were encouraged to explore the difference in the room. The idea was to work through the differences, to learn, and to create new understanding together. The conversation became intense as two students—one a male manager and the other a female manager—began to confront each other on the topic of female roles in society. As students said afterwards, “We learned about how different we are.” The male manager said, “I felt exposed, but I wanted to talk about what I really believe.” The female manger said, “I learned about the thinking of someone so different from myself.” The role of the instructor in such an exchange is not to take sides. The role is to facilitate the guidelines and insights of the dialogic community.
In the overly permissive classroom, the instructor is largely without authority. Soft relativism prevails--all views are equal in value. The situation worsens again if the instructor’s scholarship and content are not expert and up-to-date. Further, in an overly permissive context, the instructor does not create (or intervene to maintain) the context of intersubjective conversation. For example, a student who dehumanizes another for their contradictory views may not be challenged on their process. Another example would be an instructor who insists on students finding common ground rather than encountering real difference or otherness (Deetz & Simpson, 2004), which brings us to the feature of directing the conversation.
The teacher’s role is to set the context through dialogic behaviors as he or she orients students to content and presents content. Such a teacher needs to be vulnerable to change and also to risk relevant aspects of self in the instructional context. Through modeling and teaching the dialogic teacher facilitates the conversation. Facilitation involves intervention to keep the conversation on track and to protect the rights of learners and themselves. The dialogic instructor sets the direction of the content and sets the method of learning.
Such teaching walks along a narrow ridge and establishes itself between two extremes—autocracy and over-permissiveness. Figure 2 shows this continuum. Autocratic instruction has been vilified as pedagogy by theorists of adult education (Knowles, 1990). Such instruction is centered on the instructor as the subject and the student and content as objects.
For intersubjective dialogue to occur, the instructor plays a major but not the only role. Arnett (1992) claimed that the best an instructor can do is invite dialogue. An instructor cannot require students to engage in dialogue. Even Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics avoids prescribing dialogical practices and intentionally describes them instead.
Mezirow (1996) postulated that the educator is best when a collaborator in learning, and “tries to work his or herself out of the job of facilitator to become a collaborative learner, contributing her experience to arriving at a best consensual judgment” (p. 171). Working through a topic dialogically, participants come to share a world and think together even if they do not all agree.
Other adult educators pose views consistent with Mezirow. For example, Freire (1972) and Vella (1995) believed the role of instructors to be “problem posing.” Instructors pose problems relevant to the aspirations of participants. Through discourse, participants bring their own experience to bear on the educative process.
On one occasion, I wanted to conserve my failing voice and decided to be silent for a class. I entered the classroom and wrote on the board that I would be silent except for writing. I wrote some questions to start the conversation and requested that they take over the dialogue. A remarkable conversation began. One student later wrote, “I really liked the class where the professor was silent and the students talked. We had a chance to express our selves. I wish we would do this more in our classes.” This incident may sound self-effacing on my part. However, it does demonstrate the principle of directing the conversation. I provided guidance through the questions on the board, and the students ably took over.
Figure 2: Autocratic, Dialogic-Enabling, and Overly-Permissive Instruction
This essay presented a model for intersubjective, dialogic instruction. This model emphasizes the relationships between students and teachers and the relationship to the content of instruction. The content of instruction is central to the mission of educational institutions and remains the focus of instruction. However, the how of instruction, its process, and a shared inquiry into the significance and the evaluation of content are the radical contributions of dialogic education.
The major charge of the dialogic instructor is to engage students in content while creating a context for a conversation that was described herein as hermeneutical, or intersubjective. Creating this context is no easy task and is perhaps a task that is essentially paradoxical. To explain the paradox, this essay presented a continuum of instructional styles with autocratic at one end and overly permissive at the other. To reconcile this conundrum, the essay proposes a style of instruction titled dialogic-enabling. In this style, the instructor’s voice reconciles authority with vulnerability. The instructor models and generates intense listening in the conversation. The instructor is an up-to-date scholar and expert in the subject matter. Also, the instructor sets and guides the group along a direction aimed at mastering the content.
In all of these moves, the instructor’s character is on the line. The process behind the acquisition of content is a process of character building by all parties. The character of the dialogical instructor is radical in its courage and in its humility. The instructor must constantly reflect on his or her integrity and instructional practice. When developed enough, the character of the instructor will generate parallel character development in some students. Thus, a meaningful contact is made along with the engagement of content.
University teaching is a terrain of deep significance for those who continue to pursue excellence as instructors. It has not been my intention in this essay to suggest that all instructors ought to take the road of hermeneutical community. Such imitation could well be counter productive if an instructor tried to be someone he is not and probably should not try to become.
However, I believe the practices outlined in this essay are a help to any who want to encourage open and meaningful discussion in a classroom. Also, I hope this essay has outlined, at least in a brief fashion, some of the key features of dialogic instruction.
Arnett, R. (1986). Communication and community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Arnett, R. (1992). Dialogic education: Conversations about ideas and between persons. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bernauer, J, and Rasmussen, D. (Eds). (1994). The final Foucault. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994.
Bingham, C., & A. Sidorkin. (Eds.). (2004). No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang.
Biesta, G. (2004). “Mind the Gap!” Communication and Educational Relation. In Bingham, C., & A. Sidorkin. (Eds.). No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang. p. 11-22.
Buber, M. (1923, 1958). I and thou. (R. Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Buber, M. (2005). Elements of the interhuman. In J. Stewart (Ed). Bridges not walls (pp. 668-679). 10 th Ed., New York: McGraw Hill.
Buber, M. (1965). The knowledge of man: A philosophy of the interhuman. New York: Harper and Row.
Coakley, C., & Wolvin, A. (1997). Listening in the educational environment. In Purdy, M., & Borisoff, D. (Eds.). Listening in Everyday Life: A Personal and Professional Approach (2 nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. p. 161-181.
Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical organizational dialogue: Open formation and the demand of “otherness”. In Anderson, R., Baxter, L., & K. Cissna. (Eds.). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. p. 141-158.
Dewey, J. (1981). John Dewey: The later works. Vol. I. (Jo Ann Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Freire, Paulo. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
Gadamer, H.G. (1982). Truth and method. (B. Barden & J. Cumming, Trans.). New York: Crossroad.
Isaacs, William. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Currency.
Josselson, Ruthhellen. (1996). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knowles, M. (1990). Adult learning. (4 th Ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1999). Respect: An exploration. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Lickona, Thomas. (1983). Raising good children: Helping your child through the stages of moral development. New York: Bantam.
Mamcher, C. (1996). A teacher’s guide to cognitive type theory and learning style. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly 46(3). 158-173.
Pearce, W., & Pearce, K. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In Anderson, R., Baxter, L., & K. Cissna. (Eds.). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. p. 39-56.
Plato. (1999). The Phaedrus. (Jowett, B. Trans). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Purdy, M., & Borisoff, D. (Eds.). (1997). Listening in Everyday Life: A Personal and Professional Approach (2 nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Rogers, Carl. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, Carl. (1977). Carl Rogers on Personal Power. New York: Delacorte Press.
Smith, A. (1993). Intersubjectivity and community: Some implications from Gadamer’s philosophy for religious education. Religious Education. 88-3. p. 378-393.
Vella, J. (1995). Training through dialogue. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, Learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
© Radical Pedagogy