Hello Everyone,

This is the first time I 've created a 'forum' topic so please forgive me if this is not what this is for. I guess this is call for feedback/help/suggestions or sharing of opinions=)

I am having some difficulty in articulating my views about 'dialogue' in writing. Though I know what dialogue is, what it feels like or looks like, im being challenged (and I'm open to challenge) to provide definitions and a framework for analysis (as I intend to explain the evidence of dialogue in data i.e transcriptions).

I believe that dialogue is about sharing personal views, ideas and theories (via text, symbols, meaning and exchanges with the freedom to express the rational or irrational and interests/needs) for the purpose of sharing, learning,communicating and doing. I agree with Freire (1979) that in classrooms, or in situations where learning and teaching drive social dynamics (to some extent), we must work on establishing/re-creating equitable participant dialogue constructed /persued in an ongoing way. i believe this requires an awareness of power relations and a conscious attention to the ways in which systems and traditional views of teaching and learning impact on the construction of knowledge, interests, ideologies,relations, lives and livelihood (what counts, who we are and whose interests are served influence history, context, ideology, politics, health etc). Giroux, McLaren, hooks and Shor would agree with these general ideas in my view. 

I believe that a valuable dialogue involves teachers and learners in respectful interactions, ones which inspire trust, love,respect and inquiry for learning/empowerment. A critical interrogation of ways of being and doing-as part of a journey to understand the self and world and possibly to act on it-for the betterment of society, is what Freire suggests as part of problemposing for deep learning/understanding and reflection. Without a critical approach to life and learning, I believe, 'conscientizacao' may be fragmented (via a form of ignorance).

When examining teacher and student talk in a context i've noted that talk can be asymmetrical, initiated by the student without being driven by question response/answer (IRE-intiation, response, evaluation) formats. I've noted the use of particular practices of discipline which seek to control behaviour and knowledge while hierarchically colonising participants'behavioour and what counts (privileging the teacher, the system, the priorities of some). Ive noted the types of questions that are formulated and who's doing the asking and why. I've noted the type of content/beliefs valued in the classroom. In the curriculum, the context where I've worked, I've noted the ways in which particular cultures count in the classroom and ive noted the types of culture  and language, of particular (dominant) groups, that are counted via stereotypes or beliefs that offer the student clientelle 'novelty' and 'entertainment'.

When writing up my analysis of transcriptions (for feedback) and having analysed instances 'critical incidents' where there's evidence of 'dialgogue' or hope (insipient degree)- I'm asked to SPECIFY what my view of dialogue' is and to give evidence of use of a framework for analysis (that is academically rigorous).

As a novice CP enthusiast, i hope you wouldven't mind sharing your views on this/these issues or whether you've found yourself in a similar place?