See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232959379

Dialogue education in the post‐secondary classroom: Reflecting on dialogue

processes from two higher education settings in North America

Article  in  Journal of Further and Higher Education · May 2009

DOI: 10.1080/03098770902857395

CITATIONS READS

9 1,146

2 authors, including:

Janet Moore
Simon Fraser University
17 PUBLICATIONS   682 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CityStudio Vancouver View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janet Moore on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Gunnlaugson, Olen]
On: 13 May 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911163585]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further and Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713430659

Dialogue education in the post-secondary classroom: reflecting on dialogue

processes from two higher education settings in North America
Olen Gunnlaugson a; Janet Moore b
a
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA b Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Online Publication Date: 01 May 2009

To cite this Article Gunnlaugson, Olen and Moore, Janet(2009)'Dialogue education in the post-secondary classroom: reflecting on
dialogue processes from two higher education settings in North America',Journal of Further and Higher Education,33:2,171 — 181
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03098770902857395
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770902857395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education
Vol. 33, No. 2, May 2009, 171–181

Dialogue education in the post-secondary classroom: reflecting

on dialogue processes from two higher education settings in
North America
Olen Gunnlaugsona* and Janet Mooreb
aUniversity
of Massachusetts, Boston, USA; bSimon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
Taylor
Journal
10.1080/03098770902857395
CJFH_A_385911.sgm
0309-877X
20Original
33
UCU
2009
Professor
gunnlaugson@hotmail.com
000002009
and
ofArticle
OlenGunnlaugson
Further
Francis
(print)/1469-9486
and Higher Education
(online)

In this article, educators Olen Gunnlaugson and Janet Moore reflect on their
experiences developing and facilitating two dialogue-based courses. They proceed
with a brief overview of dialogue education and how they are situating their
approaches to dialogue within the field of higher education and in terms of
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

transformative learning. Each then reflects on their experiences and learning in the
higher education courses on dialogue they teach at two universities in North
America. The article closes with a conversation in which they share their
approaches and questions, as well as subsequent learning from practice and
reflection on the growing significance of dialogue within higher education
settings.
Keywords: dialogue education; transformative learning; higher education;
generative dialogue

Dialogue education
Interest in more collaborative and transformative approaches to teaching and learning
within post-secondary institutions has brought forth a renewed interest in dialogue
education. In recent years, the proliferation of dialogue across knowledge disciplines
(Stewart, Zediker, and Black 2004) is also reflected in the growth of dialogue within
the field of higher education, including among others, university and college educa-
tion (Arnett 1992; Gunnlaugson 2004, 2006), dialogue pedagogy (Freire 1990;
Burbules 1993), cohort education (Lawrence 2002), teacher training (Darling 2001),
intergroup dialogue (Zúñiga, Nagda, and Zevig 2002), consciousness development in
learning communities (Watts, Miller, and Kloepfer 1999; Mitchell and Sackney
2001), and workplace learning (Laiken 1997). Alongside the different forms of
dialogue education existing within the field of higher education, we are interested in
expanding upon how our particular approaches to dialogue can support the emergence
of transformative learning (Moore 2005; Gunnlaugson 2006, 2007) in university
classrooms. For the purposes of this article, we are defining transformative learning
as the process of undergoing significant shifts in one’s self-view and worldview,
which in turn brings about changes on all levels, from the individual lives of student
and educator, to the classroom culture as a whole and the current structures and norms
of higher education. We have come to experience first-hand the growing significance
of dialogue education in fostering transformative change through our experiences in

*Corresponding author. Email: Gunnlaugson@hotmail.com

ISSN 0309-877X print/ISSN 1469-9486 online

© 2009 UCU
DOI: 10.1080/03098770902857395
http://www.informaworld.com
 172 O. Gunnlaugson and J. Moore

facilitating and teaching dialogue as a self and social learning process. By situating
dialogue as a social practice with a transformative agenda, we are committed to
engaging our students in the process of becoming critically reflective of their learning
experiences in university with the intent of unearthing new ways of approaching
complex issues through dialogue. In the following sections, we will introduce and
reflect on our individual approaches to dialogue education – in Olen’s case, via an
online graduate course in dialogue at the University of Massachusetts (UMASS) in
Boston, USA, and for Janet, via a face-to-face intensive undergraduate programme in
dialogue at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in Vancouver, Canada. We will then close
with a reflective conversation on key themes and issues raised in the article as a
means to uncovering new directions for future research and inquiry in this emerging
field.

