Conceptualising teacher dialogic artistry: a nexus of pedagogical dispositions and language qualities
Angela Hadjipanteli
Maria Vrikki- Department of Education, School of Education, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Teacher pedagogical artistry is fundamental to good teaching. This paper attempts to conceptualise one perspective of pedagogical artistry, that of teacher dialogic artistry. This conceptualisation is built on two dimensions of teachers’ conduct aesthetically embodied in dialogic pedagogy: the pedagogical dispositions and language qualities. In this light, we suggest three dispositions that teachers need to develop a dialogic ecology in their class. These are togetherness, provisionality, and exploratory disposition. It is also essential that each of these dispositions be accompanied by a teacher’s code of verbal communication thoroughly harmonised with them. In the context of such dialogic ecology, students are offered the potential to shape their dialogic ethos.
1. Introduction
In modern educational theory, teacher pedagogical artistry tends to be a neglected notion and its merit as an inherent quality of good teaching (Eisner, 2004) is paradoxically oblivious. As Bellezza (2020) characteristically remarks, ‘teacher artistry is grossly undervalued and greatly malnourished’ (p. 27). This occurs within an era, where the teaching profession is primarily taught as ‘a technological, knowledge-based practice (Hadjipanteli, 2021, p. 15), which means that the understanding of teaching as a poetic and art-full practice whose aesthetic energies have a critical effect on the learning ecology (e.g., Rubin, 1985; Eisner, 2004; Lutzker, 2021), seems languid.
When considering teaching as an art, what seems to be the most important in our opinion, is that a teacher works as an artist (Dewey, 1910), and pedagogy is intertwined with artistry. Therefore, a teacher-artist predominantly cares for the design and implementation of teaching ‘within a purposeful, informed, ethical and aesthetic framework’ (Ewing and Smith, 2001, p. 16). In this light, pedagogical artistry in teaching could go far beyond a teacher’s knowledgeable presence, focusing also on the ‘shape and feel of the relationships’ (Thompson, 2015, p. 439) that students compose throughout their learning. This suggests that pedagogical artistry could bring the aesthetic custody and affective manipulation of teaching together, boosting the formation of an engaging and ethically well-structured learning ecology. For this purpose, teachers will need to energise a synthesis of poetical, intellectual and ethical dispositions to unify their pedagogical competence with artistic sensitivity.
In this article, we concentrate on a distinct outlook of a teacher’s pedagogy, namely their competence to enact and encourage dialogic interactions with their students. In particular, we are interested in the different qualities of dialogue that a teacher both could use and promote in class, as a catalyst for students’ active participation in the construction of meaning and learning. We draw on the growing body of research on dialogic pedagogy, which shows how teachers can become facilitators in students’ co-construction of knowledge and critical engagement with multiple ideas; we argue that this is an important aspect of a teacher’s artistry and we specify it as dialogic teacher artistry. Specifically, we examine the following research questions:
• What pedagogical dispositions does the teacher embody within the process of dialogic pedagogy, which manifest their dialogic artistry?
• What language abilities and linguistic elements demonstrate dialogic teacher artistry?
We view this topic as particularly important and timely, given the growing diversity within student populations across western societies. The increased heterogeneity in classrooms, due to the students’ wide range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, calls for more inclusive and student-centred approaches to pedagogy that would take advantage of the students’ rich backgrounds. Additionally, as explained in Section 3, we view dialogue as an instrumental tool that can be used for the teaching of all cognitive areas. This broad applicability justifies the need for teachers to develop what we call dialogic teacher artistry for the successful implementation of dialogic pedagogies.
2. Teacher pedagogical artistry: a key source of good teaching
That teaching is an art and the true teacher an artist is a familiar saying. Now the teacher’s own claim to rank as an artist is measured by his ability to foster the attitude of the artist in those who study with him, whether they be youth or little children (Dewey, 1910, p. 220).
