Lisa Rampton Halverson

This article includes Bernard Scott as a coauthor (though third).  Scott has cowritten many articles with Gordon Pask on Conversation Theory.  I was excited to see how it was applied to Blended Learning.

The article reviews the basics of Pask’s theory, and then comments briefly on additions made to the theory by Harri-Augstein and Thomas (who have applied Conversation Theory to self-organized learners).  They then address Laurillard’s expansion of Conversation Theory and provide a diagram of the four elements and twelve stages that Laurillard fits into her Conversation Framework.  However, the elements and stages are never fully explained, so one must look to Laurillard to truly understand them.

What is most disappointing about this article is that they describe what methods they used in their research, and their findings/ interpretations, but never explain what they were really asking participants in the interviews, or looking for in the document analysis.  They seem to come away with a sense of how the blended learning class was experienced by students and by lecturers.  But it’s unclear what they asked them, other than something vague along the lines of “How was the experience?  What did you like and what did you not like?”  They share in their data section “topics [that] emerged as trends from the staff and student interviews” (p. 115).  But what questions were being asked of the interviewees and of the documents they interpreted.

So I walked away from this article without a clear sense of how this research might be replicated.  I hope other articles that address Conversation Theory in Blended Learning settings are more specific.

References:

Heinze, A., Procter, C. and Scott, B. (2007).  “Use of conversation theory to underpin blended learning.” International Journal Teaching and Case Studies. Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2. pp.108–120.

Read Full Post »

I will admit that I’m confused by a lot of what is here.  Not a good thing if I’m trying to understand conversation theories; Pask is foundational.  I need to do additional reading, watch again that 40 minute Vimeo vid that Gibbons said helped him, but I would also love to talk to someone who “gets” Pask.  Pask has a lot of definitions, many of them for terms which are commonly used but which he defines in a very specific way. That actually makes the reading harder, for my preconceived notion of the term fights with the new definition I’m trying to recall. In any case, some of his concepts I am clear on.  I’ll write about those for now, and continue to do more reading on his work.

Firstly, he establishes the importance of conversations to learning in this statement: “the fundamental unit for investigating complex human learning is a conversation involving communication (see McCulloch. 1965) between two participants in the learning process, who commonly occupy the roles of learner and teacher” (p. 12).  Later Pask explains further how conversation leads to learning: “Within conversation theory learning develops through agreements between the participants which subsequently lead to understanding by the learner” (p. 14).

As the last sentence implies, Pask does not believe that learning occurs only in the learner as unilaterally fed information by the teacher.  In Pask’s system of learning, “subject matter is broken down into its basic elements and reconstructed into an arrangement of topics which provides a ‘map for the students.  Rules cover the transactions made within the system, but the student is able to follow different paths and…is also free to adopt his own learning strategy within defined limits” (p. 24).  Even more importantly, when both participants (teacher and learner) are provided “with an external representation of the subject matter through which topics can be identified and discussed…, explanation can be initiated by either participant” (p. 15). Pask therefore argues that “the distinction between teacher and student can no longer be maintained” (p. 23).  He also claims that conversation may be held by one person, between two differing thought processes or opinions that person may hold.  I need to decide whether I agree with this.  On the one hand, I have definitely learned through such “inner conversations” (though it would seem most often they are sparked by some earlier “outer conversation.” Yet I keep going back to Gibbons’ definition of conversation as intentional and purposeful communication between two agents.  This definition would preclude reflection or “inner conversation” in the definition.

Pask has referred to understanding, and so further explains that concept as well.  He says that understanding “depends on the ability to reconstruct the concept of T” (p. 15).  In another reading (B. Scott), this is called “teachback.”  “The crucial point is that an understanding in the present strong and special sense is determined by a two level agreement: A and B agree about a derivation and, in the context of this derivation they also agree about an explanation of each topic.” (22)

References:

Pask, Gordon.  (1976). “Conversational Techniques in the Study and Practice of Education.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology. 46. pp. 12-25.

Read Full Post »

I blogged earlier about using Twitter in my Intro to Middle Eastern Studies course.  I have to say it’s been really exciting to be using this as a teaching tool for a course focused on the Middle East at the same time that revolutions in the Middle East are being pushed forward using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Last night I was working on my computer and noticed a tweet with the hashtags #feb17 and #libya.  It wasn’t yet the 17th of February, but anti-Gaddafi protests were already breaking out in Libya, two days early.  It was exciting to see a revolution breaking out as I watched — kind of!  Now I can’t get work done if I leave my Twitter notifications open with a search for #Feb17 — there are notifications about every couple of seconds.

I told my MESA 201 students to record any first-hand accounts they are hearing about these revolutions.  Some of them have friends in Cairo who provided them with first-hand information during the Tahrir Square uprisings.  In 1993 I taught English in Prague, Czech Republic.  One of my students took me on a walking tour of the areas where the Velvet Revolution protests occurred only two years earlier.  He had been one of the thousands of students who marched and brought about this peaceful revolution.  I now really wish I’d recorded his words — so neat to have had that inside perspective, but by not recording it, I’ve lost most of the details.

