Education: Monologue, Dialogue, or Trialogue?

As most of us will remember, nearly the entire span of our education was built around monologues delivered by our teachers. Sure, there were individual or occasional exceptions, but over the many years, we were largely taught through the teacher’s lectures and our own reactions or responses, which indicated whether we understood. As it turned out, mainly because of my own choices, the main focus of my teaching career has been to move beyond the stultifying results of this traditional classroom format.

Some great teachers, notably Plato, have sought to overcome the limitations and dangers of writing and teaching by using a more dialogical method built around a question-and-answer pattern. In presenting his writings, Plato aimed to structure them according to a clear question-and-answer format. Usually, his own introduction to a topic was followed by a question-and-answer exchange, where his friends would ask or try to answer Plato’s questions. This, of course, produced a remarkable collection of deep and powerful philosophical writings that form the foundation of almost all Western philosophy since Plato’s time.

The challenge here, as anyone who has studied Plato’s Dialogues knows, is that what often begins as a dialogue quickly turns into a monologue delivered by Plato himself. The reader soon senses that there is something very “stiff” about Plato’s dialogues. This is also common in the modern classroom: lectures punctuated with occasional questions. While a lot of learning can happen in this setup, it hardly encourages original, personal thought among students. 

About halfway through my teaching career, I realized this format wasn’t the most effective for genuine participant learning. It allows students’ minds to become passive and thus drowsy too easily. I had read somewhere about a teacher who did things differently to address the obvious passivity of the monologue approach. So, I set out to develop a classroom method that would involve and, hopefully, actively engage students more. For lack of a better term, I’ll call it the “trialogical” classroom method. It aims to facilitate a three-way conversation between the teacher, students, and the material at hand, usually a given text.

If one arranges a course around a text, which is often the usual and perhaps best way to organize it, then the first step is to create a syllabus that presents the chosen material in an organized manner, perhaps either historically or logically. Most textbooks present their material in a format that is conducive to either of these patterns. Next, one can divide the class into groups of three to ten students and assign each group to discuss the chapters or topics when their turn comes. Now, things are ready to be set in motion. It is important to ensure that each group has the same number of turns in the schedule.

So, on the first day of following the syllabus schedule, each person in group #1 will be responsible for initiating the discussion of the material in the text based on a short, one to three-page paper that highlights an important aspect of the day’s material and provides their assessment of it. Depending on the number of groups and available class days, the class can then move forward. Clearly, it’s important to tailor this format to each class and course appropriately and effectively so that the method suits the material and the class schedule.

  Depending on the class size and material to be covered, this format can be adjusted accordingly. I always included several opportunities for take-home essays in which I asked students to compare and contrast aspects of two or three thinkers we’ve discussed in the current unit. We all know the risks of using “AI” to complete take-home assignments. I emphasize that each student must do their own work in their own words, etc. I’m aware that this is risky these days, but I will insist that it is essential to incorporate this part of the learning process.

Much for the scheduling and format patterns. Now, to discuss the rationale and process more thoroughly. Clearly, most students are unfamiliar with many of the procedures involved in this educational approach. I should also admit that this format may not suit all subject matters well. Additionally, it is important to remember that some students are very shy and nervous when asked to speak in class, so efforts must be made to help everyone feel comfortable and unpressured, even though this can sometimes be challenging. It is best to proceed slowly during the initial implementation. Furthermore, it is extremely important to avoid conflicts between students and the teacher. Stay focused on the thinkers and the issues.

Now, while the class discussion is happening, the teacher should keep some kind of notes on the board, such as lists, diagrams, and even questions properly noted. I always try to keep “notes” and diagrams on the board as the discussion progresses. Also, it’s important to work on including and nudging everyone to participate in the discussion. I always try to return the student papers in the next class period if possible. This is important to the “learning curve” dynamics, so the points made and shared will be remembered. 

All these dynamics are essential for turning what is usually a monologue or, at best, a dialogue into a “trialogue” or even a “group-alogue” :O). I have practiced this format and methodology for many years and am confident it helps students become fully engaged in the learning process. In fact, many students have told me they have “found their voice” in my classes. Additionally, once the course is underway, the more informal format promotes deeper and more enjoyable learning.

Most of the time, my own classes have had between 10 and 30 students, but once I actually had 100 students. I divided them into ten groups of ten and ran the course the same way as always. It was a bit awkward at times, but it worked out quite well. Naturally, this methodology works well for small classes too, especially seminars with more advanced students. It not only keeps things moving in a way that engages the students but also helps them feel like part of the learning process. I like to believe that this dynamic way of involving the whole class, as well as each individual, encourages a deeper and more enjoyable experience.

So, what has happened here is a shift away from monological and even dialogical learning to what I am calling a “tria-logical” way of thinking about the learning—and teaching—process. I have taught most of my classes using this methodology for over thirty years and still believe that it is the best way to overcome the problems of the usual monological or even dialogical approaches in standard methodologies. The informality of group discussions and focused individual papers tends to steer a student’s attention away from grades and toward the learning process itself. 

Actually, I sincerely believe that Socrates himself would have adopted this broader, more flexible, and dynamic approach to studying and teaching philosophy if he had the chance. That is why he later in life tried to work with small groups instead of large ones, and in more adaptable settings than the traditional classroom. It’s said that one of Mark Hopkins’, a well-known educator, students claimed that the best education could be achieved with Mark on one end of a log and the learner on the opposite end. I would only add that a circle of logs would be even better because, in a group, we learn more effectively and enjoyably. And we must remember that teachers are still learners. And don’t forget the popcorn!!