Talk:Dialogic pedagogy
 | The contents of the Dialogic pedagogy page were merged into Dialogic learning#Classroom education on 14 September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dialogic pedagogy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Multiple issues?[edit]
Hello--
Can somebody explain that these issues mean, please? A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2017) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (May 2017) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (May 2017)
I followed the links and I could not understand what they mean. What does it mean "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"? We have an academic field with an academic peer-reviewed journal and community on this topic! Please see http://dpj.pitt.edu
What are your concerns based on? Can you explain them to me, please?
Eugene Matusov, PhD Professor of Education University of Delaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ematusov (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Melcous. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have responded on Ematusov's talk page, but will also explain here. Currently the article is substantially written by someone who is cited in the references, indicating a conflict of interest and possibly affecting its neutrality. It is also written in a style that is more like an academic essay that an encyclopedia article which should be aimed at the widest possible audience. It also contains unreferenced claims which appear to be original research such as google search results etc. Melcous (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looking more closely at the article, I have removed some first person content - statements like "I argue", "I think" and "I propose" are not appropriate for wikipedia - articles should be based on what is reported in reliable, secondary sources. I have also re-added the maintenance templates as these issues have not been addressed. Melcous (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have responded on Ematusov's talk page, but will also explain here. Currently the article is substantially written by someone who is cited in the references, indicating a conflict of interest and possibly affecting its neutrality. It is also written in a style that is more like an academic essay that an encyclopedia article which should be aimed at the widest possible audience. It also contains unreferenced claims which appear to be original research such as google search results etc. Melcous (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (1) How is this different from Dialogic learning? (2) At a very basic level, this article is not written intelligibly for a general audience. It introduces concepts in jargon without explaining their function or importance. Its sections do not logically follow—there are two paragraphs on instrumentalism but no reader signposting on how instrumentalism relates to the scope, nevertheless an explanation of what kind of philosophical instrumentalism is even under discussion. (And why is philosophical instrumental even necessary in explaining the crux of the article: the role of dialogue in education?) Scholars are introduced as primary sources rather than using secondary sources that discuss why those scholars are even worth mentioning (summaries of their work and importance). Whole sections of epistemological theory will need to be cleaved here to restore encyclopedic tone, if there is an independently notable topic under all of this. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 07:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Czar, fair points I think. I had a go today at being bold and trying to simplify the article for the non-expert reader, and make it generally more readable. I think your first question is the key one - is this different enough from dialogic learning to warrant a separate article? I'm not convinced it is, and that is a far better article, so would be open to a proposal to merge this one into that one. If you have other ideas for working on this one please have a go! Melcous (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
