Harriet Levenston 14.5.

15

Teaching Philosophy

The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect upon my time as first-year Philosophy tutor for
three tutorials at the University of New South Wales. I aimed to teach in a way that was
understandable, interactive and fun, and was consistently mindful of being an approachable and
supportive tutor. To facilitate these two objectives, I taught in a primarily dialogic way. Dialogic
teaching, which centres on dialogue, especially lends itself to the discussion-based tutorial set-up.
It also ensures that students genuinely philosophise. In this paper, I explain what dialogic
teaching entails, and what it theoretically achieves, integrating my own reflections where relevant.
I contrast dialogic teaching with monologic teaching to demonstrate how the former is far more
useful at stimulating active learning and critical thinking.1 I then explore how dialogic teaching
can be realistically put into practice, evaluating two self-devised exercises for this purpose.

Monologic versus dialogic teaching

Monologic and dialogic communicative styles diverge in both method and intention. Put simply,
monologic communication consists primarily of a monologue, while dialogic communication
entails dialogue. Monologic teaching translates to the teacher serving as the authoritative and
primary voice in the classroom. The key method employed in monologic teaching is the
Recitation Method, whereby the teacher recites information and prompts intended responses
from students (Initiation/Response/Feedback).2 Although this is a useful means of delivering
and ingraining new information, a problem arises if it is the predominant teaching style. This is
because the Recitation Method “tends to produce a pedagogy based on the transmission of pre-
packaged knowledge”.3 Knowledge is pre-packaged in the sense that the teacher selects the
subject matter, pre-empting what will be taught. To facilitate her teaching agenda, the teacher
asks specific questions which aim at prompting answers that correctly reiterate the selected
subject matter. Consequently, there is little room for exploratory talk, which revolves around
possible, as opposed to right, answers.4 I found that testing for right answers often demotivated
students’ thinking because they became more concerned with recalling the expected answer than
genuinely contemplating the substance of the question. Further, if students fail to recall the right
answer, they usually switch off so that even if discussion arises they have already disengaged. The

                                                                                                                         
1 As a testament to the correspondence between speaking and learning, one of my students wrote in a
survey I conducted in week 5: “[The tute] is very discussion-based which makes me truly think.”
2 Fisher, Robert. 2013. Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. Bloomsbury Publishing:

London. p. 125.
3 Lyle, Sue. 2008. 'Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from
Classroom Practice, Language and Education. Language and Education 22 (3), 222-240. DOI:
10.1080/09500780802152499
4 Fisher, Robert. 2013. Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. Bloomsbury Publishing:

London. p. 125.

  1  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

monologic Recitation Method demotivates students to think philosophically, which centres on

inquiry not recall.

A second aspect of monologic teaching is that it centres attention on the teacher as opposed to
the student. Yet, it is important to highlight that, in the right context, this is an expedient not an
impediment to learning, for how can students productively and confidently discuss subject matter
amongst themselves if the teacher has not firstly sufficiently introduced and explicated the topic?
Obviously, students initially benefit from teacher-led monological communication as it sets a
foundation for dialogue. However, the teacher should be mindful that, although effective, this
method comes at a cost.5 As Lyle states: “Monologic talk focuses power on the teacher; it stifles
dialogue and interactions between pupils and their ideas”.6 This was apparent to me when
students were more inclined during what were instructed as “whole class discussions” to respond
to me than to each other. Students would look at me for the right answer rather than turning to
their peers to critically discuss the question. Granted, first-year students generally lack confidence
and are not in the habit of leading intellectual discussions in a classroom setting; I nonetheless
believe that their timidness was exacerbated by the message that the monologic style implicitly
communicates: that knowledge is something obtained from the teacher, rather than the message
that “Knowledge must be earned through thought.”7 Due to the focus of monologic teaching on one
voice, one point of view and one way of obtaining knowledge, I believe that this pedagogy
(although effective at delivering and ingraining new information) should be employed sparingly
and deliberately.

