Teaching through Dialogue

Robert J. Mulvaney, Department of Philosophy

Lecture and discussion are the two most familiar teaching techniques in college and university classrooms, especially in the humanities. Occasionally we find drill and a kind of oneonone coaching, especially in skill courses such as foreign language and logic. But lecture, discussion, and some combination of the two, dominate the way we teach. Each has its strengths. Lecture is the preferred method for the economical transmission of information. Discussion favors student feedback, particularly where the issue is one of unsettled opinion, rather than accepted fact.

Philosophical literature contains a striking rhetorical form reducible to neither of these procedures, although it bears some similarity to the discussion. I refer to dialogue, particularly as found in Plato's Dialogues. Some of these apparently were based upon real oral conversations in which Socrates was a paramount participant. Dialogue is found again and again in the history of philosophy. The dialogues of Berkeley and Hume are famous modern instances of the form. It is arguable that all good philosophical writing is dialogical in form, at least implicitly.

What is dialogue, and why does it recommend itself to collegelevel instruction, particularly in the humanities? First of all, and most obviously, dialogue is conversation, either written or oral, between two or more participants on some issue of genuine importance to the speakers. It is perhaps important to stress "or more," since the prefix "dia" is frequently misunderstood as meaning two.

As conversations, dialogues are necessarily social in character, and hence ideally suited to the classroom, where there are usually at least two (and usually many more!) persons, learning and teaching. We can learn much in solitude, but we cannot participate in a dialogue in solitude. Where the issue involved is usually complex and demanding, such as in philosophy, it seems to be a necessary rhetorical device. In such questions no one knows it all. Since every subject has its philosophical dimension, every subject is amenable to dialogue at least some of the time.

Dialogue is often taken to be a peculiar method of inquiry, associated again with Socrates. Such a method involves the elicitation of knowledge from the student rather than its inculcation. The teacher takes herself to be a relatively inexpert facilitator in the learning process, perhaps courageously and honestly professing her ignorance. Socrates seems, at least in his less ironic moments, to have meant it when he claimed to know nothing. Such humility entails a need for community in the search for wisdom, and demands broad participation.

The dialogue, on such a reading, also implies the existence of some objective truth, however difficult its attainment may be. The Socratic teacher elicits knowledge from the student. But knowledge is more than doubtful opinion. The dialogue ironically suggests that the learner already knows what she is learning and requires only the midwife (Socrates striking image) to give birth to it. The mechanistic model of transmitting knowledge from one full head to another empty one does not suit dialogue.

Dialogue is not merely discussion. Discussion, or what we may call the sharing of opinions, carries with it the possibility, if not the likelihood, that our ignorance is a function of the subject matter itself. On so many issues, the discussants believe, no knowledge is possible. We might just as well talk about it. If there really were knowledge involved, the lecture would suit. Lecture becomes the medium of knowledge; discussion the medium of shared ignorance.

On the other hand, some believe that mere unguided discussion will somehow miraculously lead to knowledge, such is the beneficence of nature. The more open the discussion, the freer and fairer it is, the more likely consensus, at least, will emerge. Consensus, particularly in a democratic society, is seen frequently as a useful surrogate for truth. It can help us get things done. Such reasoning suggests we should learn the truth from lecturing experts, and discuss what cannot be known, to free us up and establish agreement. Such is the unspoken bedrock of the lecture/discussion method.

Dialogue has its moments of discussion. But if the dialoguers have no faith that the discussion will lead to truth, the dialogue will soon wither away. The counter-feit of debate will replace it, with its metaphor of victory and its exaltation of the smooth talker. The discussion appears to safeguard openness in inquiry and free expression.

But it often leads to domination by the eloquent, a classroom demagoguery that is terminated not by knowledge but by the need to move on to the next class. Dialogue demands a greater degree of conviction and of commitment, at least to the possibility that truth may come to be known. Mere discussion leaves this question open, hence its easy compatibility with the lecture. Lecturers know things. Discussants have mere opinions, and talk about them.

How to enhance dialogue in the classroom? First of all the issue must be of genuine importance to the students. They must set the agenda, and not the teacher. This requires huge efforts on the part of the typical instructor. She must consciously take a back seat and be willing to learn from her students. She must be unusually well-informed in her subject area, to be prepared to interact fruitfully when students bring up issues apparently unrelated to the subject matter. The dialoguing teacher intrudes 10% of the time, or less, into the dialogue. There are lots of learners, they must be heard. Much silence is necessary. Dialoguers must listen well and this requires the cultivation of silence. Teachers tend to fill "dead spots" in a discussion. The dead spots in a dialogue may be the moments when most of the learning is taking place.

Dialoguers do not interview, nor do they debate. The interviewer merely questions, and the teacher who merely asks questions may give the appearance of hiding knowledge or of being disinterested. In a genuine dialogue, everyone questions and everyone answers. The debate has been mentioned earlier. Victory is not the goal of dialogue, but truth and, we hope, wisdom. Debaters frequently twist the truth and abuse their opponents. Dialogue is not a form of oral chess.

But, most of all, the dialoguing teacher must possess a set of moral qualities, including honesty, respect for persons, humility and even a kind of poverty, where her learning, expertise, and years of experience are held of little or no account before the native enthusiasm, boldness and generosity of the young learner. One reason why dialogue is so valuable in the university is that it enhances an intergenerational bond and demands the unity of young and old in a common project. But the old must be ready to learn from the young as well as the young from the old. And this is possible only where the teacher feels genuinely inadequate to the task. Dialogue is not merely a teaching "technique." It involves a set of intellectual and moral virtues that make education more than preparation for life. Dialogue makes education a way of life.

Most of all, the dialoguing teacher must possess a set of moral qualities, including honesty, respect for persons, humility, and even a kind of poverty, where her learning, expertise, and years of experience are held of little or no account before the native enthusiasm, boldness and generosity of the young learner.