Olen’s reflections on Dialogue Processes

At the University of Massachusetts (Boston), graduate students in the Critical and
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

Creative Thinking Program1 share an interest in learning and applying ideas and tools
in critical thinking, creative thinking and reflective practice. Students come from a
wide array of professions and endeavours, seeking new knowledge and ways of
learning to enable them to become agents of change in education, social justice and
organisational settings. Three years ago I developed the online course Dialogue
Processes and have since taught generative dialogue to a range of graduate students
from North America and Europe. Initially I was a bit sceptical about teaching and
facilitating generative dialogue processes online. However, as I quickly discovered,
improvements in the mediums of virtual communication enabled core dimensions of
this work to be optimally explored. Also, because the students’ main practice arena for
dialogue was not restricted to the online world of our course, the immediate conver-
sations in their personal and professional lives provided additional contexts for them
to explore and apply their learning.
Structured as a learning community, the core objective of Dialogue Processes is
to cultivate practical know-how and theoretical knowledge of dialogue processes
informed by a range of dialogue scholar-practitioners, with a particular focus on Otto
Scharmer’s (2000, 2003) account of generative dialogue. Informed by my research
(Gunnlaugson 2004, 2006, 2007) investigating the significance of Scharmer’s model
of generative dialogue within post-secondary contexts of learning, I draw upon Bill
Isaacs’ (1999) writings from the MIT Dialogue Project and David Bohm’s (1996)
conception of dialogue, among others. An abridged version of Scharmer’s model (see
Figure 1) depicts four basic fields of conversation – two of which are dialogue based
(i.e. reflective dialogue and generative dialogue). This simple heuristic offers a prac-
tical outline of the four stages not all dialogue groups go through, whether in a one-
to-one context or in small or large groups. As a process model, generative dialogue is
a theory and practice of dialogue that describes the underlying patterns that conversa-
tions take as individuals and collectives move (counterclockwise) from closed and
inauthentic forms of conversation in the lower fields towards more open, reflective
and creative forms of dialogue in the upper fields.
Throughout the course I build on Scharmer’s account of dialogue by expanding
Figure 1.Presencing
Source: An abridged
Institute-Otto
version ofScharmer—www.presencing.com<http://www.presencing.
Scharmer’s generative dialogue model (2006). com>

further on key distinctions within each of the four fields of conversation, introducing
speaking and listening practices that are needed to shift conversations through polite
discussion into debate, then into reflective and finally generative dialogue.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 173

Figure 1. An abridged version of Scharmer’s generative dialogue model (2006).

Source: Presencing Institute-Otto Scharmer–www.presencing.com<http://www.presencing.
com>
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

For example, in our online conversations, I encourage students to become more

aware of how their way of listening and speaking reflects the characteristic dynamics
within each field of conversation within Scharmer’s theory of generative dialogue. At
times students will defend and argue their positions; however, I have found that they
are less prone to getting stuck in debate and more interested in learning how to master
reflective and generative dialogue processes as the course progresses. As Scharmer
(2000) has pointed out, the first three fields of conversation are informed by Kolb’s
learning cycle (1984), which is primarily based upon reflecting on pre-existing
knowledge. However, as students discover from working with the complex issues that
pervade their organisations and work environments, there is often a need for engaging
in a different learning cycle with one another that allows them to learn together from
emergent experiences in the present. Within the context of generative dialogue,
Scharmer (2000, 2003) describes this emergent cycle as ‘presencing’, where learners
begin to connect with the sources of their highest creativity as a vehicle for sensing
and articulating new knowledge. Challenging the popular conviction that conversa-
tions typically involve replicating (or critiquing) our existing knowledge, I have found
that students gravitate towards the practice of presencing as a means of exploring new
ways of knowing, learning and thinking together with others in the class – all key
elements of generative dialogue and transformative learning.

