Creation of the ‘Sphere of the Between’ in Educational Dialogue

Abstract

This article presents the current perception of dialogical teaching models as a notion that is concerned primarily with the cognitive layers of the dialogue, and focuses on the cognitive functions of learning, information processing, interpretation and decision-making. This perception, according to different researchers, ignores the relational dimensions of the dialogue and fails to raise the question of how the relational capabilities should be developed among teachers. In contrast, the article argues that research attempts to present or propose non-cognitive dialogical models, which focus on the interpersonal aspect, while emphasising relations such as containment and empathy, and while focusing on the emotions of the student, do not necessarily contribute to the realisation of an educational dialogue and might even block the creation of the ‘sphere of the between’, which is essential to the development of a dialogue. The article suggests the adoption of the existential approach and proposes an initiation path towards dialogical teaching based on the initiation process found in Buber’s interpretation of the biblical Moses.

Keywords

Dialogical relation Buber Moses educator existential initiation

References

Aloni

(1996). The rise and fall of the humanistic discourse, from the classical to [the] postmodern. In Gur-Ze’ev

(Ed.), Education in the postmodern discourse era (pp. 12–42). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Aloni

(2008). Mainly intellectuals and benefactors: About the cultivation and training of proper educators. In Kfir

Ariav

(Eds), The crisis in teacher education: The reform in teacher education (pp. 93–107). Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Atzmon

(2008). Pedagogy as a work of art. In Kfir

Ariav

(Eds), The crisis in teacher education: The reform in teacher education (pp. 107–131). Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Back

(2005). Technical work as a vision in teacher training: A critical review of rational technical teacher training. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press.

Buber

(1947). Moses.Oxford and London: Phiadon Press.

Buber

(1952). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Buber

(1965). Elements of the interhuman. In Friedman

(Ed.), The knowledge of man: A philosophy of the interhuman (pp. 72–89). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Buber

(1970a). Education. In Between man and man (pp. 83–104). New York: Macmillan Company.

Buber

(1970b). What is a man. In Between man and man (pp. 118–145). New York: Macmillan Company.

10.

Buber

(1970bc). Dialogue. In Between man and man (pp. 1–34). New York: Macmillan Company.

11.

Burbules

N. C.

(1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

12.

Frankenstein

(1981). Ambiguity. Jerusalem: Sifriat Poalim.

13.

De-Malach

(2011). On Nimrod Aloni’s empowering dialogues in humanistic education. Megamot, 48(1), 199–202.

14.

Hansen

D. T.

(2004). A poetics of teaching. Educational Theory, 54(2), 119–142.

15.

Haroutunian-Gordon

(1991). Turning the soul: Teaching through conversation in the high school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Haroutunian-Gordon

(2009). Learning to teach through Discussion: The art of turning the soul. New Haven: Yale University Press.

17.

Kepnes

(1992). The text as thou: Martin Buber’s dialogical hermeneutics and narrative theology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

18.

Lederman-Daniely

(2013). From technic in a camouflage of dialogue to dialogue beyond technic. Gilui Daat, 3, 31–55.

19.

Noddings

(1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

20.

Noddings

(1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

21.

Pulvermacher

(2009). Dialogic teaching, in favor of ambiguity. Hed HaHinuch, 4, 100–102.

22.

Rogers

C. R.

(1965). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

23.

Sigad

(1999). Dialogic teaching: An educational way or a sham? In Bar-Lev

(Ed.), Values and moral education: Issues in teacher seminars (pp. 241–269). Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education and the Hebrew University Press.

24.

Yechieli

(2006). Class negotiations as a constructive teaching method. In Nosboim

Yechieli

(Eds), Teacher’s guide of the unit ‘structure of the matter–vacuum and particles’: The Matmon project (pp. 5–8). Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science.