Conversation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Conversation Theory)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conversation theory is a cybernetic and dialectic framework that offers a scientific theory to explain how interactions lead to "construction of knowledge", or "knowing": wishing to preserve both the dynamic/kinetic quality, and the necessity for there to be a "knower"[1][2][3] Following Dubberly and Pangaro, a conversation in the context of conversation theory can be thought of as "the means by which existing knowledge is conveyed and new knowledge is generated”. So how do organisms engage and learn? Through a self-reflective mental loop that works recursively. Described in a more processed approach: one would open a channel, commit to engage, construct meaning and in the end either evolve or converge.[4] This is the basis for Conversation Theory. The theory was developed by Gordon Pask, who credits Bernard Scott, Dionysius Kallikourdis, Brian Lewis and others during its initial development and implementation as well as Paul Pangaro during subsequent years.[5][6][7]


Overview[edit]

Conversation theory may be described as a formal theory of conversational proccess.[8] It may be viewed as a framework that may be used to examine learning and development through the means of conversational techniques by means of human-machine interactions; the results of which may then inform approaches to education, educational psychology, and epistemology.[9]The theory prioritizes learning and teaching approaches related to education.[10] A central idea of the theory is that learning occurs through conversations: For if participant A is to be conscious with participant B of a topic of inquiry, both participants must be able to converse with each other about that topic.[11] Because of this, participants engaging in a discussion about a subject matter make their knowledge claims explicit through the means of such conversational interactions.

The theory is concerned with a variety of "psychological, linguistic, epistemological, social or non-commitally mental events of which there is awareness".[12] Awareness in this sense is not of a person-specific type, i.e., it is not necessarily localized in a single participant. Instead, the type of awareness examined in conversation theory is the kind of joint awareness that may be shared between entities.[12] While there is an acknowledgement of its similarities to phenomenology, the theory extends its analysis to examine cognitive processes.[13] However, the concept of cognition is not viewed as merely being confined to an individual's brain or central nervous system.[14] Instead, cognition may occur at the level of a group of people (leading to the emergence of social awareness), or may characterize certain types of computing machines.[15]

It regards social systems as symbolic, language-oriented systems where responses depend on one person's interpretation of another person's behavior, and where meanings are agreed through conversations.[16] But since meanings are agreed, and the agreements can be illusory and transient, scientific research requires stable reference points in human transactions to allow for reproducible results. Pask found these points to be the understandings which arise in the conversations between two participating individuals, and which he defined rigorously.[17]

Conversation theory describes interaction between two or more cognitive systems, such as a teacher and a student or distinct perspectives within one individual, and how they engage in a dialog over a given concept and identify differences in how they understand it. Conversation theory came out of the work of Gordon Pask on instructional design and models of individual learning styles. In regard to learning styles, he identified conditions required for concept sharing and described the learning styles holist, serialist, and their optimal mixture versatile. He proposed a rigorous model of analogy relations.

Language[edit]

The types of languages that conversation theory utilises in its approach are distinguishable based on a language's role in relation to an experiment in which a conversation is examined as the subject of inquiry; thus, it follows that conversations can be conducted at different levels depending on the role a language has in relation to an experiment.[18] The types of languages are as follows: Natural languages used for general discussions outside the experiment; object languages which are the subject of inquiry during an experiment, and finally a metalanguage which is used to talk about the design, management, and results on an experiment.

A natural language is treated as an unrestricted language used between a source (say a participant) and an interrogator or analysist (say an experimenter).[19] For this reason, it may be considered a language for general discussion in the context of conversation theory. A object language meanwhile, has some of the qualities of a natural language (which permitts commands, questions, ostentation and predication),[20] but is used in conversation theory specifically as the language studied during experiments.[21] Finally, the metalanguage is a observational language used by a interrogator or analysist for describing the conversational system under observation, prescribing actions that are permitted within such a system, and posing parameters regarding what may be discussed during an experiment under observation. [20]

Since conversation theory specifically focuses on learning and development within human subjects, the object language is separated into two distinct modes based on these considerations. Conversation theory conceptualises learning as being the result of two intergrated levels of control: The first level of control is designated by and designates a set of problem-solving procedures which attempt to attain goals or subgoals, whereas the second level of control is designated as and denotes various constructive processes that have been acquired by a student through maturation, imprinting and previous learning.[22] The object language then is demarcated in conversation theory based on these considerations, whereby it is split between and lines of inquiry such that . According to Scott, discourse of a object language may be conceptualised as the level of how, i.e., discourse that is concerned with "how to “do” a topic: how to recognise it, construct it, maintain it and so on".[23] Meanwhile, discourse may be conceptualised as the level of why, i.e., it is discourse "concerned with explaining or justifying what a topic means in terms of other topics".[24]

Conversation[edit]

Through recursive interactions called "conversation" their differences may be reduced until agreement—that is, agreement up to a point which Pask called "agreement over an understanding"—may be reached. A residue of the interaction may be captured as an "entailment mesh", an organized and publicly available collection of resultant knowledge, itself a major product of the theory as devotees argue they afford many advantages over semantic networks and other, less formalized and non-experimentally based "representations of knowledge".

