The Lost Art of Conversation
So, I've come to the end of my first week of study in module #H819 with the #OpenUniversity in the UK. Its the final module in my MA in Online and Distance Education (MAODE) and I've been looking forward to this for such a long time. It kind of marks the beginning of the end for my MAODE journey in a sense because I've loved every minute of my learning experience. Yes there were bits that I struggled with and bits that I found more challenging than others, the same as most other students would claim I imagine. But the connections I've made and, more importantly, the conversations I've had have enabled me to learn and grow as a person and as a practitioner.
I was watching a video recording of a seminar this afternoon where Mike Sharples, one of the #OU's leading academics and former lead on the development of the Futurelearn platform, really highlighted a number of interesting points. I was very interested in how his pedagogy informed approach drove the development of the Futurelearn platform. And it all stemmed from the idea of conversation.
Lets think about conversations just for a minute. What kinds of conversations do we have with other people? What kinds of conversations do we have with ourselves? And what are the key ingredients of a good conversation? Is it possible to have conversations online?
Lots of people say its impossible to have meaningful conversations online. But then in the next minute they share comments, experiences and photographs online via social media with friends, family and people they've never met and are potentially never likely to meet either. People post comments and replies and generate whole conversations online all the time. Indeed, it's not unknown for people to have full blown rants these days to an online audience who may or may not react. So we need to consider what can trigger a conversation? And what keeps a conversation going? Why do conversations "fizzle out"?
A conversation generally stems from a shared experience. So, for example, today something happened to at an event you attended and you wanted to share some thoughts with others online. You might have captured a few photographs and together you post all of that information online as a digital artefact for others to comment on and reply to. Other people who attended the same event might then post their photographs and thoughts in response and naturally a conversation develops. So in online spaces conversations can (and often do) take place around an artefact. Think about sites like Pinterest or Scoop.it which are curating sites for digital artefacts. This happens in real life too. Think about the number of times you've had conversations about a movie, or a book you've read. Think about the last time you visited a museum, art gallery or historical site and had a conversation about a painting that captured your attention or asked enthusiastic question from your tour guide. Artefact based interactions aren't new and nor are they unique to the digital space.
But the digital space goes beyond that. They become our very own personal archive, storing all these conversations and digital artefacts which we can revisit whenever we want. How often do you have memory events and reminders popping up on your social media feed? Sometimes they can be pleasant reminders and on other occasions, perhaps less pleasant. But such reminders offer the perspective of hindsight and even reflection.
All of these features of conversational learning were documented by Gordon Pask in the 1970s in his work on cybernetics. Yes - that's right, cybernetics! You should read about his work. It's fascinating. I had heard of Pask's work before, but until today I had regarded him as the father of Serialism (so to speak) in so far as I understood that the growth/development of a robot, system or indeed a person is incrementally stepwise. But I hadn't stopped to think about the importance of interaction between two robots, systems or indeed people and the conversation or exchange of information that takes place between the two.
So I got to thinking - given that we can have conversations quite easily face to face, why are teachers and students finding it so difficult to have conversations online? Has the use of digital technology robbed us of the art of conversation?
Well, if we were to take a vote, it turns out that the eyes have it! Literally.
You don't have to look very far on the internet for various opinions on this but an interesting viewpoint is provided by Richardson and Kirkham (2007) who highlight the importance of visual cues in conversation stating: "the most basic and universal of these attentional implements is a pointing finger." I defy any teacher to say that they've never used a pointing instrument in class. Even in online education I use my mouse pointer all the time specifically for this purpose.
They describe research done whereby two people are given a set of pictures to look at and one participant has to describe something to the other person who is in another room. By recording the eye movements of both participants they determined in their study that on average there is a two second delay between the listener receiving the description and identifying the right picture as described by the speaker.
So in the context of individual conversations, when the other person isn't physically present in the room, the other person's brain is having to work harder to compensate for the absence of visual cues. So for teachers, if we multiply this effect up by the number of students we have in our classes and the infinite other visual cues that are missing, then yes online education is hard! Yes we have to put in extra effort and that applies to both teachers and students. But without conversation, where is our sense of community?
I read a blog article which cited three key ingredients of a good conversation: (1) An open mind, (2) Intentionality and (3) Transparency. In a learning situation most people come with an intention to engage in the learning and engage in a conversation with an open mind. But transparency requires trust? And the building blocks of community building is conversation. We can build a community one conversation at a time if we put in the effort.. Yes, it's hard, especially at the moment. But there are resources out there which can help us to do it.
An amazing place to start is with https://onehe.org/equity-unbound/ which is an amazing resource I found on twitter which was shared via twitter by the inspirational @Bali_Maha. I used some of these resources at the beginning of the semester with my students and I actually find that the difference it has made in those classes is phenomenal so I would really recommend you try it out with your students. This website is also great because it links us in as practitioners in to a community of practice which enables our own learning and growth.
Ultimately, conversations can be amazing things. They can grow in an ever expanding and dynamic way like Dance (1967, as cited by Bajracharya, 2018) implied in his helical model of communication. Or, they can fizzle out. Some might say, it's a matter of interest, or noise interference... But what it it's simply a question of the amount of effort we put in?
References
Richardson, D. and Kirkham, N. Z. (2007) The art of conversation is coordination and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue: Research article [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6261410_The_art_of_conversation_is_coordination_Common_ground_and_the_coupling_of_eye_movements_during_dialogue_Research_article (Accessed 8th April 2021).
Bajracharya, S. (2018) Helical Model of Communication [Online]. Available at: https://www.businesstopia.net/communication/helical-model-communication#:~:text=Frank%20Dance%20proposed%20a%20communication,a%20cylinder%20or%20a%20cone.&text=Helical%20model%20gives%20geometrical%20testimony%20of%20communication. (Accessed 9th April 2021).
Comments
Post a Comment