Identifying the influential ‘ability’ of a ‘true teacher’ that is essential to their motivational pedagogy, Dewey (1910) indicates pedagogical artistry. This ability originates from the Aristotelian concept poetry, which means ποιεῖν (making) and, therefore, accompanies the practice of technê (Aristotle, 1999). For Aristotle, technê is an intellectual virtue that helps us know ‘how to bring into existence a thing which may either exist or not and the efficient cause of which lies in the maker and not in the thing made’ (1999, 1140a12–1140a14). Following this conceptualisation, Sennett (2009) elaborates on technê with the notion of craftship—‘the skill of making things well’ (p. 8)—which necessitates, as he expounds, all the mental and ethical power of one’s self. However, if we ponder technê as equivalent to the meaning of art, in modern thinking, this tends to provoke misinterpretations, since technê is rather only associated with technology and technical skills. This interconnection signifies a separation of the rational from the expressiveness and aesthetics, aspects that in contemporary perception are meant to be at the heart of art (Ingold, 2000), which is typically seen as a creative activity.
Drawing upon the broader and more original sense of art as technê, we adopt both Eisner’s (2002) thesis that artistry ‘pertains to the crafting of action’ (p. 382, italics original), and Schön’s (1987) conception that it stands for one’s professional practice knowledge. Therefore, recognising teaching as a poetic and art-ful practice, this incites a critical consideration of a teacher’s artistry (e.g., Eisner, 2002; Bellezza, 2020; Lutzker, 2021). As Hadjipanteli (2020) highlights, in teaching ‘every pedagogical choice and action’ is intertwined with ‘a wide range of aesthetic acts: instructive, organisational, communicative and administrative’ (p. 204), within which a teacher can infuse their pedagogical artistry. This circumstance ascribes to pedagogical artistry a complexity and multimodality (Eisner, 2002; Andrews, 2017), making it look like a kaleidoscopic phenomenon that can inspire the learning ecology within a class. Eisner (2002) enhances this view, by emphasising that ‘[g]ood teaching depends on artistry and aesthetic considerations’, and that a teacher needs to know how to appropriately respond to ‘all aspects of teaching that follow no rule’, but ‘they need to be felt’ (p. 382). Here, Eisner reminds us that teaching is largely a social practice dependent on real-life aesthetics; a given condition that requires teachers’ vigilance and pedagogical prudence in order that they sense, for example, the unsaid messages from students’ learning and behavioural responses within an activity, or yet, to discern what emotional-ethical conditions influence their learning process at a specific moment.
In this line of thinking, we might acknowledge a few key characteristics of pedagogical artistry. Taking as granted that a teaching/learning ecology varies from class to class, potentially, owing to students’ different profiles, idiosyncrasies and cultures, there is not solely a single approach or a fixed method for teachers to put in praxis their pedagogical artistry (Eisner, 2002; Piazolli, 2018). In addition, their artistry can be embedded in the construction of a lesson in regard to students’ concrete learning interests; the design of a curriculum unit in conjunction with a specific methodology suitable for students’ educational needs; the selection and creation of teaching materials that address students’ learning needs; the teacher’s talk and motion; and moreover, the exploitation of classroom space. By these indicative paradigms, it becomes obvious that pedagogical artistry can function both as process and product (Sinclair and Kelman, 2013). As a process, it can shape the aesthetic elements of the form and content of an activity and as a product, it is perceptible within the live performance itself of teachers’ instructive energies.