Dialogic teaching, in contrast to monologic teaching, is distinct in almost every way. While
monologic teaching gets course content across, dialogic teaching fosters the critical thinking and
conversational skills required for the dialogue about the content to be productive and
meaningful. “Dialogic teaching is not just any talk.”8 Speakers must reason through engaging
others in open dialogue (dialogical reasoning). This means transcending one’s own point of view
and open-mindedly considering opposing view points: “students have to enter sympathetically

                                                                                                                         
5 Students usually become passive and “check out”.
6 Lyle, Sue. 2008. 'Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from
Classroom Practice, Language and Education. Language and Education 22 (3), 222-240. DOI:
10.1080/09500780802152499. p. 225.
7 Paul, Richard. 2014. “Chapter 17: Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking”. Critical Thinking.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/31/75b0624ef03956ca540026f3bd0884b85136312571895.pdf
. p. 311; my emphasis.
8 See, for example, Alexander (2010): “It is as distinct from the question-answer and listen-tell routines of
traditional teaching as it is from the casual conversation of informal discussion.” Alexander, Robin. 2010
“Dialogic Teaching Essentials”. National Institute of Education.
https://www.nie.edu.sg/files/oer/FINAL%20Dialogic%20Teaching%20Essentials.pdf. My emphasis.

  2  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

into the thinking of others or reason hypothetically from the assumptions of others”.9 This
entails suspending one’s “disbelief in other people’s positions in order to try to understand
them.”10 Thus dialogical reasoning implies speaking and listening in such a way that facilitates
reciprocity and integration of differing perspectives. One does not merely answer, correct, or
silence opposing view points, but instead informs and is informed by them.11 The thrust of
dialogical reasoning is the idea that meaning is never simply given but is always created out of the
interaction between different voices and different perspectives: “In essence meaning belongs to a
word in its position between speakers; that is, meaning is realised only in the process of active,
responsive understanding.”12 Unless speakers actively and attentively listen to others, seeking to
understand what others are saying and how they are reasoning for what they say, they will remain
within the confines of their own reasoning, unchallenged and intellectually isolated.13
Consequently, one’s own knowledge will not evolve. Doing Philosophy is a social activity; it
thrives from dialogue with others, but only if speakers listen and communicate fairly and
attentively.14

Engaging in dialogical reasoning with others therefore furthers one’s knowledge and refines her
views. Paul highlights that this basic insight was articulated by John Stuart Mill, for whom one’s
view becomes credible only due to keeping one’s “mind open to criticism and conduct because it
has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him”.15 I tried to demonstrate this
idea to my students via a simple analogy of perceiving a chair. I stated that depending on where
one was sitting, he or she would have a different view of the chair. For example, someone seated
at the far side of the room would see the chair in profile, another positioned in the room’s centre
                                                                                                                         
9Paul, Richard. 2014. “Chapter 17: Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking”. Critical Thinking.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/31/75b0624ef03956ca540026f3bd0884b85136312571895.pdf
p. 310.
10 Charles S. Bacon & Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon. 1993. "Real Talk: Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills
through Conversation in the Classroom”. 66 (3) DOI: 10.1080/00098655.1993.9955965.
p. 182.
11 It is different from dialectical reasoning also. However, even though dialectical reasoning is not

monological (there are two logics argued for), I believe that it still hinges on the idea that only one side of
the argument is right, or at least, superior. It aims at a synthesis of antithesis and thesis, which is alike the
aim of dialogical reasoning. But the spirit and mindset of the speakers is importantly different. The aim is
not a two-sided debate but rather a collaboration of simultaneously existing viewpoints.
12 Volosinov. 1929/86, 102-3 as quoted in: Wegeriff, Rupert. 2001. “Applying a dialogical model of reason

in the classroom.”
https://thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk/publications/chapters/wegerif_2001_dialogical_model.pdf
13 See also Rudisill (2011): “In order to do philosophy, then, a student must be adept at understanding the

claims (and arguments for those claims) of her philosophical interlocutors.” Rudisill, John. 2011. “The
Transition from Studying Philosophy to Doing Philosophy.” Teaching Philosophy 34 (3), 243.
14 Philosophy is not done in isolation: it is a dialogue had between thinkers. Importantly, however, dialogue

does not just have to entail real-time dialogue between two or more physically present speakers, as Rudisill
highlights: “When philosophers do philosophy they do so dialogically. A philosopher’s interlocutors are
sometimes imagined, though mostly real. And, sometimes the interlocutors are present in real time while
other cases their contribution is via the philosophical texts they have produced […]”. Ibid.
15 Paul, Richard. 2014. “Chapter 17: Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking”. Critical Thinking.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/31/75b0624ef03956ca540026f3bd0884b85136312571895.pdf
. p. 310.

