Rupert Wegerif

Another educationalist, drawing extensively on social aspects of learning is Rupert Wegerif.

Wegerif’s central idea on education is to draw students together and support them to participate in dialogic learning, resonating with Dewey’s ideals of democracy and experience based education, as discussed in sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2, above, and drawn from Mercer’s ideas on dialogic pedagogy (Mercer, 2000, 2008). Wegerif believes that a dialogic approach is essential in pedagogical environments as it helps to move beyond the monologic concept of learning, as portrayed in most traditional learning theories, including those of Piaget and Vygotsky (Wegerif, 2013b). He draws the meaning of the word dialogue from Greek words ‘logos’ and ‘dia’. ‘Logos’ means ‘reason/ discourse/ word’ and the word

‘dia’ meaning ‘across or thought’ (Wegerif, 2016). Therefore the combined word dialogue, for Wegerif, means the generic process of making meaning across a gap of difference, which brings multiple perspectives into play (Wegerif, 2016). Dialogue, therefore, in this sense, is not restricted to communication between the two people, but can be used in contexts where multiple perspectives are taken into account. Monologue, on the other hand, can be regarded from an etymology of ‘‘single voiced’’ (Wegerif, 2015: 63) which implies

81

that there is only one correct version of reality and one correct method of thinking (Wegerif, 2015).

Learning, which is often described in monologic terms, therefore, can be reconceptualised from isolated moments of experience into more dialogic ways of communication and knowledge construction (Wegerif, 2016). For a dialogic learning to sustain, it should give rise to a new question, and so on, leading to the formation of dialogues amongst participants and a certain level of openness to each other’s views (Wegerif, 2016).

Wegerif critiques Vygotsky’s implicit assumption of the openness of the notions of dialogue, especially within the concept of ZPD, which is essentially regarded as social in nature. Wegerif argues that ZPD is seen as a space where teachers and students share their perspectives in order to see things from each other’s view point, which, at first glance, sounds dialogic (Wegerif, 2013b). ZPD, however, can be seen as a subordinate to dialogues which reflects a monologic vision of education, which leads students away from a participatory way of thinking towards the use of pre-established concepts. The role of a teacher is to participate, or rather attune herself or himself into students’ ZPD to help them move from their “fuzzy ill-formed initial ideas” (Wegerif, 2013b: 59) into something more coherent and consistent, which matches with the concepts already in culture (Wegerif, 2013b). The more experienced adult becomes a mediator who guides the student to do things in the “right way” (Wegerif, 2013b: 61). Wisdom, however, does not always arise as a result of interactions within the ZPD space or internalising the thought but also by engaging more fully in dialogues with others, with different voices (Wegerif, 2013a, 2013b).

Wegerif’s notion of dialogue resonates with Fielding’s (2004) proposed methodology of

‘dialogic alternative’ and participatory democracy (Englund, 2000; Fielding, 2011), as discussed in Chapters Two and Three, which moves the methodological focus from speaking for participants (students) to speaking with participants. Dialogic pedagogy, therefore, becomes a mutual and two-way process where both parties learn simultaneously, and not just the student; and also becomes deeper and more critical, where participants question each other’s assumptions (Wegerif, 2013b).

82 4.2.4 Social constructivism and higher education

When applied in HE, social constructivism takes into account the mediated nature of knowledge via various cultural tools, such as language and interactional activities, which can be a combination of verbal, visual and other forms of participatory cues (grouped under the concept of dialogue). The aim is to help build knowledge about self, educational institutions, everyday experiences and society through reflection and meaning making (Shore, 2008).

In a social constructivist learning environment, dialogues, therefore, play a vital role as they become a means of mediation between the student and the world, responsible for shaping and extending students’ thought (St Pierre Hirtle, 1996). Mediation through language, in the form of dialogue and reasoning, helps to develop and sustain a culture of enquiry that is critically co-constructed and negotiated between the tutor and students (Wegerif, 2015, 2016). The use of enquiry helps to extend boundaries of knowledge construction when prevailing or existing knowledge or presumptions are less likely to get accepted without questioning (St Pierre Hirtle, 1996). Enquiries are dialogic in nature, drawn from students’

everyday experiences and understandings, thereby giving students opportunities for active participation (Dewey 1938; Englund, 2000; Mishra, 2014). A democratic, social and critical learning experience for students is therefore at the heart of social-constructivist practice.

A learning community, grounded in social constructivism, therefore, coheres with Dewey’s and Wegerif’s views in that the key components of their theories are embedded within learning and teaching approaches. The tutor, for example, makes explicit links with students’ experiences to inform pedagogy (Dewey, 1933/1998) and uses them to establish a mutual, two- way communication (Dewey, 1925/1981). For two- way learning to flourish, social constructivists also focus equally on power dynamics where staff endeavour to create a culture or environment of participatory democracy (Dewey, 1903/1916; Englund, 2000;

Fielding, 2011), to facilitate the development of ethically sound and mutual relationships amongst all participants (Dewey, 1903/1916). Knowledge is therefore not regarded as neutral, but rather a dynamic entity which is mediated and created through social interactions (St Pierre Hirtle, 1996).

83

4.3 Implications for my study: conceptualising students’ participation using the