Exploring dialogue – part 1

One of the research projects that I am working on is looking at ways to improve online dialogue in a learning “community” of potential teachers or facilitators of adult learning. They are all distance learners, engaging with their facilitator and each other through email, forums and WebCT.

What struck me when I read the interview transcripts about how they engaged with the online forums were their very different perspectives on the value of them and their own role. For example, one had a preoccupation with saying the right thing but would wait so long in trying to ensure she would say things well that she found that most other posts had covered what she wanted to say. Another was more interested in coming to know the others through their personal stories, rather than reading the academic postings – her interest was in building friendships and connections. One was impatient with “chit-chat” and posted because it was part of the assessment – not because of any intrinsic value – “what does it do for me!” One person described how they enjoyed seeing the way the conversation was going and looked again and again, particularly after just posting themselves. One said that when doing the essay he would go back and read the more academic posts and see how it might help him.

Hmmm, I thought – interesting – perhaps reflecting a range of learning styles. Can learning styles be an interpretative lens that shapes our expectations and state of preparedness for learning and engaging with others?

Towards the end I came across one respondent who said something quite different.

“As I read the postings I ask myself what I might write that can contribute to the whole.”

I wondered then whether he was the first person who actually saw the online discussion as something more than a utility for himself. Is it only possible to be truly in “community” when we see ourselves as part of a whole?

When we bring an intent to “contribute to the whole” we no longer have to express ourselves “completely” (being right, covering every angle, repeating things other’s might have said to show we know it too). Rather, we are tuning into what the group needs to grow in understanding – whether it is providing resonant thoughts that enrich current insights, helping others to tease out their thinking, throwing in alternative perspectives and ways of knowing, seeking out evidence, discerning patterns and eliciting essences, model-making, visioning and imagining implications of ideas, reflecting on the way the dialogue might be shaped by our own lenses and assumptions...etc. Dialogue becomes less a debate, or one-upmanship, and more an exploration.

David Bohm suggests a method for dialogue which is agenda-less – in that you get together with the purpose to explore something richly and deeply, rather than to solve something or share information. Participants become conscious of their ways of thinking as they engage in the conversation, and through this witnessing of self find these conversations move from the surface into deep investigation of underpinning assumptions, and habitual and cultural lenses that shape the meaning we make.

How can we be more aware of how we "think" and "be" in our everyday dialogues?

For more of my thinking on dialogue see the chapter in my thesis - The dialogical classroom