  3  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

would see the chair front-on, while I, standing behind the chair, only see its back view, etc. I
noted that if we as a class were aiming to understand how the chair appears holistically, our
investigation would not be based on determining who has the superior viewpoint. Instead, our
knowledge of the chair would arise collectively by integrating each person’s slightly altered
perspective. In other words, dialogical learning entails trying to accommodate other peoples’
perspectives into one’s own perspective, and vice versa, to test and expand one’s own knowledge:
“Students learn best in dialogical situations, in circumstances in which they must continually
express their views to others to try to fit others’ views into their own.”16 This is especially true for
the practice of doing Philosophy, where the aim is to evolve one’s knowledge and further one’s
thinking by sincerely considering and incorporating multiple viewpoints and rebuttals.

Putting dialogic teaching into practice

The benefits of dialogic discussion for active learning and critical thinking are obvious, but how,
from a practical perspective, can dialogic discussion be properly fostered in a learning
environment? The answer is not straightforward because dialogic teaching, according to
Alexander, is not a single set method of teaching but more so a whole approach and professional
outlook: “It requires us to rethink not just the techniques we use but also the classroom
relationships we foster, the balance of power between teacher and taught and the way we
conceive of knowledge”.17 Dialogic teaching is arguably more demanding of teachers than
monologic teaching. Lyle states: “It holds the greatest cognitive potential for pupils, whilst at the
same time demanding the most of teachers.”18 It’s demanding because the teacher cannot simply
depend on her pre-empted lesson plan, her specific Q&A prep, and selected subject matter. She
needs to know the content thoroughly enough to be able to respond to any query and
conversation that emerge in class. The teacher must also tread a fine line between activating
classroom discussion (dialogic) and leading classroom discussion (monologic), each with their
own risks: in prompting dialogic talk, the teacher risks enabling confused dialogue among
students that lacks focus and purpose, while in teaching monologically, the teacher risks stifling
spontaneous, student-led discussion.

                                                                                                                         
16 Ibid.
17Alexander, Robin. 2010. “Dialogic Teaching Essentials”. National Institute of Education.
https://www.nie.edu.sg/files/oer/FINAL%20Dialogic%20Teaching%20Essentials.pdf
18Lyle, Sue. 2008. 'Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from
Classroom Practice, Language and Education. Language and Education 22 (3), 222-240. DOI:
10.1080/09500780802152499

  4  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

Attempting to balance authoritative talk with student dialogue (my goal over the course of the
semester), I used the following checklist from Dialogic Teaching Essentials as a guide: 19

“Dialogic Teaching Principles

Whatever kinds of teaching and learning talk are on offer, and however the interaction is
organised, teaching is more likely to be dialogic if it is:

Collective: Participants address learning tasks together.

Reciprocal: Participants listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative viewpoints.
Supportive: Pupils express their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over ‘wrong’
answers, and they help each other to reach common understandings.
Cumulative: Participants build on answers and other oral contributions and chain them into
coherent lines of thinking and understanding.
Purposeful: Classroom talk, though open and dialogic, is also planned and structured with
specific learning goals in view.”20

To consolidate these principles, I devised the following two exercises:

Exercise 1

Description: 20 minutes of tutorial in week 10 was dedicated to an in-class collaborative

discussion about what it means to be self-reflective in light of Harry Frankfurt’s distinction
between first- and second-order volition (course content). I divided the class into two: one half
speaking at a round table, the other half marking the discussion. Speakers did not know what
they were being evaluated on. Markers were each handed a piece of paper (see below), which
explained the criteria they were to use in evaluating the speakers. Speakers were to be evaluated
based on how well they communicated dialogically, i.e., how well they listened to and
collaborated with their peers. I created a checklist of speaking dichotomies adapted from the
table above. The surveys were designed to be specific yet impersonal (actions were graded, not
individual speakers). The discussion lasted 15 minutes, after which I revealed to the speakers that
they were being tested not on what they said but how they said it. Speakers were genuinely
surprised.

                                                                                                                         
19These exercises were also created based on the sources used in the writing of this paper.
20Alexander, Robin. 2010. “Dialogic Teaching Essentials”. National Institute of Education.
https://www.nie.edu.sg/files/oer/FINAL%20Dialogic%20Teaching%20Essentials.pdf. p. 4

  5  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

Reflection: This was a useful exercise because those marking needed to truly observe and assess
how each person in the group was integrating their points of view. However, to be honest, the
exercise felt very literal and contrived.21 What I hoped was that in marking, the student would be
self-aware the next time he or she participated in class discussion. The surprise felt by speakers
due to inverting their expectations about what they were being assessed on really drew their
attention to the actual criteria, i.e., what makes a good communicator (listening attentively,
helping others to elaborate, and asking questions to further discussion). The major problem I
faced was the reluctance of students to speak up. This is a common challenge, and one that
seriously inhibits dialogic teaching, given its emphasis on free-flowing student-led discussion. As
a result, I had to continually prompt and contribute to the discussion to get students speaking. I
reiterated to students that they are free to say whatever they believe but some were still too shy to
contribute. The next exercise will need to centre on a topic that is less intimidating, and involve
the class as a whole group. I would like the task to be fun for students.

