[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-600792-105":59,"doc-detail-600792-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","a-paradigmatic-disagreement-in-dialogue-on-dialogic-pedagogy","A paradigmatic disagreement in \"Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy\"","","Heated dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy between Eugene Matusov and Kiyotaka Miyazaki is examined through Ana Marjanovic-Shane’s reflective response. The author discusses how two participants construct and contest visions of dialogic pedagogical approaches, summarizing the two developed paradigms, their boundaries, and the struggles viewed as bridgeable or not. Key attention is given to conceptual tensions around epistemological meanings, questioning whether shared boundaries exist.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-paradigmatic-disagreement-in-dialogue-on-dialogic-pedagogy/600792/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-paradigmatic-disagreement-in-dialogue-on-dialogic-pedagogy/600792.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"dhado","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What framing does Ana Marjanovic-Shane use for her response?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"She addresses Eugene and Kiyo directly using first person, aiming for a more dialogic tone. She also clarifies that her current position is closer to Eugene’s than Kiyo’s, based on a path of transformation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the author characterize the relationship between the two paradigms?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"She summarizes the two paradigms, their boundaries, and the tensions between them, arguing that some struggles are bridgeable while others are not. The discussion avoids recounting every part of the debate.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What problem does the author raise regarding the term “epistemological”?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"She argues that Eugene’s use of “epistemology/epistemological” may be polysemic, shifting between general “ways of knowing” and a narrower Aristotle-based type of knowing. She suggests the switching occurs without explanation and could create confusion.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},600792,1792134834,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},5909893218464,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","ISSN: 2325-3290 (online)  \nA paradigmatic disagreement in \"Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy\" by Eugene Matusov and Kiyotaka Miyazaki   \nAna Marjanovic-Shane  \nChestnut Hill College, USA  \nAbstract  \nI read with a great pleasure the heated dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy between Eugene Matusov and Kiyotaka Miyazaki. It provided me with one of those rare occasions where I could both witness, and also join, the workings of two minds as they struggled with and against each other to construct, de-construct, and reconstruct their visions of dialogic pedagogical approaches to education. As I was reading, I had a lot of questions and remarks. I try to summarize them here – while many are still left on the margins of the original manuscript.  \nLet me first explain the way that I have framed my response. First of all, from now on, I will address you, Eugene and Kiyo, directly, instead of addressing your concepts impersonally and talking about you in the third person. Using first person will set the tone of my dialogue with the two of you, together or separately, and will help me introduce some of my questions, ideas, and perspectives in amore dialogic fashion. Second, my current understanding of, and position on, the issues are closer to yours, Eugene, than yours, Kiyo. Thus, my views are biased, yet they are based on my own“internally persuasive discourse” (Bakhtin, 1991) . On the other hand, I arrived at my current position by going through many transformations, starting out with views that were relatively more similar to yours, Kiyo. And, the road I have traveled on this journey is still fresh in my mind. Thus, I think I recognize at least some of your perspectives, Kiyo, with a nod of the head , despite my current critique. Third, I will discuss here only a few issues that stand out for me from your dialogue, without describing all parts of the debate, as I assume that readers are already familiar with your debate.  \nMy discussion includes a summary of the two paradigms you develop, their boundaries, and the wonderful examples you shared to support your arguments. I also discuss the struggles between Eugene’s and Kiyo’s paradigms that I see as bridgeable and not bridgeable.  \nNo shared boundaries  \nFirst of all, it is obvious that the two of you conceptualize very differently the vital notions of this discussion: the \"epistemological,\" \"ontological,\" \"instrumental,\" \"dialogic,\" and \"monologic.\" I want to point out, that I see your conceptualizations as NOT sharing boundaries. Instead, you are each engaged in  \nDialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal | [http://dpj.pitt.edu](http://dpj.pitt.edu)  \n[DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.122 | Vol. 2](DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.122 | Vol. 2) (2014)  \nSI:ddp-48  \nA paradigmatic disagreement in “Dialogue on dialogic pedagogy”  \nAna Marjanovic-Shane  \ncreating a paradigmatically different, internally systematic perspective. In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn writes, \"What differentiated these various schools was not one or another failure of method: they were all ’scientific’ -but what we shall come to call their incommensurable ways of seeing the world and of practicing science in it\" (Kuhn, 1996, p. 4) . I will try to discuss some of the major points of your paradigmatic disagreement that make your positions \"incommensurable\", i.e. not sharing boundaries, but still providing enough tension that makes each position sharply delineated against the background of the other.  \nLet me start with the notion of \"epistemological.\"  \nEugene, I see your use of the term \"epistemology\" and \"epistemological\" as potentially polysemic. When you use the term \"epistemology/epistemological\" it seems that you actually refer to two different concepts depending on the particular context. On one hand, when contrasted to \"ontology,\"\"epistemology\" is about the \"ways of knowing\" in general, while \"ontology\" is about the \"ways of being\" . Thus, in this use, \"epistemology\" is a very general concept o","cbCaibRHzOErXJJL","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibRHzOErXJJL","pdf",208393,"English","# Abstract\n# Overview of the author’s response framework\n## Direct address and dialogic stance\n## Positioning and transformation of viewpoints\n# Summary of paradigms and boundaries\n## Bridgeable vs. not bridgeable struggles\n# No shared boundaries\n## Different conceptualizations of key notions\n# Epistemological: multiple meanings and potential confusion","[{\"question\":\"What framing does Ana Marjanovic-Shane use for her response?\",\"answer\":\"She addresses Eugene and Kiyo directly using first person, aiming for a more dialogic tone. She also clarifies that her current position is closer to Eugene’s than Kiyo’s, based on a path of transformation.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author characterize the relationship between the two paradigms?\",\"answer\":\"She summarizes the two paradigms, their boundaries, and the tensions between them, arguing that some struggles are bridgeable while others are not. The discussion avoids recounting every part of the debate.\"},{\"question\":\"What problem does the author raise regarding the term “epistemological”?\",\"answer\":\"She argues that Eugene’s use of “epistemology/epistemological” may be polysemic, shifting between general “ways of knowing” and a narrower Aristotle-based type of knowing. She suggests the switching occurs without explanation and could create confusion.\"}]","A paradigmatic disagreement in \"Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy\" | PDF",1792091393,18]