Generative dialogue processes via WebCT

Throughout each week, students and I meet virtually for online text-based dialogues
where we reflect on and inquire into the weekly lecture and course readings in the
WebCT forum, as depicted in Figure 2.
The objective is generally to have students pose questions related to the week’s
Figure 2. WebCT homepage for Dialogue Processes: Explorations in Generative Dialogue .

readings on generative dialogue and related dialogue processes. Students take turns
facilitating course conversations online each week. I introduced an inquiry rubric to
help everyone improve upon the quality of inquiry in the posts, as initially students
tend to not see or understand the connection with dialogue or meaningful online
inquiry. The inquiry rubric helps move students away from the tendency to fulfil
class discussion requirements without engaging more deeply with their classmates by
 174 O. Gunnlaugson and J. Moore
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

Figure 2. WebCT homepage for Dialogue Processes: Explorations in Generative Dialogue.

reading and responding to their messages in a more thoughtful and reflective manner.
Rather than grade students on the volume of their posts, in the rubric I emphasise
the quality of their contributions in terms of intentionally voicing their responses
within different fields of Scharmer’s model, and relating their threads back to points
raised in other threads, prior experiences and the weekly readings, among other
criteria.

Coaching corner
In addition to our online inquiry, each student signs up for nine weeks of peer coach-
ing with his or her classmates, with coaching calls also taking place weekly between
students over Skype.2 Within the coaching corner,3 each week there are generative
dialogue skill-building exercises that students explore, coach one another on and then
reflect upon within their personal blogs.4 For example, early on in the term I introduce
a basic practice of sitting meditation in the coaching corner to help students cultivate
the capacity for deepened attention and mindfulness in their conversations. Senge and
Wheatley (2001) elaborate on the relationship between dialogue and meditation with
their work in learning communities:

Increasingly, we’re directly incorporating into our work different practices that have
been around for a long time, such as various types of meditation. It started with the work
on dialogue. We found that dialogue often involved silence, and so maybe we needed to
actually cultivate the capacity to sit in silence. And guess what? That started to look a lot
like traditional forms of meditation or contemplation (29).
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 175

Building on Senge and Wheatley’s work, I introduce experiential coaching

assignments in the form of contemplative exercises that develop students’ meditation
practice by strengthening their awareness of breath, body, emotions and thoughts, in
their daily conversations and dialogues. A number of students have reported that
these practices have significantly helped them better understand how the state of their
body, emotions and attitude influences their capacity and interest in generative
conversation. The first half of the course assignments are designed to promote a more
expanded awareness and understanding of the different levels of intrapersonal partic-
ipation in the processes of dialogue communication with others, while the latter half
focus more on methods to improve interpersonal communication within the genera-
tive dialogue model. By structuring the course in such a way that students explore both
content and the processes of dialogue, my intention is to provide a context where
academic and practical objectives can be explored in depth, encouraging students to
find ways to put dialogue theory to work through a rigorous applied exploration of this
work.
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

Janet’s reflections on The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue

During the year following the completion of my dissertation ‘Recreating the
University from Within: Sustainability and Transformation in Higher Education’, I
was looking for ways to create learning environments at the university that embodied
the principles of sustainability and transformation. I was keenly aware that many
students were coasting through studies by learning how to write exams and papers and
rarely spending time thinking about the connection of their own actions and learning
to the ‘real world’ outside the institution. I was also aware of the increasingly dire state
of the planet in terms of ecological and social unsustainability (Huckle and Sterling
1996; Orr 1996) and I was looking for methods of teaching and learning that could
embody principles of transformation, higher learning and social change. According to
Bowers (1993) and Jickling (1994), learning about sustainability must include discus-
sions of the implications of ethics, alternative worldviews, and the role of humans
within ecosystems, and ultimately a discussion of what matters. I was looking to find
other people working in post-secondary settings who shared an interest in creating
such modes of transformative education, and I was fortunate to find a position teaching
the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue (USID) at Simon Fraser University (SFU).
The USID program was conceived by Dr Mark Winston at SFU ‘to inspire
students with a sense of civic responsibility, encourage their passion to improve
Canadian society, and develop innovative intellectual tools for effective problem solv-
ing’.5 My mentor Lee Gass describes a set of global objectives of learning from the
Science One program at University of British Columbia, which closely align with the
guiding intentions of the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue:

We aim to convert students from passive to active, and from dependent to independent
and interdependent learners, to develop their conceptual understanding and higher-order
thinking in addition to detailed knowledge, and to develop their analytical, synthetic, and
communicative skills. Most importantly, we aim to undo years of single-track thinking
and empower our students to harness the full range of their knowledge and intelligence
in solving problems. (Benbasat and Gass 2002)

Drawing in part from these global objectives, the program was designed and in part
inspired by the building of the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser
 176 O. Gunnlaugson and J. Moore

Figure 3. The Wosk Dialogue Hall.

University in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.6 The Morris J. Wosk Centre

aims to encourage public assembly through dialogue-based programmes and
conferences that address social issues.
I am working as one of two full-time faculty members in the programme, which
Figure 3. The Wosk Dialogue Hall.

takes place during all three semesters in the year. Each semester focuses on an
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

interdisciplinary theme and generally involves one or two other full-time faculty from
SFU. Themes so far have included: The Urban Experience; First Nations; Nature and
Society; Leadership; Sustainable Community Development; and Climate Change. A
typical semester involves 20 third- and fourth-year undergraduates and includes visits
from 25–30 distinguished guests, including members of local government and non-
governmental organisations, artists, community and industry leaders, as well as youth
and activists. The instructors responsible for the semester invite guests to the class and
prepare reading materials for the students on a topic that will be connected to the
theme. For example, during The Urban Experience, one week focused on local poli-
tics, during which we had four city councillors come to class for a three-hour dialogue.
Guests are informed in the original letter to come prepared to engage in dialogue about
a particular theme. We intend for people to talk about their lived experience in the
world and have found that PowerPoint presentations tend to detract from the stories
that guests might otherwise be inclined to tell, given the right conditions. For many of
the guests, this is their first experience of ‘dialogue’.
My educational background of biology, community planning and curriculum
studies prepared me well for interdisciplinary teaching but I still had much to learn
about dialogue education. The programme does not ‘teach’ dialogue theory per se but
instead encourages learning by doing. We engage in dialogue with the students starting
on day one and continue this way over the course of 12 weeks. The students and I were
often learning together. For me this meant letting go of my assumptions about what it
meant to be a university professor and to realise that I was often quite vulnerable in a
dialogue classroom. My understanding of an ideal dialogue is that you are going to
end up in a place that you could not imagine when you began. My assumption from
previous teaching experience was that I was to know where the class would end up and
that I would help guide or facilitate the students to get there. In dialogue, I can encour-
age students to challenge their own perspectives and assumptions but I do not know
where the class as a collective group will arrive at by the end of a dialogue, or a semes-
ter for that matter. I have learned to remain open to the possibilities of emergence,
while quietly guiding and supporting the group towards positive outcomes.
One of the beautiful tensions of dialogue education is getting comfortable with not
knowing where the class is going each day when you arrive. As an instructor, I often
had to let go of notions of what were the most important concepts to cover and instead
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 177

let the students take the dialogue where they were most interested. The students
learned quickly to self-facilitate the dialogue and ensure that a range of voices was
heard and that the dialogue remained lively and coherent to all involved. I have grown
more comfortable with the experience of dialogue over the past two years of teaching
in the programme.

Reflecting on our approaches to dialogue education

The following concluding section of our article arose from part of an online conver-
sation between Olen and Janet where we reflected on our experiences of teaching and
facilitating dialogue with an interest in unearthing new insights and learning gained
from our courses.

Olen: I would like to explore some of the themes of our previous conversations on
dialogue education and the process of writing this article together. To get us started,
I’m wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on how you approach a typical day
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

of dialogue within your USID semester.

Janet: A typical dialogue day would start with guests arriving a few minutes ahead of
time to be greeted by a student host. The students would decide how the chairs and
tables would be arranged and I would talk with them about the dialogue process they
had designed for the session. At the beginning of each dialogue one of the instructors
(and sometimes a student who was keen on the guest) would start by welcoming the
guest to the dialogue programme, and explain that everything in the room was to stay
‘in camera’ and that their comments would not leave the room. We also explained that
we were attempting to create a dialogue space and so we encouraged guests to parti-
cipate with us in dialogue. This process evolved over the term and went through many
iterations.

Olen: In the UMASS course, we spent a week exploring David Kantor’s four roles in
dialogue [see Figure 4], introducing the role of the mover, follower, bystander and
opposer. When you called upon the ‘quiet’ people to speak, I hear you asking for what
Kantor describes as the perspective of the ‘bystander.’ In my experience, the
bystander view is often critical in bringing perspective and wisdom to the space.
Isaacs elaborates on the roles further [see Figure 5].
Figure 4.Isaacs,
Source: DavidWilliam
Kantor’s
N. Dialogic
four-player
Leadership.
model. The Systems Thinker 10, no. 1: 1–5. Retrieved nover 24, 2008, from http://www.dialogos.com/publication/systhink.pdf www.pegasuscom.com>http://www.pegasuscom.com>

Figure 5. Bill Isaacs’ four practices for dialogic leadership.

Janet: I used collaborative group work roles that include devil’s advocate, critical
friend, facilitator and timekeeper among other roles similar to Kantor’s four roles.
This gave students a role to identify with if they were nervous about bringing in
another perspective. They would start off a dialogue by saying, ‘I’m going to play the
role of the cynic here’ so that they could disassociate themselves from the comments
they were making. I have found role-playing is a great way to give voice to a range of
perspectives. By taking on a legitimate role, students find ways to voice alternative
views in the dialogue and feel safe doing so. They are so terrified of what the group
thinks of them that it is hard to get diverse ideas into the dialogue space. Another strat-
egy that I take is to promote self-awareness of our roles in the dialogue. For those
people who are quick to jump in to conversations, they learn to hold back and listen
more and for those who are nervous to contribute and wait for breaks they have to
learn to signal that they are interested in speaking. This led to a strange place of
 178 O. Gunnlaugson and J. Moore
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

Figure 4. David Kantor’s four-player model.

Source: Isaacs, William N. Dialogic Leadership. The Systems Thinker 10, no. 1: 1–5.
Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.dialogos.com/publications/systhink.pdf
www.pegasuscom.com<http://www.pegasuscom.com>

Figure 5. Bill Isaacs’ four practices for dialogic leadership.

Source: Isaacs, William N. Dialogic Leadership. The Systems Thinker 10, no. 1: 1–5.
Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.dialogos.com/publications/systhink.pdf
www.pegasuscom.com<http://www.pegasuscom.com>
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 179

silence in the group. We learned to practise the ‘awkward pause’, to sit in silence with
one another knowing that it was not a flaw of dialogue but instead a chance to make
a shift in the direction of the dialogue. I think we were really proud of the pause by
the end of the term, sitting with one another and not having to talk.

Olen: In a way, this seems to be a move towards getting students to become more
conscious of their habitual stance of communication in dialogue. So often this stance
is unconscious, conditioned and I’ve found it can be quite effective to work with a
process of unlearning the habits or roles students take that subvert dialogue as much
as learning the practices that support its emergence. This highlights another more
academic issue: when we say we’re doing dialogue, what theories of dialogue are
informing our practice? With the UMASS course, I work primarily with Otto
Scharmer, Bill Isaacs and David Bohm’s accounts of dialogue throughout the term. In
becoming more aware of our theoretical assumptions about what we mean by
dialogue, it is my experience that we can better see how these assumptions inform our
conversations. As a basic example, I’ve found Scharmer’s four fields of generative
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

dialogue help students distinguish between different forms of dialogue and other more
habitual modes of conversation – each of which have their respective place and value
in the broader mosaic of human communication.

Janet: Though we don’t focus on dialogue theory, the students have a reading pack-
age that addresses a range of definitions of dialogue as well as a number of processes
on how to enact and engage in dialogue. They spend time reading the package and
reflecting on their learning at the beginning of the semester. Each week they write
reflections about the course and they are often highly critical of their own role in
dialogue. I have found this kind of reflection leads them to a greater self-awareness,
changes in behavior and in some instances, transformation.

Olen: I think there is merit in both approaches to teaching dialogue. From the perspec-
tive of assessment, I have found that having students learn about dialogue theory and
apply this knowledge through student-centred forms of dialogue-based curriculum
helps them develop a more practical understanding of generative dialogue. Including
students as active participants in the assessment process also helps me assess the
extent to which their learning about dialogue theory is or is not promoting critical and
creative thinking or transformative learning. By weaving assessment more directly
into the course about learning processes of dialogue, I find students experience less
performance anxiety and are willing to share more authentically and openly about
their learning.

Closing reflections
Reflecting back on this article, we have shared our experiences of the significance of
dialogue in both virtual and face-to-face university classrooms. Though dialogue
broadly promotes ways of thinking and learning together, the challenge of sharing
meaning and exploring dialogue processes does not come without frustration and
difficulties. Nevertheless, we both believe that the effort and time required to move
towards fluency in dialogue offer a much-needed contribution to post-secondary
education. Olen’s emphasis on fostering generative dialogue processes as a transfor-
mative means to develop students’ capacities for a broader repertoire of conversations
 180 O. Gunnlaugson and J. Moore

across diverse sociocultural contexts and Janet’s involvement with local sustainabil-
ity initiatives in dialogue offer, in our view, a complementary set of perspectives
concerning the possibilities of dialogue education. It is our hope that this article will
inspire further inquiry and research into dialogue education, particularly in terms of
how dialogue processes can support a broader range of transformative learning
experiences for students, faculty, classrooms and larger systems of post-secondary
education.

