Conversation Theory - Gordon Pask

Background of Gordon Pask

Pasks major work was the development of Conversation Theory and its
applications in education. This grew out of his work with cybernetics where
he conceived human-machine interaction as a form of conversation, a
dynamic process, in which the participants learn about each other. He
worked to build unifying bridges between the natural sciences, the social
sciences, and the humanities. His wish was to develop a social cybernetics
that would help combat terrorism, oppression, and social conflict. His vision
was of a healthy society, in which there is unity without uniformity, love,
peace, and justice for all.

The Theory Behind the Model

Conversation Theory is based in Pasks interest in cybernetics. Cybernetics can be defined as the
theoretical study of control processes in electronic, mechanical, and biological systems. It comes from
the Greek word meaning steersman. Some define it as the science of communication and control in the
animal and the machine, or the communication within an observer and between the observer and his
environment.
Conversation Theory as developed by Pask originated from this cybernetics framework and attempts to
explain learning in both living organisms and machines. The fundamental idea of the theory was that
learning occurs through conversations about a subject matter which serves to make knowledge explicit.
Conversations can be conducted at a number of different levels:
Natural language (general discussion)

Object languages (for discussing the subject matter)

Metalanguages (for talking about learning/language)

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.
Pask identified two different types of learning strategies:
Serialists Progress through a structure in a sequential fashion

Holists - Look for higher order relations

For students to learn a subject matter, they must learn the relationships among the concepts. For
teachers, the explicit explanation of the subject matter facilitates student understanding (e.g., use
of teachback technique). However, students differ in their preferred manner of learning relationships
(serialists versus holists).

http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Pask.htm

Conversation theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] This work was proposed
by Gordon Pask in the 1970s.
Contents
[hide]

1 Overview
2 Topics
o 2.1 Levels of conversation
o 2.2 Conversation
o 2.3 Cognitive Reflector
o 2.4 Learning strategies
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links

Overview[edit]
Conversation theory 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.[2] 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.[3]
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.

Topics[edit]
Conversation theory as developed by Pask originated from this cybernetics framework and attempts
to explain learning in both living organisms and machines. The fundamental idea of the theory was
that learning occurs through conversations about a subject matter which serves to make knowledge
explicit.

Levels of conversation[edit]
Conversations can be conducted at a number of different levels:[4]

Natural language (general discussion)

Object languages (for discussing the subject matter)
Metalanguages (for talking about learning/language)

Conversation[edit]
Through recursive interactions called "conversation" their differences may be reduced until
agreementthat 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".

Any two concepts can produce the third,

Alternative derivations may be shown with
The Derivation of a concept from at conjunctive (AND) and disjunctive pathways

shown as the cyclic form of three concepts

--- note that the arrows should show that

least two concurrently existing

(OR). This is logically equivalent to T1 = (T2

BOTH T1 and T2 are required to produce

topics or concepts

AND T3) OR (T4 AND T5)

T3; similarly for generating T1 or T2 from

the others.

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.

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.[5] 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 Con,
the concept 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[6] 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,[6] 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.[4]
Pask identified two different types of learning strategies:[4]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_theory

In normative matters[edit]
Morality[edit]
Analogical reasoning plays a very important part in morality. This may be in part because morality is
supposed to be impartial and fair. If it is wrong to do something in a situation A, and situation B is
analogous to A in all relevant features, then it is also wrong to perform that action in situation

B. Moral particularism accepts analogical moral reasoning, rejecting both deduction and induction,
since only the former can do without moral principles.
Law[edit]
In law, analogy is used to resolve issues on which there is no previous authority. A distinction has to
be made between analogous reasoning from written law and analogy toprecedent case law.
Analogies from codes and statutes[edit]
In civil law systems, where the preeminent source of law is legal codes and statutes, a lacuna (a
gap) arises when a specific issue is not explicitly dealt with in written law. Judges will try to identify a
provision whose purpose applies to the case at hand. That process can reach a high degree of
sophistication, as judges sometimes not only look at a specific provision to fill lacunae (gaps), but at
several provisions (from which an underlying purpose can be inferred) or at general principles of the
law to identify the legislator's value judgement from which the analogy is drawn. Besides the not very
frequent filling of lacunae, analogy is very commonly used between different provisions in order to
achieve substantial coherence. Analogy from previous judicial decisions is also common, although
these decisions are not binding authorities.
Analogies from precedent case law[edit]
By contrast, in common law systems, where precedent cases are the primary source of law,
analogies to codes and statutes are rare (since those are not seen as a coherent system, but as
incursions into the common law). Analogies are thus usually drawn from precedent cases: The judge
finds that the facts of another case are similar to the one at hand to an extent that the analogous
application of the rule established in the previous case is justified.
In gender science[edit]
In the 19th century, there was increased attention to differences in gender.[citation needed] Scientists
started to use an analogy between race and gender to explain gender differences. In gender, the
female represents a lower race than the male. Researchers record the data of women's bodies for
analysis. Nancy Leys Stepan believes that the analogy is so crucial in science that it shapes and
influences scientific study. In her article "Race and Gender: The Role of Analogy in Science",[24] she
states "The analogy guided research, generated new hypotheses, and helped disseminate new,
usually technical vocabularies. The analogy defined what was problematic about these social
groups, what aspects of them needed further investigation, and which kinds of measurements and
what data would be significant for scientific inquiry."

