Notes on:
Pask, G. (1976) 'Conversational Techniques
in the Study and Practice of Education'.
In British Journal of Educational Psychology,
46: 12-25
Dave Harris
Conversational learning takes place in
'realistically complex learning materials'.
The process needs to be externalized by providing
an apparatus which controls learning and allows
records of the steps. The [computer-based]
apparatus should also include subject matter
representations, a diagram of the relations
between concepts. These can be connected
electronically, so that the learner's steps can be
recorded. There is a reference here to the
work of Marton and Saljo [whose contribution
appears in the same volume—this volume includes
papers from a particular symposium]. Marton
and Saljo [M and S] offer work which is
'realistic', but they need 'to redefine common
terms (such as understanding) to have a more
restricted and precise meaning', and we can also
introduce new terms. The work of other
psychologists can also be modified, including
Kelly, Laing and Piaget. What is required is
a 'systems approach', where learning takes place
through 'interpreted formal relationships', such
as 'next', 'adjacent', 'periodic', 'dual', 'sum',
and 'product' (14). We can define understanding as
a description of the relations between concepts in
various topics. There might be verbal and
non verbal descriptions [where the latter include
manipulations of apparatus, for example]. Both
descriptions and uses of the system are important.
We can see subject matter as a mental map, as in
Piaget, but 'entailment structures' would be more
formal. We start with a thesis 'expounded
usually by a subject matter expert' (15), which is
then broken down into a series of
derivations. We have to introduce
'cyclicity' [closure] to reconstruct the topic and
to provide consistency. The resulting
structure is 'merely the expositor's thesis'
[after some serious modification, however?].
Entailment involves both 'axiomatic derivations'
and 'correspondences, morphisms such as
isomorphism' (17). Entailment of this kind
mesh together in a network. Experts can
further modify and ordering this network, for
example by saying which topics are
peripheral. There is a similar procedure in
Kelly Grids for Pask (18), although descriptors of
topics there are personal constructs [but formally
exactly the same as expert constructs]. It
is possible to use Kelly's technique of repertory
grid administration to develop analogies and other
correspondences [that is to organize the
constructs in grids, possibly laddered together,
and to ask the respondent if they apply to other
concrete examples—if I remember my Kelly
correctly]. However, each topic node must be
uniquely identified [for closure purposes].
A class of valid explanations for each topic can
then be developed, producing a task structure or
'behaviour graph' (19). The whole entailment
structure, together with its descriptors and
behaviour graphs constitute the 'conversational
domain'.
Tutorial conversations and transactions on this
conversational domain will produce questions aimed
at making sense of the topics, or asking for
descriptors or explanations. In this way we
can 'explore transactions', or 'aim [a] request',
to get to any one topic. There are only some
permitted derivations, however, and these can
serve as checks on aims and abilities to get
there. The whole thing depends on some
'higher agreement—an agreement regarding the
derivation of the topic' (22), and an agreed form
of explanation. Students also have to agree
to the concept being 'stable'[presumably meaning
fixed within the network].
The whole thing can be computer controlled, and
this is useful in research to standardize
experimental conditions. A network will
still provide a large variety of paths and
demonstrations, so 'students have considerable
freedom to learn within the constraints of the
system as a whole' (23). With a computer in
charge, students become their own teacher, setting
goals and attempting to understand topics.
Pask has invented a programme called CASTE, [
discussed in my chapter 2]
with a portable version INTUITION, described
23-25, which he uses in his experiments. He
also uses the TEACHBACK procedure [described earlier], where the
teacher is neutral, merely asking for descriptions
of how tasks are learned and explanations
derived. This is a more rigorous and
controllable form of diagnosis rather than, say,
diagnostic interviews [presumably a critique of M
and S again?].
Back to education
studies
|
|