Corrigendum: Provocation to Dialog in a Third Space: Helping Teachers Walk Toward Equity Pedagogy (Front. Educ., (2020), 5, (569018), 10.3389/feduc.2020.569018)

Abstract

In the original article, at Paragraph two under the Section Methodology, Sub Section Analysis, there was an error in page number of an in-text reference, “(ibid., p. 141)” needs to be changed to “(ibid., p. 341)”, the correct passage appears below. The conceptions of teaching that participants had imbibed as students (Lortie, 1975) and in the workplace made them see teaching as delivery of ready-made knowledge. In the view that I brought to the group, knowledge was not something out there but co-constructed in inquiry activities undertaken jointly by students and teacher. These two contrasting views presupposed two constellations of voices from the larger social world (Ratnam, 2016c). These can be captured by what Bakhtin (1981) calls, “authoritative discourse” and “heteroglossia,” respectively. They are grounded in different epistemological systems, responsive to different relationships and practices. The authoritative discourse “demands that we acknowledge it, that we make it our own. . . We encounter it with its authority already fused to it.” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 342). Pedagogically, the practice of “reciting by heart” (ibid., p. 341) corresponds to authoritarian discourse within a structure of hierarchical relationship. Heteroglossia, as pointed out earlier, is dialogic, open to connect with other voices in a dialog horizontally and thus open to growth and change. The pedagogical goal associated with heteroglossia is “retelling in one’s own words” (ibid.), where the words of others, playing a role in one’s inner speech, gets reaccentuated based on one’s own intent (authorship). This is “innerly persuasive discourse” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 346) as opposed to “authoritative discourse.” In the analysis below, notions of “authoritative” and “internally persuasive” discourses provide a heuristic in both the critique of the dominant cultural practice in teacher education, where singular “universal” knowledge is privileged, and its reconstruction in the third space created in OG that acknowledges a pluralistic approach to knowledge. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.