Peace Talks: Using a “Dialogical Ethics” Framework to Facilitate Effective
Instructor-Student Collaboration in the Undergraduate Classroom
Jeffrey W. Murray, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University
Abstract: At the 2015 CIDER conference on Higher Education Pedagogy, Abelson and Nelson
(2015) discussed their intense and inspiring level of instructor-student collaboration, describing
how they collaborate with first-year students in the design of particular assignments and even
overall course design at the unit level. This practice session seeks to contribute to participants’
understanding and appreciation of such collaborative learning strategies by applying a ‘dialogical
ethics’ model. The practice session will begin with a discussion of the dramatistic philosophy of
Kenneth Burke, which illuminates the grammatical, rhetorical, and dialogical mechanisms by
which instructor-student collaboration fosters enhanced levels of student engagement in the
process of education—including investment, ownership, and empowerment. Session participants
will then be engaged in a facilitated, interactive exploration of how the Burke-inspired notions of
(i) disparate grammars and recalcitrance, (ii) consubstantiality and irony, and (iii) dialogue and
peace treaty might suggest productive avenues for greater instructor-student collaboration at the
assignment-design, unit-design, or course-design level.
Literature Review
At the 2015 CIDER Conference, Abelson and Nelson delivered “Collaborative Course Planning in the LearnerCentered Classroom,” premised on the idea that involving students in the process of course design and assignment
design will increase student engagement, and hence student learning. Abelson and Nelson described how they
collaborate with their students in the design of assignments and even, to some extent, course design. Drawing upon
Weimer’s (2002) influential work on learning-centered teaching, Abelson and Nelson offered correlations between
her “characteristics of learner-centered teaching” and their own instructor-student “collaborative course planning.”
At the same time, Abelson and Nelson acknowledged the challenges of engaging students in such collaborative
work. According to Leamnson (1999): “If it is true that many freshmen enter college believing that all schooling is
a make-believe world, they will be, from the outset, at cross purposes with those of their teachers who see things
quite differently. Disabusing students of their view of schooling as a game-like contrivance is a high priority goal”
(p. 56).
Abelson and Nelson’s discussion of faculty-student collaboration, both its anticipated benefits and its obstacles,
suggested parallels to my own “dialogical ethics” model of rhetorical engagement (Murray 2002), influenced by the
dramatistic philosophy of Burke (1973; 1984). Those parallels promised to usefully inform our thinking about
instructor-student collaboration. Specifically, that model—and its related notions of (i) disparate grammars and
recalcitrance, (ii) consubstantiality and irony, and (iii) dialogue and peace treaty—illuminates the grammatical,
rhetorical, and dialogical mechanisms by which instructor-student collaboration fosters enhanced levels of student
engagement.
Goals and Objectives
Participants should leave this session with:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A better understanding and appreciation of the learner-centered benefits of instructor-student collaboration,
A better understanding and appreciation of the obstacles of effective instructor-student collaboration,
Concrete ideas about incorporating assignment-level, unit-level, or course-level elements of instructorstudent collaboration
Greater confidence about implementing assignment-level, unit-level, or course-level elements of instructorstudent collaboration.
Description of Practice
Rather than describe a particular practice, this session will feature an interactive discussion of the parameters that
inform the successful practice of instructor-student collaborations, be they at the assignment, unit, or course level.
The session will discuss three pairs of related considerations: (i) disparate grammars and recalcitrance, (ii)
consubstantiality and irony, and (iii) dialogue and peace treaty. These three paired-concepts provide both useful
talking points and structural parameters for the design and implementation of instructor-student collaborations.
Examples of such collaborations will be provided (if necessary); however, the emphasis of the session will be on
facilitating participants’ generation of new (or extension of existing) course-specific collaborative practices.
Discussion
The traditional classroom (at least in its worst The Paper Chase-type caricature) can be seen as operating with
coercively rather than collaboratively. Beginning on day one, the professor “goes over” the syllabus to inform
students of what will be happening and what they will be doing, perhaps with the hope that students will “get on
board.” If students do not “get on board” and share the same vision of the course, too bad. Generally, if student
engagement, student success, and student retention are priority goals, this sort of approach can be a miserable
failure. By contrast is the more genuinely “dialogical classroom.” Here, at least in theory, the instructor might bring
everything to the negotiating table. In this model, the classroom is transformed into a “dialogue of motives” in
which the disparate grammars of instructor and students do not continue to exist in an agonistic relationship but are
brought into genuine conversation. According to Cullen (2012), “Choice is a key feature of learner-centered
pedagogy. Learner-centered practices offer learners control over their learning and create a sense of relevance to
learning tasks, thus supporting motivation” (p. 68). This means that students will be more invested in and more
engaged in their own education, with both investment and engagement seeming to be prerequisites for maximal
learning and success.
But perhaps most important of all, the primary benefit of the instructor meeting students at the negotiating table is
that it makes the process fully transparent and promises a degree of good faith between both parties. Imagine if your
students saw that you were in this together, with you instead of against you. None of what is being discussed here
can guarantee that, but it does promise that more students will be more likely to view their education (or at least
your class) in a different and potentially transformative way. As Abelson and Nelson state, students “will not
achieve the greatest benefit until they understand that, as an active process, learning requires that they make
decisions and take action.” Giving students more decision-making power, in any particular class, over what they do
and how they do it can be a highly effective way to accomplish this goal.
References
Abelson, M., & T. J. Nelson. (2015). “Collaborative Course Planning in the Learning-Centered Classroom.”
CIDER Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy. Blacksburg, VA, 4 February.
Murray, J. W. (2002). “Kenneth Burke: A dialogue of motives.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 35 (1), 22-49.
Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form (3rd ed). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
---. (1984). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose (3rd ed). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Cullen, R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum: Design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.