The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (2001) defines dialogue as a “discussion directed towards exploration of a subject or resolution of a problem”. In this section this concept of dialogue is looked at from an educational perspective (Gravett, 2001; Skidmore,
94 2006). Brookfield (1987: 12-13), in his work on developing adult learners to become critical thinkers, referred to this process as ‘dialectical thinking ... that focuses on the understanding and resolution of contradictions’. In a similar approach to Freire’s (2000) notion of
emancipatory learning he argues that discussion is central to developing critical
consciousness. According to Gravett (2001) and Skidmore (2006), dialogic education differs from the dialogue that takes place during ordinary educational endeavours in that it requires active thinking of those who engage in dialogue as connected to a purpose, which appears to be what health educators need to use to back up the print IEC materials that are used to prevent the spread of HIV in order to make certain that people have understood the intended messages. Looking at the term dialogue only from an educational perspective, Gravett (2001) is of the view that it does not just refer merely to a technique or tool used for engaging participants in conversation or exchange of ideas, but it is a respectful relationship (among educators and learners) where those engaged think and reason together. Based on Burbules (1993, cited in Gravett, 2001: 35), she summarizes this view of dialogue as:
…a kind of social relationship that engages its participants…involving a willing partnership and cooperation in the face of likely disagreements, confusion, failures and misunderstandings. Persisting in this process requires a relationship of mutual respect, trust and concern – and part of dialogic interchange often relates to the establishment and maintenance of these bonds. The substance of this interpersonal relation is deeper and more consistent than any particular communicative form it might take.
In the preview of his recent book: Educational Futures: Rethinking Theory and Practice.
Dialogue and Boundary Learning, Rule (2015) agrees to the term “dialogue” being used as a form of learning because it is an abstract concept and have no fixed meaning, and so can be applied to numerous platforms, depending on the situation. To him, dialogue seems to have the potential to be used depending on how one feels or what one foresees, and so he associates dialogue with the concept of “sense” (Rule, 2015: xvii). He relates it to six senses, which he calls “six senses of dialogue”: i) Dialogue as talk, referring to conversation between two or more people; ii) Literary dialogue, referring to conversation between two or more characters in literature ; iii) Dialogue as mutual engagement involving active engagement between people or groups to develop mutual understanding or gain consensus. It is described as both
95 normative and descriptive; iv) Dialogue understood as being, referring to dialogue with
oneself, or with others and dialogue with the world; v) Dialogical self, is when the self is constituted in and through dialogue; vi) Dialogue and learning. Rule, like Gravett and others, understands that dialogue can be used as both a method and a framing concept or principle in educational contexts. In this educational view of dialogue and learning the educator does not assume the role of a unilateral authority, but together with learners cooperatively enquires into the learning content (Gravett, 2005), working with it and reasoning about it. The learners co- construct knowledge as they mutually participate (Skidmore, 2006) in the learning activity.
Skidmore (2006: 513) also advocates for “dialogical pedagogy” and defines dialogic education in this way:
Dialogic education signals the co-presence of the teacher as a concerned other, available to guide and coach the learner, as a member of a community of learners, through the emotional rollercoaster ride of self-development, from the mixture of curiosity and apprehension we often experience when approaching the not-yet-known for the first time, through the solidarity of mutual encouragement which can help overcome the confusion and uncertainty involved in practicing a new type of knowledge-activity for the first time, to the thrill of shared discovery and personal growth felt at the moment of breakthrough when one confidently masters a new way of doing things. By modeling the exploratory nature of dialogue in our discursive
interactions, we can help students draw on a wider range of emotional resources in their learning, and harness these to the project of becoming increasingly self-directed in their development.
Macedo (in Freire, 2000:17), in the introduction he wrote for the 30th anniversary edition of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is of the view that fruitful dialogue is based on the degree of critical thinking of those engaged in it, because dialogue is “never an end in itself but a means to develop a better comprehension about the object of knowledge”. Gravett (2005: 41) introduces what she regards as basic principles of dialogue in learning:
The typical tone of the dialogue is exploratory and interrogative.
The purpose of the dialogue is to break through to ... new insights.
The dialogic process implies cooperative and reciprocal inquiry through questions, responses, ... redirections and building statements that form a continuous and developmental sequence.
96
It requires a commitment to dialogue. This commitment does not necessarily precede the dialogue, but is generally established through the creation of a context that fosters engagement in the educational setting.
The dialogue is marked by an attitude of reciprocity among participants underpinned by the interest, trust, respect and concern they share for one another, even when disagreeing or encountering misunderstandings.
These principles imply that a willingness and openness to participate is key to successful dialoguing. Macedo (in Freire, 2000), further explains that critical and liberating dialogue, which presupposes action, must be carried on with the oppressed, whatever the stage of their struggle for liberation, and that the content of that dialogue can and should vary in accordance with historical conditions and the level at which the oppressed perceive reality. Freire (2000) emphasises that when the oppressed fight for their liberation this is not a gift bestowed by the revolutionary leadership, but the result of their conscientization and that this can only be brought about successfully through dialogue. It can be argued that HIV should be looked at as the oppressor, while learners are the oppressed, and IEC materials producers and health educators are initiators of dialogue. However, Freire (2000: 65) warns that “to substitute monologue, slogans, and communiqués for dialogue is to attempt to liberate the oppressed with the instruments of domestication”. In the case of HIV this suggests that billboards and slogans alone are inadequate for stimulating the creative thinking needed to liberate attitudes towards behavioural changes.