Read Full Post »

I first read this article last summer, and have returned to reread it as part of my work for Dr. Graham’s course.  Though it doesn’t focus on “conversations” specifically, the related terms of “discourse” and “talk” make it important to my project. I really like the concepts that the authors have featured in their model of “Accountable Talk.”  The stated goal of this article is to present classroom discussion practices (termed “Accountable Talk”) which their 15 years of prior research show leads to reasoned participation by all students and which support equity and access to rigorous academic learning. According to the authors, the practices of “Accountable Talk” have been shown to result in academic achievement for diverse populations of students. They tie this to Habermas’ (1990) concept of “deliberate democracy”; another reading I should look into!  They also base their theory in Vygotsky’s ideas of the “social formation of the mind,” constructivist principles, and sociocultural ideals.

These practices require that discourse is accountable to the learning community, to the accepted standards of reasoning, and to knowledge;  then, the authors argue, deeper levels of understanding can be reached and knowledge constructed by the learning community.

• Accountability to the Learning Community is “talk that attends seriously to and builds on the ideas of others; participants listen carefully to one another, build on each other’s ideas, and ask each other questions aimed at clarifying or expanding a proposition” (Michaels et al., 2007).  In this manner, participants become part of a community of participation and are accountable to the ideas of one another, using others’ ideas to build their own contributions and to construct and reconstruct their knowledge.  Participants should ground their contributions in the ideas of others.  Such grounding can be explained in a rubric, and should also be modeled by the instructor.  Moreover, Michaels et al. give this advice for the instructor hoping to engage learners in Accountable Talk: “it is very important to note that in order for the students to begin using these forms of talk, there have to be interesting and complex ideas to talk and argue about. Implicitly or explicitly, teachers who have implemented these discourse strategies have shifted away from simple questions and one-word answers and opened up the conversation to problems that support multiple positions or solution paths” (Michaels et al., 2007).  In rubrics I have used in the past for discussion boards, this principle is reflected when students practice Etiquette in discussions and strive for Substance in their discussion posts.
• Accountability to Standards of Reasoning “is talk that emphasizes logical connections and the drawing of reasonable conclusions. It is talk that involves explanation and self-correction. It often involves searching for premises, rather than simply supporting or attacking conclusions” (Michaels et al., 2007).  When students are encouraged to be accountable to logic, they further develop the skills requisite in the knowledge economy they will operate in.  In rubrics I have used in the past for discussion boards, this principle is reflected when students use Insight to make connections between themselves and the materials, or to draw conclusions from the material itself.
• Accountability to Knowledge is talk that “is based explicitly on facts, written texts or other publicly accessible information that all individuals can access.”  Discourse is viable when “[s]peakers make an effort to get their facts right and make explicit the evidence behind their claims or explanations. They challenge each other when evidence is lacking or unavailable. When the content under discussion involves new or incompletely mastered knowledge, accountable discussion can uncover misunderstandings and misconceptions. A knowledgeable and skilled teacher is required to provide authoritative knowledge when necessary and to guide conversation toward academically correct concepts” (Michaels et al., 2007).  In rubrics I have used in the past for discussion boards, this principle is reflected when Specificity is achieved in student discussions.

Since I’m interested in conversation, I looked to see if they defined that term or a related one. Conversation is not defined, although they seem to imply that “conversations” are the informal “stuff” from which discourse is born.  Discourse it more trained or “deliberate,” following the practices of Accountable Talk; conversation can be analyzed to find the threads that make up formal discourse.

In what ways does “Accountable Talk” speak to Gibbons’ definition of instruction as conversation?  “Accountable Talk” are practices expected of students (and the teacher as model); Gibbons is proposing a metaphor for instructional designers. For Gibbons, the key defining characteristics of conversation are information exchange, mutual intention, listening & thinking before responding, and shared purpose.  Each of these concepts contributes to accountability to community.  “Listening & thinking before responding” leads to accountability to reasoning and to knowledge, as well.  “Information exchange” is only useful instructionally if that information is accountable to reasoning and to knowledge, too.

References

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnik, L.  (2007). “Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life.” Studies in Philosophy and Education. 27:4. (pp. 283-297).

Read Full Post »

Tonight I took a tutorial required for anyone seeking approval from the IRB.  At this point I’m not sure whether I will collect data this semester, since my paper will be a “theoretical framework” paper and not a research one per se.  However, it’s good to take the tutorial and be made aware of the protocols for research.  I thought it was important that research show benificence, respect, and justice.  We should be reminded to always treat others according to those standards.

