Concluding Commentary - Response to Eugene and Kiyo - E. Jayne White

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado

Concluding commentary by E. Jayne White addressing a dialogue between Eugene and Kiyo on pedagogy and “authentic” learning. The piece analyses key disagreements through epistemology and ontology, contrasting dialogic and dialectic orientations, and differing views on teacher–learner relations and learner agency. White critiques Kiyo’s ideological stance about required “active” engagement, and frames dialogue as a contested element within contemporary classroom regimes of truth.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Concluding commentary: Response to Eugene and Kiyo

Pedagogy and authentic learning

Epistemology, ontology, and dialogic orientations

Teacher–student positioning and classroom implications

ISSN: 2325-3290 (online) Concluding Commentary: Response to Eugene and Kiyo E. Jayne White University of Waikato, NZ Abstract At the risk of speaking on his behalf I could almost swear I heard Bakhtin laughing gleefully over my shoulder as I read this fascinating dialogue between Eugene and Kiyo. His reason for this might be partly inspired by the glaring misunderstandings both men reveal through their associated interplay with key pedagogical concepts. While polemic in nature, it occurs to me, somewhat ironically, that each man makes the same careful, empirically located, argument from different cultural and philosophical standpoints. At the centre of their debate is the concept of pedagogy and its capacity to promote‘authentic’ learning. Despite this shared agenda their interpretations of key terms are often at variance and, as a result, they passionately bang their heads against each other in vehement misunderstanding that makes for what Bakhtin (2004) would describe as “lively and expressive”debate (p. 24) on this topic. At its essence, I suggest that their points of difference can be lodged within the realms of epistemology and ontology, and associated concepts that warrant further exploration such as aesthetics, freedom, agency and education. Each are laid bare according to the interpretations of both Kiyo and Eugene who clearly draw from different sources to make their claims. Kiyo is clearly influenced by social psychology, philosophers such as Gadamer and the traditions of his own society while Eugene takes a stance that radically challenges these approaches, summoning Bakhtinian dialogism as a central orientation. In this location the posed frame is negotiated and the endpoint suspended as purpose takes precedence over ‘outcome’. What takes precedence in classrooms will not be determined by a set curriculum but by the relationship between teacher and learners, arising out of a dialogic event. The same is not true for Kiyo, who argues for specific practices of argumentation as a route to the discovery of valued knowledge as the central tenet of the teacher. Taking such different stances it is hardly surprising, therefore, that the views of Kiyo and Eugene are often at odds – Eugene is interested in an unending dialogue while Kiyo seeks fusion, albeit in a hermeneutic sense. Pedagogy is at once suspended in a tugof-war between dialogic and dialectic orientations – a point both Eugene and others have made elsewhere (Matusov, 2011; Sullivan, 2010; Sullivan, Smith, & Matusov, 2009; White, 2014) . It is, therefore, hardly surprising, that in the end Kiyo is led to ask if Eugene is really talking about pedagogy at all! They are, in essence, singing completely different tunes! Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal | [http://dpj.pitt.edu](http://dpj.pitt.edu) [DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.126 | Vol. 2](DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2014.126 | Vol. 2) (2014) SI:ddp-64 Concluding commentary: Response to Eugene and Kiyo E. Jayne White Throughout this discussion, I was reminded of the little boy in“The Emperor’s New Clothes”whois the first to realise that the King is actually naked. Kiyo’s revelation that ontological non-instrumental dialogic approaches, as Eugene describes, do not represent pedagogy betrays his own ideological position that pedagogy must involve “active” engagement “in order to facilitate the learning and development of their (that is, the students’) agency” (p.?) . It is here where their positions take flight, since Eugene makes the consistent argument that engagement takes many forms, and orients from both learner and teacher, while Kiyo appears to be suggesting that it must be framed around important questions that are always constructed by the teacher as someone who transmits knowledge from the lofty heights of the academy. The positioning of the teacher and student by Kiyo and Eugene, respectfully, serve to raise important critiques around the notion of dialogism and its place within pedag

FAQs

What core concept about pedagogy is central to Eugene and Kiyo’s debate?

The debate centers on pedagogy’s capacity to promote “authentic” learning and how that goal should be interpreted through dialogue and classroom practice.

How does White describe the underlying sources of disagreement between the two authors?

White locates their differences in epistemology and ontology, alongside related concerns such as aesthetics, freedom, agency, and education.

What does White argue about how dialogic pedagogy is understood in educational practice?

White argues that “dialogic pedagogy” has become a broad label for teaching practices involving dialogue and learning relationships, and that Eugene’s approach helps begin examining different pedagogical origins and purposes.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado