A Theoretical Framework for Dialogue Facilitation

Overview

Liberatory education scholar Paulo Freire is one of the most influential thinkers in curricular studies. Cited over 120,000 times, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968) is a fundamental text within the field. One framework from Freire's work is of a "problem-posing" pedagogy which leads students towards praxis, the capacity for action and reflection in the world. However, merely "posing" problems leaves space for disengagement from praxis. This article contends that supplementing problem-posing education with the framework of “moral breakdown” would benefit educators by helping them understand their role in facilitating dialogue (Zigon 2007; 2024). Understanding moral breakdown would help professors lead dialogue that requires students to become critical of their worldviews. Thus, moving beyond a problem-posing and towards an ethically expansive and tolerant pedagogy.

The Problem with Problem-Posing

To begin, we must clarify Freire’s argument and outline what he means when he uses obtuse heuristics like “praxis”. For Freire, praxis is an innate human capacity or a mode of being in the world. Praxis is composed of “the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (1968). It is a way of living that emphasizes the moral worth of one’s actions as they must contend with the consequences of their actions on others and the world at large. Praxis is the ultimate goal of an ethical education for Freire. It is liberatory, agentive, and conscientious of others’ reciprocal capacity for praxis. In simple terms, this means it gives students a sense of freedom, power over their own circumstances, while also creating a situation where students are aware that others around them are also capable of action that shapes and is shaped by mutual interactions. Thus, creating communities of collaborative construction rather than self-serving aspirations. Our ultimate goal with dialogue aligns with Freire here; it is for students to engage in praxis.

Praxis is a disposition that seeks a sense agency for the self, while not infringing upon others’ sense of agency. Freire identifies a failure for certain pedagogical practices to inculcate such liberatory capacities in students. Termed “Banking Education”, when students are treated as “‘receptacles’ to be filled they are being dehumanized. The more complete teachers fill the student-receptacles, the better teachers are and the more meekly student-receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are. When students are not provided with the opportunity to introspectively identify and express their personhood, they come to view the world as passive spectators. Students’ lives become primed to be complicit under oppressive social/economic systems. This is the pedagogy of the oppressed.

Freire contends that pedagogy must undergo a radical transformation towards a dialogic model of education. In this, teachers and students act as critical co-investigators in dialogue, acting upon each other and sharing alternate perspectives. Through this, students become critical of singular perspectives and become critical. They come to learn to question the value of values and challenge the status quo. This is what Freire describes as a problem-posing education and many educators strive to implement this sort of dialogic model into their practice. Problem-posing presents students with an opportunity for epistemological departure from normative values. In other words, it removes the restrictions of socially constituted taboo in discussion and inquiry.  

While Freire believes problem-posing is a sufficient model for cultivating praxis, merely posing problems leaves room for disengagement. I’m sure every teacher can recall a number of experiences opening the floor for discussion only to be met by a room of silence and flitting glances trying to avoid eye-contact. Clearly, in practice, posing doesn’t equate to praxis. Freire stipulates that for dialogue to happen participants need an “a priori faith in humanity”, or it could be said to find value in the sharing of others. Yet, this doesn’t at first seem to be the issue in the contemporary classroom. It cannot be said students are innately disinterested in their classmates’ personhood. Rather, many are so used to experiencing a banking education. They may not feel they can, or even know how to engage in dialogue because they have become accustomed to the regurgitative practices of knowledge banking overly present in K-12 curriculum. Even when students do engage in discussion, so often it fails to become dialogic and require critical engagement between participants. Having become accustomed to the passive learning of banking education, simply holding space for critical commentary does not ensure that such critique will arise as the dispositions that impel students to engage in this manner have yet to be cultivated. Let us examine a scenario of problem-posing.

Breaking Down the Classroom

For whatever reason students fail to reach praxis, teachers can help students in this process by probing them for deeper, more critical engagement. Students need to engage in moral breakdown. Anthropologist, ethicist, and UVA professor Jarrett Zigon terms “moral breakdown” as a dissonance which arises “between a dispositional normativity and its founding exclusion [which] force[s] one to reflect on and alter ones already acquired way of being in order to account for this discord” (Zigon, 2024). In classroom dialogue, a student’s normative disposition (i.e., their worldview) is met by its founding exclusion (i.e., an irreconcilable perspective) which requires the student to reflect on their values.

For example: Student A holds the values that (1.) All people have a right to life unless they are guilty of murder, (2.) The law is just, (3.) And murders deserve the death penalty. Student B shares a story of someone who was put to death for murder and posthumously exonerated. In this scenario, student A must undergo a moral breakdown. Given the truth of Student B’s premise, student A must reflect on their value schema and become critical of some aspects of their perspective – ultimately needing to qualify or shift one of their values.

People’s values are not as formulaic as the example and often complex and contradictory. But, as a framework, moral breakdown supplements the insufficiencies of problem-posing. When properly forced into moral breakdown, students must become critical. They must engage in praxis. Instead of blank stares, students well up with questions that they alone cannot answer. They are driven into dialogue. Through moral breakdown, students co-create their values and modify their being-in-the-world based on the perspectives offered by others. Yet for students to do this, and move beyond “Yes And” discussion, they need to see moral breakdown modeled and experience it themselves.

Modeling Moral Breakdown

It is important for teachers to model dialogic practices. In doing this, teachers should seek to orient the classroom as a brave space. In contrast to safe spaces, brave spaces require participants to engage with ideas and perspectives that may be foreign and uncomfortable. This does not mean students should be subject to personal attacks. They should not. Rather, in brave spaces, students have the freedom to be agonistic, not antagonistic – challenging others’ ideas, but not personhood. In doing so, they deepen their learning. For more on brave spaces, see Arao & Clemens (2013).  

There are many ways of modeling bravery in the classroom. For a teacher to model bravery is to create not only an example, but an opportunity for students to express their brave selves. This may include asking students to justify their assertions, pointing out logical inconsistencies, and offering new information that breaks up group consensus. In doing so, teachers both give students permission to critique their peers and show them how to engage in dialogue respectfully. Let us return to the scenario and see how the teacher modeling a brave space moves students through moral breakdown.

Points to Remember for Discussion Facilitation

• End it on a positive note. In brave spaces, we want students to feel empowered to participate. Where dialogue can often feel critical, it is important to commend students for engaging thoughtfully. This can help reassure students, making them leave feeling like they gained something from dialogue even if it was challenging.
• Acknowledge who is and is not in the room. The multiplicity of perspectives can never fully be represented, but asking students if there are critical voices missing from the dialogue can be beneficial to encourage thinking outside of one’s own perspective.
• The point of dialogue is not consensus. When students seem to come to unanimity try and guide the discussion to consider other perspectives.
• Address problems head on. If there is a moment when a student is visibly upset, try and create space for redress and reorientation. Do not call them out on their emotions but neutrally offer them an opportunity to share. Whether or not the student uses the opportunity to share, it can be beneficial to follow up with them privately after the dialogue.
• Keep it open, but on track. The purpose of dialogue in the classroom is to further students’ engagement with the topic at hand. Yet, sometimes dialogue drifts waywardly. As the facilitator, use your judgement to keep the dialogue on material that is course relevant and that participants are well-informed on.

Conclusions

Problem-posing alone does not get all students engaged. Without engagement, students fail to address the relationship between their values and how they view the world. For students to become critical (to reach praxis), they must come face-to-face with perspectives irreconcilable with their own. Through moral breakdown, students are forced to do just this. Teachers can support this process by modeling dialogue norms and orienting the classroom as a brave space. Through this, teachers challenge students to undergo moral breakdowns and create an environment where they challenge each other just the same. The classroom becomes a co-constructive environment where students are pulled into dialogue by their peers. Lastly, students not only engage in deeper content-specific learning but exercise new dialogic skills (e.g., bravery, understanding, respectful disagreement). Ultimately, they come to build the foundations of community across differences, allowing for a more democratic future.