The Way They Learn: a Dialogic Education for Inclusion

Contributo in inglese basato sul mio intervento alla IV International Conference “Inclusion: Tools, Paths and Perspectives”, Università Giustino Fortunato, Benevento, 22 ottobre 2024. Presentanto in italiano nel Panel IV, “Educational Inequalities and Inclusive Learning Practices”, è in via di pubblicazione negli Atti della conferenza. Il paragrafo 2 è il testo effettivamente discusso in sala. L’audio dell’intervento è disponibile qui.

1. Education in Dialogue. An introduction
2. Ways of Teaching and Learning
3. Is there such a thing as “a wrong pedagogy”?

***

1. Education in Dialogue. An introduction

The prospect of fostering inclusive openness in society and schools raises critical questions about the language to be used, the creation of inclusive environments, and the acceptance of personal and social diversity—often marginalized until now and struggling to gain visibility. Over the decades, this process has addressed various forms of so-called “abnormality,” seeking to provide recognition to realities historically considered marginal or even abnormal. These include individual perceptions of illness, disabilities, and mental disorders, as well as social perceptions of certain lifestyles or the roles individuals occupy based on their class, gender, skin color, and so forth.

The deeper we delve into issues of inclusion, the more specific and specialized the discussion becomes, even in terms of scientific and disciplinary perspectives. The context of social, didactic, and school inclusion, as realized in practices derived from Critical and Special Pedagogy, views inclusion as an operational model, particularly in schools.

In addressing Special Educational Needs, socio-economic factors also come into play: for instance, a student from a marginalized or impoverished background, or one facing linguistic barriers, as in the case of foreign students, represents a valid reason for targeted interventions. These aim to provide the necessary support to overcome difficulties—that is, the specific need arising from their life situation. Unlike disorders, difficulties are not innate but temporary and can be resolved with appropriate interventions.

Attention to terminology is another important area of reflection, stemming from common confusion between integration and inclusion. Similarly, the lack of distinction between disorders, difficulties, and disabilities contributes to the failure of specialized debates to resonate with public opinion, creating widespread misunderstandings about the nature of inclusion.

However, models exist for classifying disabilities and related issues. Their increasingly refined terminological precision, when effectively communicated, can minimize any potential negative impact on the practical implementation of pedagogical strategies.

Central to this discussion is the idea that human beings are intrinsically relational, interacting with each other and with the world to create and recreate their culture. Education, by its very nature, is dialogic and mediated through knowledge. Dialogue between differences is essential for understanding, rooted in profound respect for others—for the identities of both students and teachers, for creativity, and for critical thinking. The foundation of dialogue is therefore a love for the world and its people, humility, faith in humanity, and hope.

The educator engages in a dialogic practice with the student and must break free from traditional forms of knowledge transmission that deny the co-construction of understanding. Instead, knowledge should be continuously created and recreated in alignment with the evolving realities of the world.

Authoritarianism in schools and society stems from the absence of dialogue, understanding, and humility. It perpetuates passivity in students, treating education as a mere transfer of “static” knowledge, rather than encouraging them to learn, internalize, and create their own understanding.

Conversely, emancipatory and inclusive education respects individual capacities and stimulates students’ innate spontaneity. Teaching and learning become interdependent phases of a dialectical process between teacher and student, wherein the content—the object of knowledge—is dynamically related to both parties and thus expressed through dialogue in all its dimensions.

2. Ways of Teaching and Learning

The reason behind this title, namely The Way They Learn – the way people, children, students learn or acquire knowledge – lies, in fact, on changing the way of teaching. Indeed, there is one phrase circulating online, attributed to different people¹, which says: “If the child can’t learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn”. Aside from the possible authors, we believe that one of the many possible methods that can shift the perspective of education in this sense is Dialogic Education. Paulo Freire (1970) was indeed one of the first to talk about Dialogic Education as a paradigm shift: that is, moving away from the idea of purely transmissive, one-way education and instead fostering a teaching-and-learning process based on dialogue, on constant communication and exchange between teacher and learner.

It is precisely in the possibility of dialogue that a whole range of opportunities opens up – really a spectrum of possibilities – regarding the chance for everyone to express themselves. The point is the possibility, especially for students, to express themselves. So, to be able to speak, ask questions – which is fundamental – not just receive answers to preordained questions but also to challenge the object of knowledge itself. This ensures that the teaching-and-learning process has this exchange of information, leading to the transformation of what we now call “narrative” (Bruner, 1990).

Narrative is not only about the stories we tell ourselves to understand who we are, but also about the stories told within society to define who others are. Normally, the idea of a narrative that aims to explain someone else’s identity often ends up framing people in ways that disregard their diversity or the ways they can express themselves.

Thus, we shift from ideology, which seeks to encompass reality within its schemes, to something open and significant, a storytelling. However, it often transforms into a negatively persuasive tool to convey the idea that those in front of us conform to a specific narrative or concept. This is more convincing precisely because it is more malleable as an identity, compared to an ideological identity. Gender issues also fall into this idea of manipulating perceptions of reality (hooks, 1981; Butler 1990).