Although this multidimensionality of pedagogical artistry insinuates that each teacher could exercise it in various and alternative manners, what really undergoes in every case is that pedagogical artistry is performed with the synergy both of poetical and ethical dispositions (Eisner, 2002; Sennett, 2009; Andersen, 2020; Hadjipanteli, 2020). Rubin (1985) contends that a teacher’s pedagogical artistry entails ‘a personal style’ of teaching energised by flair, originality, ‘genuine commitment and an educated mind’ (p. 165). Likewise, Eisner (2002) argues that this harmonised ethical-intellectual exertion required by a teacher exacts ‘sensibility, imagination, technique, and the ability to make judgements about the feel and significance of the particular’ (382). Creativity, playfulness, empathy and togetherness are some additional pedagogical dispositions of a teacher’s artistry (Hadjipanteli, 2020). Carr’s (2003) depiction of teacher-artist ‘as a good jazz musician […] whose techniques adapt and evolve in constant sensitive response to the needs of the musical moment’, enable us to infer that teaching as art is a practice that comprises a ‘constant creative interplay with the needs and challenges’ (p. 27) of every pedagogical occasion.
In literature, the significance of a teacher’s pedagogical artistry is intimately connected with the optimisation of students’ vigorous learning, exciting their attentiveness, affective response and embodied participation (e.g., Hadjipanteli, 2020; Rawson, 2022). From this perspective, a teacher’s pedagogical artistry is transmuted into a vital source of students’ ‘eager and poetical engagement’ (Hadjipanteli, 2020, p. 204). In Greene’s (1995), view such a result forms the cornerstone for significant learning, because it is driven by the desire of exploration and search. In this conceptual context, a teacher’s pedagogical artistry denotes a critical formative factor of students’ learning ecology; and concurrently, it constitutes a powerful and impactful property of a teacher’s pedagogy that inextricably lies at the core of the notion of good teaching. Furthermore, it is critical to note that a teacher’s pedagogical artistry could be considered, as entailed by the discussion above, a culturally driven ability. This affirms, on the one hand, the likely diversity and heterogeneity of teachers’ pedagogical artistry in different cultures and suggests, on the other hand, that teachers need to be familiar with their students’ culture, so that they can easier discern their learning preferences, predispositions and needs.
3. Teachers’ dialogic dispositions: a pivotal characteristic of dialogic pedagogy
Dialogic approaches to teaching and learning have received increased attention in recent decades due to their association with student active participation, and improved understanding and achievement (e.g., Howe et al., 2019). The field is characterised by two main strands of dialogic pedagogies: (a) instrumental dialogic pedagogies, which view dialogue as a tool of teaching that is independent to the subject-matter or the participants, and (b) non-instrumental dialogic pedagogies, which view meaning making as inherently dialogic (Matusov, 2018). In this paper, we adopt the instrumental dialogic pedagogy approach because we conceptualise it as a tool that teachers can use in order to achieve learning goals of the curricula. This tool can be used in the teaching of all cognitive areas, including the teaching of language, citizenship education and the natural sciences. Following this, despite the existence of various approaches, and thus terms, to the study of productive forms of dialogue (i.e., ‘dialogic teaching’ by Alexander, 2017; ‘accountable talk’ by Michaels and O’Connor, 2015; ‘dialogic inquiry’ by Wells, 1999), there seems to be consensus on the characteristics of productive classroom dialogue (Howe and Abedin, 2013; Hennessy et al., 2016). A dialogic lesson is one where students are encouraged to share their ideas, elaborate on them, and justify them. They have opportunities to listen to and engage with other ideas and perspectives, build on them or challenge them. Working in small groups is a fundamental setting in this environment because this provides students with more space to express themselves and work with a certain number of ideas collaboratively. In this environment, students actively develop their learning as they co-construct meaning with their peers.
Conducting a dialogic lesson requires a skillful teacher with dialogic dispositions, who can develop the required settings for productive dialogues to occur and guide students through this dialogic process. First, the teacher needs to build a suitable classroom culture that promotes students’ dialogic ethos (Alexander, 2017). This entails that students should feel safe knowing that they belong in a group where all ideas are respected and that all challenges and criticisms are towards ideas and not the person who is expressing them (Littleton and Mercer, 2013). Similarly, students should be trained for dialogic behaviour when working in groups; they should respect one another, make sure that all group members contribute to the discussion and that all ideas are being considered (Littleton and Mercer, 2013).