The Derivation of a concept from at least two concurrently existing topics or concepts
Alternative derivations may be shown with conjunctive (AND) and disjunctive pathways (OR). This is logically equivalent to T1 = (T2 AND T3) OR (T4 AND T5)
Any two concepts can produce the third, shown as the cyclic form of three concepts --- note that the arrows should show that BOTH T1 and T2 are required to produce T3; similarly for generating T1 or T2 from the others.

Analogy[edit]

Lastly, a formal analogy is shown where the derivations of the concept triples are indicated. The diamond shape denotes analogy and can exist between any three topics because of the shared meanings and differences.

Analogy

The relation of one topic to another by an analogy can also be seen as a restriction on a mapping and a distinction to produce the second topic or concept.

Cognitive Reflector[edit]

From conversation theory, Pask developed what he called a "Cognitive Reflector". This is a virtual machine for selecting and executing concepts or topics from an entailment mesh shared by at least a pair of participants. It features an external modelling facility on which agreement between, say, a teacher and pupil may be shown by reproducing public descriptions of behaviour.[25] We see this in essay and report writing or the "practicals" of science teaching.

Lp was Pask's protolanguage which produced operators like Ap which concurrently executes the concept, Con, of a Topic, T, to produce a Description, D. Thus:

Ap(Con(T)) => D(T), where => stands for produces.

A succinct account of these operators is presented in Pask[26] Amongst many insights he points out that three indexes are required for concurrent execution, two for parallel and one to designate a serial process. He subsumes this complexity by designating participants A, B, etc.

In Commentary toward the end of Pask,[26] he states:

The form not the content of the theories (conversation theory and interactions of actors theory) return to and is congruent with the forms of physical theories; such as wave particle duality (the set theoretic unfoldment part of conversation theory is a radiation and its reception is the interpretation by the recipient of the descriptions so exchanged, and vice versa). The particle aspect is the recompilation by the listener of what a speaker is saying. Theories of many universes, one at least for each participant A and one to participant B- are bridged by analogy. As before this is the truth value of any interaction; the metaphor for which is culture itself.

Learning strategies[edit]

In order to facilitate learning, Pask argued that subject matter should be represented in the form of structures which show what is to be learned. These structures exist in a variety of different levels depending upon the extent of the relationships displayed. The critical method of learning according to Conversation Theory is "teachback" in which one person teaches another what they have learned.[18]

Pask identified two different types of learning strategies:[18]

  • Serialists – Progress through a structure in a sequential fashion
  • Holists – Look for higher order relations

The ideal is the versatile learner who is neither vacuous holist "globe trotter" nor serialist who knows little of the context of his work.

In learning, the stage where one converges or evolves, many Cyberneticians describe the act of understanding as a closed-loop. Instead of simply “taking in” new information, one goes back to look at their understandings and pulls together information that was “triggered” and forms a new connection. This connection becomes tighter and one’s understanding of a certain concept is solidified or “stable” (Pangaro, 2003). Furthermore, Gordon Pask emphasized that[27] conflict is the basis for the notion of “calling for'' additional information (Pangaro, 1992).

According to Entwistle, experiments which lead to the investigation of phenomenon later denoted by the term learning strategy came about through the implementation of a variety of learning tasks.[28] Initially, this was done through utilising either CASTE, INTUITION, or the Clobbits pseudo-taxonomy.[29][30][31] However, given issues resulting from either the time-consuming nature or operating experiments or inexactness of experimental conditions, new tests were created in the form of the Spy Ring History test and the Smuggler's test. The former test involved a participant having to learn the history of a fictitious spy ring (in other words, the history of a fictitious espionage network); the participant, having to learn about the history of five spies in three countries over the period of five years. The comprehension learning component of the test involved learning the similarities and differences between a set of networks; whereas the operation learning aspect of the test involved learning the role each spy played and what sequence of actions that spy played over a given year.[29]