Dialogic Education, if implemented correctly, aims to foster a critical perspective on these narrative modalities. Being able to ask questions, receive answers, and then continue questioning those answers prevents the risk of indoctrination that can be inherent in manipulative narratives. Instead, Dialogic Education reclaims the concept of narrative as a positive approach: on one hand, students learn to recognize how narrative works and identify it in others’ discourse; on the other, they reclaim it, not just denouncing it as manipulative, but using it as a positive tool for self-expression.

Within the school context, there are fascinating experiments, such as narrative assessment. For example, in the Castelli Romani area, several schools and high schools are experimenting with this kind of evaluation. Instead of giving a numeric grade at the end of the school year, students are actively involved in constant communication throughout the year about what they are studying. This helps identify where difficulties lie. Teachers and students are encouraged to discuss and question their teaching and learning methods.

Let us list some possible proposals, like the idea of debate (Freeley, Steinberg, 2005). In schools in the Anglophone world, debate is used to encourage students to adopt different perspectives, even defending ideas that are not their own, through which they develop mindful argumentation. This helps them recognize hidden narratives and express themselves in a more conscious and structured way. Even heated debates between differing positions can maintain a conceptual order that prevents the degradation of discourse.

Of course, teacher training is essential in this regard. When we talk about Dialogic Education, there are two main fears: one, the inability to manage discussions, which is emblematic of how we may be unaccustomed to dialogue; and two, the technical fear of “wasting time” instead of focusing on what must be taught or learned. This perception of wasting time on discussions that seem to lead nowhere overlooks the fact that discussion itself inherently challenges one’s perspective.

In this sense, understanding how students learn, how they retain information, requires this kind of small revolution. We work with what we have, of course, but transitioning to Dialogic Education through initiatives like debate, or fostering Student Voice – a movement aimed at emancipating and politically engaging students in schools (Fletcher, 2014) – is another interesting approach. It seeks to highlight the expressiveness that is often hidden or even repressed.

3. Is there such a thing as “a wrong pedagogy”?

The point in searching for a teaching method based on how people learn is that there is no pedagogical theory or practice that could be considered inherently wrong. Every type of pedagogy can succeed. The difference lies not so much in the methods but in the purpose: depending on the objective, methods and strategies can be used to achieve it. Therefore, if the goal is to produce obedient and well-trained individuals who conform to the masses, forms of pedagogy that reduce independent thinking, force limited choices, and never encourage dialogue, among other things, should be employed. On the other hand, if the aim is to foster active and critical citizens, the pedagogy implemented must promote cooperative methods, encourage debate, and address students’ needs for self-expression. In pedagogy, therefore, the purpose and objectives are political (Freire, 1976). They have consequences, both social and psychological, on the growth, formation, direction, and outcomes of individuals.

What characterizes Dialogic Education is thus an explicit focus on the political content of pedagogy. The active involvement of students in the learning process gives concrete form to the idea of building a democratic society from the ground up, from its foundations: to have a true democracy, schools must be democratic, incorporating the characteristics of democracy into their practices (Dewey, 1916). Every form of society, in fact, seeks to have schools and education as its main mechanism of reproduction, aiming to maintain its principles and cultural characteristics. At the same time, it is within schools that the foundations for renewal and progress in society are created, whether this progress is economic (still the predominant interest today) or value-based.

This progress in cultural values concerns social and educational inclusion, the recognition of personal differences not as a division between “right” and “wrong” or as a hierarchy of importance but as a resource and as equality on a social level. The recognition of Special Educational Needs, various forms of disabilities, and developmental disorders, thanks also to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and initiatives such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), are moments of openness in schools and society that require equally open and participatory education. Moreover, the current international situation suggests potentially severe socio-political problems: climate change, sometimes questioned as if it were a hoax, makes it necessary to know how to engage in discussion on the topic without falling for the trap of fake news; the backlash against politically correct rhetoric pollutes the discussion on recognizing the dignity of entire social groups; democracy itself seems to be sliding toward new forms of authoritarianism, maintaining representative characteristics but stripped of their participatory substance (Crouch, 2001).

For this reason, Dialogic Education can restore the full scope of engagement starting in schools, cultivating the democratic attitudes of future citizens through methods such as Cooperative Learning and, above all, encouraging the abandonment of a naïve view of reality to embrace a critical and creative vision of the world.

Bibliography

• Bruner, Jerome S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
• Crouch, Colin (2005). Post-democracy. Cambridge : Polity Press.
• Dewey, John (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.
• Fletcher, Adam (2014). The Guide to Student Voice, 2nd Edition. Olympia, WA: CommonAction Publishing.
• Freeley, Austin J., Steinberg, David L. (2005). Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
• Freire, Paulo (1975). Ação cultural para a liberdade e outros escritos. Rio de Janiero: Paz e Terra.
• hooks, bell (1981). Ain’t I a Woman?: Black women and feminism. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press.

_

Footnotes

1Some of the most common attributed authors are actor Michael J. Fox, ventriloquist Ignacio Estrada and psychologist Ole Ivar Lovaas, among others.