Second, teachers should not act as an authoritative figure in the dialogue, which seeks to evaluate students’ knowledge through questioning, as the traditional teacher role would require. Instead, the teacher should know how to re-purpose the goal of classroom dialogue so that they become the ground for students to express their ideas, even their half-based ideas, and co-construct their thinking. In this setting, the teacher should act as a facilitator and guide of students’ interactions (Mortimer and Scott, 2003). In particular, teachers are expected to initiate such interactions by asking open-ended questions (e.g., Nystrand et al., 2003; Wells and Arauz, 2006; Vrikki and Evagorou, 2023), modelling dialogic talk, and identifying differences between students’ opinions so that they could be resolved (Alexander, 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2017). The language that teachers use has a key role in achieving the kind of dialogue that is productive. In particular, teachers should use language of reasoning (e.g., ‘because’, ‘so’, ‘but’, ‘if’, ‘how’, and ‘why’), possibility (e.g., ‘would’, ‘maybe’, ‘could’ and ‘might’) and vague language (e.g., ‘like’, ‘kind of/sort of’ and ‘or something/or anything’) in order to achieve the provisionality and possibility thinking that productive discussions require (Maine and Čermáková, 2022).
For these reasons, we conceptualise the teachers’ skills and dispositions required for developing dialogic pedagogy to be part of a teacher’s artistry; we call it teacher dialogic artistry. Building on these key presuppositions of dialogic pedagogy in combination with the theory of pedagogical artistry, we conceptualise teacher dialogic artistry based on a nexus of essential dispositions and language qualities.
4. Teacher dialogic artistry
4.1. Togetherness: a premise for students’ democratic engagement
By its nature, dialogue is a communal practice. This becomes explicit by the Greek etymology of διάλογος (dialogue), which encompasses two concepts: δια—‘gather together’—and λόγος—‘the flow of meaning’ (Isaacs, 1999). Following this interpretation, dialogic pedagogy premises a learning ecology of synergy, wherein teacher and students know to create a common interactive space for thinking and exchanging views and feelings; it is an ecology of an active learning community that stimulates students’ eagerness for communicating their convictions and values. The practical fabrication of such an ecology indicates the original prospect of teachers’ dialogic artistry. For the achievement of this purpose, teachers mainly need to interweave two conventions. First, the adoption of a student-centred approach (Alexander, 2017), where students are given the potential to ‘take control of classroom dialogue’ (Vrikki et al., 2019, p. 482). Second, the formation of a relational culture that helps students manifest those ‘positive-energy driven emotions’ (Hadjipanteli, 2020, p. 202), that can constructively affect the dialogic process such as safety, trust, pleasure, curiosity and empathy, for instance.
In the context of both these conditions, the aesthetics of teachers’ dialogic artistry presupposes the embodiment of a plexus of social-ethical dispositions and, also, the practice of a linguistic code of communication. Fundamental to the first presupposition is teachers’ respect for students’ views and beliefs in conjunction with the virtues of democracy. In drawing upon Neelands’ (2009) notion of democracy the virtues that teachers’ artistry will amalgamate in dialogic process is isonomia (the right of equality), isegoria (the right to speak), isopsephia (the right to equal representation), parrhesia (the ethical obligation to speak your mind) and autonomia (the right to self-determination). Teachers are called to give students an empirical and intimate acquaintance with all these democratic virtues within the practice of dialogue. In this attempt, teachers’ dialogic approach itself needs to witness a serious and responsible harnessing of these democratic virtues.
Importantly, the familiarity of students with this democratic dialogic ethos is not irrespective of teachers’ linguistic conduct; instead, this can trigger students’ sense that dialogue is a shared and democratic activity in an ecology of togetherness. In this regard, teachers’ linguistic communication may integrate vocabulary and phrases that make all students feel that they have their own personal voice, resulting from a collective and reciprocal dialogic process (see Figure 1). This comes in contrast with the traditional authoritative language used on the part of the teachers and shown in the indicative non-recommended examples in Figure 1. This kind of language tends to establish control over the classroom discourse and can possibly lead students’ thinking towards a specific idea or conclusion (Aguiar et al., 2010).