When I was an undergrad, I conducted research in Israel/Palestine during the summer of 1995.  I had to get IRB approval back then.  That made sense, although I mostly interviewed scholars for their information, anything they might share in a lecture.  However, I did interview a couple of Jewish extremists who lived in Kiryat Arba (neighboring the Palestinian town of Hebron).  People who honored the memory of Baruch Goldstein (who opened fire in a mosque in February 1994 and killed 29 people).  To my mind, these people suffered from paranoia (or were a few fruitloops short of a bowl, to quote the man who taught my Sunday School class when I was 15). Perhaps for that reason they would fall in the “vulnerable populations” category I learned about in the IRB tutorial! jk

Read Full Post »

Although I’ve read quite a few articles by one or more of these three authors, and seen this particular article cited numerous times, this may be the first time I’ve read this exact article.  I looked at it primarily as an example of a theoretical framework paper, but nearing the middle, realized I must not have read the one Graham was suggesting, for this was a research paper, complete with “methodology” and “results.”  Nonetheless, I had some thoughts about how the community of inquiry framework intersects with conversation, my area of interest.

Since my interest is in conversation, it struck me that conversation impacts all three of the core elements discussed in this article.  First, I’ll start with the definition Andrew Gibbons provides for instruction: “Instruction is the intentional engagement of two or more agents capable of decision-making in purposeful conversation” (p. 6).  Then I will apply it to the three elements of CoI.

• Social presence: Garrison et al argue that social presence is the ability of the learners to project themselves socially and emotionally, thereby representing themselves as “real” people.  Social presence is increased by “intentional engagement” of agents with each other.  To be thus engaged, they much feel themselves perceived as “real” people, and they must perceive their partner in conversation in such a way.  Instruction thus occurs between the two agents when they converse with a mutual sense of social presence.
• Cognitive presence:  The authors define cognitive presence as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (2007, p. 79, italics added).  Elsewhere, Holmberg quotes Lewis as writing, “‘As we mull things over quietly and in solitude [in other words, as we reflect], we are actually holding a conversation with ourselves’ (Lewis 1975: 69)” (Holmberg, p. 48).  Thus reflection is viewed as conversation with oneself.  Additionally, Garrison et al. divide cognitive presence into a “practical inquiry” model.  The second step, termed exploration, in particular relies on conversation: “ This exploration takes place in a community of inquiry by iteratively moving between the private and shared worlds—that is, between critical reflection and discourse….  This is a divergent phase characterized by brainstorming, questioning, and exchange of information” (p. 9).  Finally, the relationship between discourse and conversation must be explored, since in many settings they are used interchangeably.   One may conclude that the construction of meaning which comprises cognitive presence happens best when agents intentionally engage in purposeful conversation.
• Teaching presence: Part of teaching presence, according to the authors, is facilitating discourse in order to achieve personally meaningful (as well as educationally worthwhile) outcomes.  Again the word “discourse” — I need to spend more time investigating how “discourse” is used theoretically and how it differs from conversation.  Regardless, we once again see that intentional, purposeful, meaningful conversation increases learning, in this sense when it is abetted by skillful teaching presence.

When the authors explain one of the characteristics of the community of inquiry, as based on the work of Lipman (1991), we see even more clearly the relationship between conversation on the CoI theory: “members question one another, demand reasons for beliefs, and point out consequences of each others’ ideas—thus creating a self- judging community when adequate levels of social, cognitive, and teacher presence are evident” (p. 12).

References

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2001).  Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education. (15:1) pp. 7 — 23.

Garrison, D. R. and Archer, W. (2007) A Theory of Community of Inquiry. The Handbook of Distance Education.  ed. Michael Moore. ***

Gibbons, A. S. (In press). Instruction and learning, technology and design.

Holmberg, B. (1995).  Course development—fundamental considerations.  In B. Holberg, Theory and practice of distance education.  London and New York: Routledge. pp, 45-67.

Read Full Post »

I’ve reread one of the articles by Holmberg, looking at it as an example of a theoretical framework paper. Here are essentially the steps to the structure of this article:

• First, Holmberg defines theory and distance education, the context in which his theory will operate.
• Then he presents his own theory of conversation and empathy, followed by the testable hypotheses which he sees as deriving from this theory.  Essentially, his argument is that the stronger the conversational style of instruction, the closer sense of relationship a student feels to the instructor and organization.  This sense of relationship gives a sense of personal relevance and involvement, leading to greater motivation and greater learning.
• Holmberg then argues for the relevance of his theory.
• He remarks upon the influence of social and technological developments on the theory.
• He presents studies which are closely related to his theory.
• He ends by presenting some epistemological reservations.

I have to say, the rereading still did not sit right with me in terms of “conversation theory.”  I still do not see a clear definition of what conversation is, and I’m still not swayed by the argument for “conversational style.”  However, it is probably less that the theory is flawed and more that it just isn’t what I am looking for — a clear argument about how instruction can be viewed as conversation (as Gibbons states).

References

Holmberg, B. (2005).  A theory of distance education based on Empathy.  In M.G. Moore & W.G. Anderson (Eds.).  The handbook of distance education (1st ed.), pp. 79-86.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ

Read Full Post »