While Entwistle noted difficultes regard the lenghth of such tests for groups of students who were engaged in the Spy Ring History test, the results of the test did seem to correspond with the type of learning stratigies discussed.[32] However, it has been noted that while Pask and associates work on learning styles has been influential in both the development of conceptual tools and methodology, the Spy Ring History test and Smuggler's test may have been biased towards STEM students than humanities in its implementation, with Entwistle arguing that the "rote learning of formulae and definitions, together with a positive reaction to solving puzzles and problems of a logical nature, are characteristics more commonly found in science than arts student".[33][34]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Pask, Gordon (1975a). The cybernetics of human learning and performance: A guide to theory and practice. London, England: Hutchinson Educational.
  2. ^ Pask, Gordon (1975b). Conversation, cognition and learning: A cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
  3. ^ Pask, Gordon (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
  4. ^ "What is conversation? How can we design for effective conversation?". Retrieved 2022-05-03.
  5. ^ Pask, Gordon (1984). "Review of Conversation Theory and a protologic (or protolanguage), Lp". Educational Communication and Technology. 32 (1): 3–40. doi:10.1007/BF02768767. JSTOR 30219866. S2CID 142103971 – via JSTORE.
  6. ^ (Pask 1976, p. xii)
  7. ^ Other contributers include: Robin Bailey, David Ensor, T. R. McKinnon-Wood, Tony Newton, Valary Robinson, Robert Newton, Elizibeth Pask and V. Midora
  8. ^ Scott B (2007a). "The Cybernetics of Gordon Pask". In Glanville, Ranulph, Müller, Karl H (eds.). Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic: An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician. Vienna, Austria: edition echoraum. pp. 31–51. ISBN 978-3-901941-15-3.
  9. ^ (Pask 1976, p. ix)
  10. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 9)
  11. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 6)
  12. ^ a b (Pask 1975b, p. 1)
  13. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 1-2)
  14. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 3)
  15. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 2)
  16. ^ (Pask 1975, 1976)
  17. ^ Conversation Theory developed by the cybernetician Gordon Pask Archived 2000-05-23 at the Wayback Machine in Realizing the heavenly Jerusalem, Yitzhak I. Hayut, March 1995.
  18. ^ a b c Conversation Theory – Gordon Pask overview from web.cortland.edu.
  19. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 557)
  20. ^ a b (Pask 1975b, p. 558)
  21. ^ (Pask 1975b, p. 22)
  22. ^ (Pask 1975a, p. 133)
  23. ^ Scott, Bernard (2007b). "Cybernetic principles for learning design". Kybernetes. 36.9/10: 1502.
  24. ^ (Scott 2007b, p. 1502)
  25. ^ See Pask 1975.
  26. ^ a b Gordon Pask, Heinz von Foerster's Self-Organisation, the Progenitor of Conversation and Interaction Theories, 1996.
  27. ^ "Pask as Dramaturg". www.pangaro.com. Retrieved 2022-05-03.
  28. ^ Entwistle, N. J. (1978). "Knowledge structures and styles of learning: a summary of Pask's recent research". British Journal of Educational Psycology. 48 (3): 255–265. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03012.x – via British Psycological Society.
  29. ^ a b (Entwistle 1978, p. 258)
  30. ^ Pask, Gordon; Scott, B. C. E. (1972). "Learning strategies and individual competence". International Journal of Man Machine Studies. 4 (3): 217–253. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(72)80004-X.
  31. ^ Robertson, I. T. (1978). "Relationships between learning strategy, attention deployment and personality". British Journal of Educational Psycology. 48.
  32. ^ (Entwistle 1978, p. 261)
  33. ^ (Entwistle 1978, p. 264)
  34. ^ "Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review" (PDF). leerbeleving. 2004. p. 91.

Further reading[edit]

  • Ranulph Glanville and Karl H. Muller (eds.), Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic- An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician edition echoraum 2007 ISBN 978-3-901941-15-3
  • Aleksej Heinze, Chris Procter, "Use of conversation theory to underpin blended learning"[permanent dead link], in: International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies (2007) – Vol. 1, No.1/2 pp. 108 – 120
  • W. R. Klemm, Software Issues for Applying Conversation Theory For Effective Collaboration Via the Internet, Manuscript 2002.
  • Gordon Pask, Conversation, cognition and learning. New York: Elsevier, 1975.
  • Gordon Pask, The Cybernetics of Human Learning and Performance, Hutchinson. 1975
  • Gordon Pask, Conversation Theory, Applications in Education and Epistemology, Elsevier, 1976.
  • Gordon Pask, Heinz von Foerster's Self-Organisation, the Progenitor of Conversation and Interaction Theories, 1996.
  • Scott, B. (ed. and commentary) (2011). "Gordon Pask: The Cybernetics of Self-Organisation, Learning and Evolution Papers 1960-1972" pp 648 Edition Echoraum (2011).

External links[edit]