Figure 1. Recommended and non-recommended language examples of the three pedagogical dispositions of teacher dialogic artistry.
4.2. Provisionality: a space for students’ intrinsic understanding
In dialogic pedagogy, it is essential for students to be competent to articulate their own genuine dialogue between possibility and their thinking, thus experiencing a philosophical search. This necessity transforms dialogue into a space of investigation, where students undertake ‘to pose questions, seek out explanations, to look for reasons, to construct meanings’ (Greene, 1995, p. 26). For such a thoughtful dialogic process, teachers’ dialogic artistry needs to bring together a sequence of intellectual dispositions like open-mindedness, social imagination and ethical imagination. These dispositions compose a teacher’s provisionality in dialogic pedagogy.
Open-mindedness ‘involves a willingness to form and revise one’s view as impartially and as objectively as possible in the light of available evidence and argument’ (Hare, 1981, p. 3). It proceeds synergistically with imagination, whilst the latter motivates the insight of possible, ‘deals in unpredictabilities, in the unexpected’ and ‘requires reflectiveness’ (Greene, 1995, pp. 124–125). Notably, social imagination, as defined by Greene (1995), is the ‘capacity to invent visions of what should be and what might be in our deficient society, on the streets where we live, in our schools’ (p. 5). Correspondingly, Moore (2011) describes ethical imagination as the unique human ability that permits the possibility of connecting to other people, by developing emotional bonds with them and respectfully confronting them.
The combination of these dispositions makes up a functional agent of teachers’ dialogic artistry, as it strengthens students’ cogitation and deliberative process, enabling them to shape meanings and interpretations. Therefore, teachers’ provisionality can significantly contribute to the constitution of a dialogic culture, which impels students to widen their understanding of the world and life with different modes of looking at things. In this fashion, students can configure their belief-holding identity and self-knowledge, components that possess an underlying place in good teaching (Sockett, 2012).
Practically speaking, what is indispensable in this dialogic process is the harmonisation of teachers’ provisionality with a befitting usage of language from their side. This compatibility is manifested by suitable open-ended and dilemmatic questions that are implemented as ‘belief questions’ or ‘self-revelation questions’ (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 1). A few recommended examples of such questions are shown in Figure 1, which in their wholeness challenge students’ reflection and prompt them to mould a clearer picture of their perceptions.
4.3. Exploratory disposition: openness for students’ joint construction of knowledge
The third perspective of dialogic teacher artistry refers to its exploratory and enquiry-based nature. In the Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education, Mercer et al. (2020) write that dialogic pedagogy ‘implies that education should be designed to engage students in an ongoing process of shared enquiry that takes the form of dialogue’ (p. 2). Alexander’s (2017) notion of dialogic teaching implies that students should participate in a process of joint construction of knowledge. In this context, teachers’ artistry can be revealed in the way that they deal with the multiplicity of ideas and thoughts being expressed. It is not enough to simply collect students’ ideas; rather, they should transform the ideas into a joint inquiry by coordinating them in ways that allow students’ exploration. One example of how teachers can coordinate multiple ideas appears in Figure 1 under ‘Exploratory disposition’, namely ‘Could you identify common or contradictory elements between the ideas/opinions that have been heard so far?’. With such questions, teachers encourage students to actively engage with all ideas being heard and to begin identifying links between them. This can be the beginning of a co-construction process that helps students evaluate and refine ideas.
