The problem of defining and analyzing the concept of comprehension as a social phenomenon is arguably one of the key issues in psychology and education. At its core, the problem entails asking what sort of social relationship is at the basis of comprehension. Traditionally, agreement among participants is viewed as the basis of social comprehension. I analyze and criticize two major traditional agreement-based approaches to comprehension: fundamentalist and constructivist. My critique of traditional approaches focuses on their arguably wrong assumption about the principal transparency of human consciousnesses. Based on the work of Bakhtin, I develop a dialogic authorial approach to comprehension predicated on the dialogic nature of social relationships—and on the principal opaqueness of human consciousnesses. I use an educational case from my own teaching in which I abstract and analyze the key features of my concept of a dialogic authorial approach to comprehension.
AuK. H.-P. (1993) Literacy instruction in multicultural settings, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
2.
AukermanM. S. (2007) When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English42(1): 56–103.
3.
Aukerman, M. S. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 1, A1–A31.
4.
BakhtinM. M. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays, Austin: University of Texas Press.
5.
BakhtinM. M. (1993) Toward a philosophy of the act, 1st edn. Austin: University of Texas Press.
6.
BakhtinM. M. (1999) Problems of Dostoevsky's poeticsVol. 8, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
BaumannJ. F. (2009) Intensity in vocabulary instruction and effects on reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders29(4): 312.
8.
BeevorA. (2012) The Second World War, 1st edn. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co.
9.
Buber, M. (2000). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, Trans. 1st Scribner Classics ed.). New York, NY: Scribner.
10.
GallimoreR.TharpR. G. (1992) Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In: MollL. C. (ed.) Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–205.
11.
HarrisK. R.PressleyM. (1991) The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children57(5): 392–404.
12.
HeathS. B. (1983) Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
HeathS. B. (1989) Oral and literate traditions among Black Americans living in poverty. American Psychologist44(2): 367–373.
14.
HegelG. W. F.BaillieJ. B. (1967) The phenomenology of mind, New York, NY: Harper & Row.
15.
Howard, T. C. (2002). “Stripping them at the core:” The emasculation of Black boys in U.S. schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
16.
IlyenkovE. V. (1991) Космология духа [A cosmology of the spirit]. In: NovokhatkoA. G. (ed.) Философия и кульmура [Philosophy and culture], collected work, Moscow: Politizdat, pp. 415–436.
17.
LatourB. (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
LatourB. (1993) We have never been modern, New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19.
LatourB. (1996) Aramis, or, The love of technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LemkeJ. L. (1990) Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp.
21.
Lobok, A. (2014). Education/obrazovanie as an experience of an encounter. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, S1–S5. Retrieved from http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/84. DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.84.
22.
LotmanY. (1988) Text within text. Soviet psychology24(3): 32–41.
23.
MatusovE. (2009) Journey into dialogic pedagogy, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
24.
MatusovE. (2011a) Authorial teaching and learning. In: WhiteE. J.PetersM. (eds) Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers, pp. 21–46.
25.
MatusovE. (2011b) Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the social and the individual: An educational perspective. Culture & Psychology17(1): 99–119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10388840.
26.
Matusov, E. (2014, January). “Culture has no internal territory”: Culture as dialogue. Paper presented at the 4th Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, Hopuhopu, New Zealand.
27.
MatusovE.BrobstJ. (2013) Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its centaur failure: Chronotopic analysis, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
28.
MatusovE.HayesR. (2000) Sociocultural critique of Piaget and Vygotsky. New Directions in Psychology18(2–3): 215–239.
29.
Matusov, E., & Miyazaki, K. (2014). Dialogue on dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, SI:ddp-1–SI:ddp-47. DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.121.
30.
McDermottG. (1977) An¨ansi the spider: A tale from the Ashanti, New York, NY: Puffin Books.
31.
MehanH. (1979) Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
MichaelsS.CazdenC. B. (1986) Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In: SchieffelinB. B.GilmoreP. (eds) The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 132–154.
33.
MilnerH. R. (2008) Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of teacher education59(4): 332–346.
34.
MouffeC. (2000) The democratic paradox, London: Verso.
35.
OlsonD. R. (1994) The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Pegues, H. (2007). Of paradigm wars: Constructivism, objectivism, and postmodern stratagem. Educational Forum, 71(4), 316–330. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720709335022.
37.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007005.
38.
ReddyM. J. (1979) The conduit metaphor—a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: OrtonyA. (ed.) Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–324.
39.
RosenblattL. M. (1982) The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory into practice21(4): 268–277.
40.
SinclairJ. M.CoulthardM. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils, London: Oxford University Press.
41.
TodorovT. (1984) Mikhail Bakhtin: The dialogical principle, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
TomaselloM.KrugerA. C.RatnerH. H. (1993) Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences16(3): 495–552.
43.
VogtL. A.JordanC.TharpR. G. (1987) Explaining school failure, producing school success: Two cases. Anthropology & Education Quarterly18(4): 276–286.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
46.
WertschJ. V. (1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Press.
47.
WertschJ. V. (2002) Voices of collective remembering, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of educational research, 72(2), 131–175. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131.
49.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans. 3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