                                                                                                                         
21 Speaking even more honestly, I think that devising an in-class exercise that is meant to target a specific
goal or pedagogy always has a high chance of being literal, not to mention contrived. To be successful and
meaningful, I believe that this kind of empirical testing needs to be conducted over the course of a
semester, not just in a set time during one tute. I should highlight that he less focused and unrecorded
activity of dividing the tutorial into groups of 4 was extremely effective for getting students to talk
reflectively amongst themselves. This idea was inspired by Markos Valaris, whose tute I sat in on twice
(tutors should do this more often, and collaborate their teaching ideas; it’s a shame that academics are so
isolated in their work). Student feedback reinforced the usefulness of discussing questions/puzzles in
groups for students’ active learning and enjoyment of learning.

  6  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

Exercise 2

Description: To extend students’ reflection on the nature and benefits of dialogic talk, I initiated
a second, more abstract exercise in week 12. I showed the class a 60 second cartoon22 of two
oxen debating whether an ambiguous object in the lake before them is a log or a crocodile.23

                                                                                                                         
22Cartoon can be viewed via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQkLj829YSc
23The cartoon continues as follows: Eventually, the ox claiming that the object is a crocodile steps closer
towards it, until he stands on it, only to be snapped up by its jaws. As a result, the log-claiming ox then
turns to a third ox and states that the object is a crocodile, to which the third ox states that it is a log, thus
recommencing the original debate.

  7  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

I asked the class what they thought the cartoon could be about, emphasising that this was a
creative, interpretive exercise.24 My goal in showing the cartoon was to get students talking about
communication and reasoning: what makes for effective and poor communication; why talking
collaboratively as opposed to competitively will more successfully yield knowledge.

Reflection: Students responded positively to the cartoon – there were a lot of laughs. They
offered many different interpretations about what it could be about, including:

-­‐ Sometimes proving a point can come at a cost (literally!)

-­‐ Knowledge can be lost if it is not properly preserved over time
-­‐ Arguments need to be supported by evidence; it’s not enough to assert something
-­‐ Language can fall short of communicating meaning
-­‐ If people work together to solve a problem the task will be more successful
-­‐ You don’t always need to empirically prove the existence of something to make a case for its
existence
-­‐ Knowledge has a practical application; lack of knowledge can have practical consequences
-­‐ People interpret things differently; it’s important to try to understand someone else’s perspective

                                                                                                                         
24 During my teaching, I noticed that using the word “could” as opposed to “is” when asking students
what a quote says or a formula means, etc. has a higher probability of activating exploratory talk, the essential
talk of dialogical reasoning.

  8  
 Harriet Levenston 14.5.15

I concluded the discussion by reiterating the fundamentals of dialogic talk as addressed in

exercise 1. The activity was successful because the cartoon genuinely engaged the students and, as
a result, their discussion was lively and fluid while also focused. Because the cartoon was simple
and wide open for interpretation students were more comfortable sharing their ideas (more so
than when discussing the topic of self-reflection in exercise 1). I achieved in this exercise my
intention of instigating a student-led dialogical discussion about the importance of dialogical
reasoning.

References
• Paul, Richard. 2014. “Chapter 17: Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking”. Critical Thinking.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/31/75b0624ef03956ca540026f3bd0884b85
136312571895.pdf

• Fisher, Robert. 2013. Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. Bloomsbury
Publishing: London.

• Charles S. Bacon & Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon. 1993. "Real Talk: Enhancing Critical
Thinking Skills through Conversation in the Classroom”. 66 (3) DOI:
10.1080/00098655.1993.9955965

• Rudisill, John. 2011. “The Transition from Studying to Doing Philosophy.” Teaching
Philosophy 34 (3), 243.
https://www.pdcnet.org/8525737F00588478/file/872C17FB760DD408852578D90047
7BD4/$FILE/teachphil_2011_0034_0003_0049_0079.pdf

• Alexander, Robin. 2010. “Dialogic Teaching Essentials”. National Institute of

Education.
https://www.nie.edu.sg/files/oer/FINAL%20Dialogic%20Teaching%20Essentials.pdf

  9