First, teachers can direct students’ attention to ideas that are pivotal to the progression of the joint construction of understanding. For example, by intervening in students’ exchanges with phrases like ‘Have you heard Alex’s thought?’ or ‘Alex has an objection here,’ teachers can draw students’ attention to new or critical perspectives that can help shape their exploration. Second, teachers can highlight links between ideas. For example, in the following quote from our database we can see how this teacher combines two ideas expressed by two different students in order to help the class to move their exploration forward. The quote is expressed by a primary school teacher, who discusses with her students a story about diversity.
Remember Alex what you said before about diversity? That it is also about us having different activities. I wonder. Can Alex’s thought that everyone can have different activities, and Andrew’s thought that the mouse’s father didn't let him enjoy his hobby of dancing, be connected in some way?
Such techniques reveal teachers’ artistry in facilitating and supporting students’ exploration in classroom talk. Additional recommended examples, as well as non-recommended examples are presented in Figure 1.
5. Discussion
Teacher dialogic artistry, like dialogue per se, is a cognitive, poetical and normative concept. ‘Genuine dialogue is extremely demanding’, as Kazepides (2012) argues; ‘it requires respect, trust, open-mindedness, a willingness to listen and to risk one’s own preconceptions, fixed beliefs, biases and prejudices in the pursuit of truth’ (p. 915). In harmony with this spectrum of prerequisites, dialogic pedagogy is also challenging, as it requests from teachers to build a learning ecology infused by similar intellectual and ethical dispositions conducive to students’ personal and spirited involvement in the dialogic process.
In this paper, we have discussed both from a theoretical and practical perspective, how teachers are expected to configure a dialogic ecology in their class concerted by their dialogic artistry. In this respect, we recommend dialogic pedagogy as a poetic and art-full practice guided by a teacher, who cares for helping students extend their existing ‘dialogical nature of the self’ as a ‘human achievement’ (Kazepides, 2012, p. 914). The three essential qualities of teacher dialogic artistry proposed could significantly affect students’ dialogic performance, encouraging them to construct good relationships with the democratic, synergistic, insightful and investigative processes incurred in dialogue. Therefore, we might assume that a dialogic space built on a teacher’s togetherness, provisionality and exploratory disposition communicated by their behavioural and linguistic actions can inspire students to form an aesthetics of good dialogue and an ethics of dialogic self.
Implications for teacher training and teacher professional development can be drawn. To cultivate dialogic artistry, teachers should develop relevant pedagogical dispositions and possess certain language qualities. Training programmes should aim to raise teachers’ awareness of dispositions of togetherness, provisionality and exploration, and provide appropriate tools for translating these dispositions into practice. A code of verbal communication should accompany these dispositions to help teachers develop an appropriate dialogic ecology for students.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
AH and MV conceived the idea of teacher dialogic artistry, suggested the three dimensions of teacher dialogic artistry, and presented the discussion of the article. AH developed the theory of pedagogical artistry. MV discussed the key presuppositions for dialogic pedagogy. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., and Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: the authoritative and dialogic tension. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 174–103. doi: 10.1002/tea.20315
Alexander, R. (2017). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (5th Edn.). Thirsk, UK: Dialogos.
Andersen, J. (2020). Understanding the artistry of actors who create theatre with and for children. RiDE J. Appl. Theatre Perform. 25, 484–497. doi: 10.1080/13569783.2020.1779586
Andrews, K. (2017). “Artistry in teaching: a choreographic approach to studying the performative dimensions of teaching” in Arts-Based Methods in Education Around the World. eds. T. Chemi and X. Du (Denmark/The Netherlands: River Publishers), 15–27.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., and Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bellezza, A. (2020). Developing performative competence and teacher artistry: a pedagogical imperative in the multicultural classroom. L2 J. 12, 23–42. doi: 10.5070/L20046068
Carr, D. (2003). Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 18, 375–385. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00004-5
Eisner, E. W. (2004). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Heaven & London: Yale University Press.
Ewing, R., and Smith, D. (2001). “Doing, knowing, being and becoming: the nature of professional practice” in Professional Practice in Health, Education and the Creative Arts. eds. J. Higgs and A. Titchen (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science), 16–28.