Notes
1. www.cct.umb.edu/homepage.html.
2. Skype is a free downloadable Internet phone technology that allows students to call one
another without cost through their computers.
3. The coaching corner is an online section of the course dedicated to supporting students’
development of dialogue skills and capacities. Students keep weekly blogs to reflect on
their peer coaching calls, which are based on assignments that they complete on their own
or with other colleagues and friends.
4. At the beginning of the course, students start a personal blog for their coaching journals. A
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

blog is shorthand for weblog, which is essentially a series of items posted on the Internet
for others to read. Each student’s blog includes journal reflections and is structured so other
students and I can post responses to their reflections.
5. http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/undergrad.
6. http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue.

References
Arnett, R. 1992. Dialogic education: Conversation about ideas and between persons.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Benbasat, J.A., and C.L. Gass. 2002. Reflections on integration, interaction, and community:
The Science One program and beyond. Conservation Ecology 5 no. 2: 26. http://www.
consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art26/.
Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. London and New York: Routledge.
Bowers, C.A. 1993. Education, cultural myths, and the ecological crisis. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Burbules, N.C. 1993. Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Darling, L. 2001. When conceptions collide: Constructing a community of inquiry for teacher
education in British Columbia. Journal of Education for Teaching 27, no. 1: 7–21.
Freire, P. 1990. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gunnlaugson, O. 2004. Towards an integral education for the Ecozoic era. Journal of
Transformative Education 2, no. 4: 313–35.
Gunnlaugson, O. 2006. Generative dialogue as a transformative learning practice in adult and
higher education settings. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 12: 2–19.
Gunnlaugson, O. 2007. Shedding light upon the underlying forms of transformative learning
theory: Introducing three distinct forms of consciousness. Journal of Transformative
Education 4, no. 2: 134–151.
Huckle, J., and S. Sterling. 1996. Education for sustainability. London: Earthscan Publica-
tions Ltd.
Isaacs, W.N. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Currency
Doubleday.
Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogic leadership. The systems thinker 10, no. 1: 1–5. Retrieved November
24, 2008, from http://www.dialogos.com/publications/systhink.pdf
Jickling, B. 1994. Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development.
Trumpeter 11, no. 3: 114–16.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 181

Laiken, M. 1997. Collaborative processes for collaborative organizational design: The role of
reflection, dialogue and polarity management in creating an environment for organiza-
tional learning. Organization Development Journal 15, no. 4: 35–42.
Lawrence, R. 2002. A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning communities. In
Adult learning in community, ed. S. Imel, 83–92. New Directions for Adult and Continu-
ing Education 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, C., and L. Sackney. 2001. Building capacity for a learning community. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/
cjeap/issues19.html.
Moore, J. 2005. Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in
the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education 3: 76–91.
Orr, D.W. 1996. Educating for the environment: Higher education’s challenge of the next
century. The Journal of Environmental Education 27: 7–10.
Scharmer, C.O. 2000. Presencing: Learning from the future as it emerges. Paper presented at
the Conference on Knowledge and Innovation, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland,
and the MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Scharmer, C.O. 2003. Four fields of generative dialogue. In Generative dialogue course pack
(available from author).
Senge, P., and M. Wheatley. 2001. Changing how we work together. Shambhala Sun, 51,
Downloaded By: [Gunnlaugson, Olen] At: 15:23 13 May 2009

January: 29–33.
Stewart, J., K. Zediker, and L. Black. 2004. Relationship among philosophies of dialogue. In
Dialogic approaches to communication, ed. R. Anderson, L.A. Baxter, and K.N. Cissna,
21–37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Watts, J., P. Miller, and J. Kloepfer. 1999. Cultivating collective consciousness with transcen-
dent self-presence: A guided dialogue method. Group Facilitation. http://www.iafworld.
org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3499.
Zúñiga, X., B.A. Nagda, and T.D. Zevig. 2002. Intergroup dialogues: An educational model
for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity and Excellence in Education 35,
no. 1: 7–17.

View publication stats