@article {24294,
	title = {Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning},
	journal = {Journal of Dialogic Pedagogy},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {\&nbsp;Scholarly interest in dialogic pedagogy and classroom dialogue is multi-disciplinary and draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks. On the positive side, this has produced a rich and varied body of research and evidence. However, in spite of a common interest in educational dialogue and learning through dialogue, cross-disciplinary engagement with each other{\textquoteright}s work is rare. Scholarly discussions and publications tend to be clustered in separate communities, each characterized by a particular type of research questions, aspects of dialogue they focus on, type of evidence they bring to bear, and ways in which standards for rigor are constructed. In the present contribution, we asked four leading scholars from different research traditions to react to four provocative statements that were deliberately designed to reveal areas of consensus and disagreement. Topic-wise, the provocations related to theoretical foundations, methodological assumptions, the role of teachers, and issues of inclusion and social class, respectively. We hope that these contributions will stimulate cross- and trans-disciplinary discussions about dialogic pedagogy research and theory.\&nbsp;\&nbsp;\&nbsp;\&nbsp;},
	url = {http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/312},
	author = {Christa S.C. Asterhan and Howe, Christine and Lefstein, Adam and Matusov, Eugene and Reznitskaya, Alina}
}