Hadjipanteli, A. (2020). Drama pedagogy as aretaic pedagogy: the synergy of a teacher’s embodiment of artistry. RiDE J. Appl. Theatre Perform. 25, 201–217. doi: 10.1080/13569783.2020.1730168
Hadjipanteli, A. (2021). A study of a person-centred approach to teacher education within a drama course: its contribution to pre-service teacher’s professional ethics. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 1–19. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1970741
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., et al. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 9, 16–44. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
Howe, C., and Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Camb. J. Educ. 43, 325–356. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., and Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: does it really impact on student outcomes? J. Learn. Sci. 28, 462–512. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London and New York: Routledge.
Kazepides, T. (2012). Education as dialogue. Educ. Philos. Theory 44, 913–925. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00762
Lutzker, P. (2021). Teaching as an art in an age of science and technology. Tsinghua J. Educ. 37, 1–64. doi: 10.6869/THJER.202012_37(2).0001
Maine, F., and Čermáková, A. (2022). Thinking aloud: the role of epistemic modality in reasoning in primary education classrooms. Lang. Educ. 37, 428–443. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2022.2129979
Matusov, E. (2018). “Mapping dialogic pedagogy: instrumental and non-instrumental education” in The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. eds. A. Rosa and J. Valsiner. 2nd Edn. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 274–301.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., and Major, L. (eds.). (2020). The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogue Education. Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.
Michaels, S., and O’Connor, C. (2015). “Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion” in Socializing Intelligence Through Talk and Dialogue. eds. L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, and S. N. Clarke (Washington DC: American Educational Research Association), 347–361.
Mortimer, E. F., and Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Neelands, J. (2009). Acting together: ensemble as a democratic process in art and life. RiDE J. Appl. Theatre Perform. 14, 173–189. doi: 10.1080/13569780902868713
Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., and Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Process. 35, 135–198. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
Piazolli, E. (2018). Embodying Language in Action: The Artistry of Process Drama in Second Language Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rawson, M. (2022). “Steiner Waldorf teacher education” in Holistic Teacher Education: In Search of a Curriculum in Troubled Times. ed. R. C. Collister (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 54–73.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sinclair, C., and Kelman, D. (2013). “Drama, Cultural Leadership and Reflective Practice: Taking the Road to Zamunda” in How Drama Activates Learning: Contemporary Research and Practice. eds. M. Anderson and J. Dunn (London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic), 30–46.
Sockett, H. (2012). Knowledge and Virtue in Teaching and Learning: The Primacy of Dispositions. New York: Routledge.
Thompson, J. (2015). Towards an aesthetics of care. RiDE J. Appl. Theatre Perform. 20, 430–441. doi: 10.1080/13569783.2015.1068109
Vrikki, M., Brindley, S., Abedin, M., and Riga, F. (2019). Exploring dialogic space: a case study of a religious education classroom. Lang. Educ. 33, 469–485. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1604741
Vrikki, M., and Evagorou, M. (2023). An analysis of teacher questioning practices during dialogic lessons. Int. J. Educ. Res. 117, 102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102107
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G., and Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. J. Learn. Sci. 15, 379–428. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
Keywords: dialogic pedagogy, teacher dialogic artistry, togetherness, provisionality, exploratory disposition, dialogic ethos
Citation: Hadjipanteli A and Vrikki M (2023) Conceptualising teacher dialogic artistry: a nexus of pedagogical dispositions and language qualities. Front. Educ. 8:1205501. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1205501
Edited by:
Pedro Gil-Madrona, University of Castilla-La Mancha, SpainReviewed by:
Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal, United StatesMaría Martínez López, University of Castilla La Mancha, Spain
Copyright © 2023 Hadjipanteli and Vrikki. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Angela Hadjipanteli, hadjipanteli.a@unic.ac.cy