In teaching strategies[edit]
Analogies as defined in rhetoric, are a comparison between words, but an analogy can be used in
teaching as well. An analogy as used in teaching would be comparing a topic that students are

already familiar with, with a new topic that is being introduced so that students can get a better
understanding of the topic and relate back to previous knowledge. Shawn Glynn, a professor in the
department of educational psychology and instructional technology at the University of
Georgia,[25] developed a theory on teaching with analogies and developed steps to explain the
process of teaching with this method. The steps for teaching with analogies are as follows: Step one
is introducing the new topic that is about to be taught and giving some general knowledge on the
subject. Step two is reviewing the concept that the students already know to ensure they have the
proper knowledge to assess the similarities between the two concepts. Step three is finding relevant
features within the analogy of the two concepts. Step four is finding similarities between the two
concepts so students are able to compare and contrast them in order to understand. Step five is
indicating where the analogy breaks down between the two concepts. And finally, step six is drawing
a conclusion about the analogy and comparison of the new material with the already learned
material. Typically this method is used to learn topics in science.[26]
In 1989, Kerry Ruef, a teacher began an entire program, which she titled The Private Eye Project. It
is a method of teaching that revolves around using analogies in the classroom to better explain
topics. She thought of the idea to use analogies as a part of curriculum because she was observing
objects once and she said, "my mind was noting what else each object reminded me of..." This led
her to teach with the question, "what does [the subject or topic] remind you of?" The idea of
comparing subjects and concepts led to the development of The Private Eye Project as a method of
teaching.[27] The program is designed to build critical thinking skills with analogies as one of the main
themes revolving around it. While Glynn focuses on using analogies to teach science, The Private
Eye Project can be used for any subject including writing, math, art, social studies, and invention. It
is now used by thousands of schools around the country.[28] There are also various pedagogic
innovations now emerging that use visual analogies for cross-disciplinary teaching and research, for
instance between science and the humanities.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#Cybernetics

Integrative learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Integrated learning)

Integrative Learning is a learning theory describing a movement toward integrated lessons helping
students make connections across curricula. This higher education concept is distinct from the
elementary and high school "integrated curriculum" movement.
Contents
[hide]

1 Term and Concept

2 Integrated medical curriculum
3 K-12 outcomes
4 See also
5 References
6 Bibliography
7 External links

Term and Concept[edit]

Integrative Learning comes in many varieties: connecting skills and knowledge from multiple sources
and experiences; applying skills and practices in various settings; utilizing diverse and even
contradictory points of view; and, understanding issues and positions contextually."
...making connections within a major, between fields, between curriculum, cocurriculum, or between
academic knowledge and practice."[1]
Integrated studies involve bringing together traditionally separate subjects so that students can
grasp a more authentic understanding. Veronica Boix Mansilla, cofounder of the Interdisciplinary
Studies Project at Project Zero, explains "when [students] can bring together concepts, methods, or
languages from two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise in order to explain a
phenomenon, solve a problem, create a product, or raise a new question they are demonstrating
interdisciplinary understanding. For over a decade, Project Zero researchers at the Harvard
Graduate School of Education have been studying interdisciplinary work across a range of settings.
They have found interdisciplinary understanding to be crucial for modern-thinking students. [2]
Edutopia highlighted Central York High School as a School That Works because of its successful
integrated studies approach. For example, an AP government teacher and art teacher collaborated
to create a joint project that asked students to create a sculpture based on the principles presented
by the AP government class [3] AP government teacher Dayna Laur states that, Integrated studies
projects [aim to] create a connectedness between disciplines that otherwise might seem unrelated to
many students. Deliberately searching for ways in which you can mingle standards and content is
imperative if you want to create truly authentic experiences because, in the world outside of the
classroom, content is not stand-alone. [4][5]

Concept map describing activities offered by universities to encourage integrative learning.

Integrated medical curriculum[edit]

In many American medical schools, an integrated curriculum refers to a non-compartmentalized
approach to basic science learning. As opposed to traditional medical curriculum, which separate
subjects such as embryology, physiology, pathology and anatomy, integrated curricula alternate
lectures on these subjects over the course of the first two years. (Jonas 1989) The course of study is
instead organized around organ systems (such as "Cardiovascular" or "Gastrointestinal"). Another
major component of the integrated medical curriculum is problem-based learning.

K-12 outcomes[edit]
Interdisciplinary curricula has been shown by several studies to support students engagement and
learning. Specifically integrating science with reading comprehension and writing lessons has been
shown to improve students understanding in both science and English language arts. [6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_learning

Interactions of Actors Theory[edit]

While working with clients in the last years of his life, Gordon Pask produced an axiomatic
scheme[3] for his Interactions of Actors Theory, less well-known than his Conversation Theory.
"Interactions of Actors (IA), Theory and Some Applications", as the manuscript is entitled, is
essentially a concurrent spin calculus applied to the living environment with strict topological
constraints.[4] One of the most notable associates of Gordon Pask, Gerard de Zeeuw, was a key
contributor to the development of Interactions of Actors theory.

The figure shows Pask's famous "repulsive carapace" force surrounding a concept. It is shown by the minus sign, it
has a clockwise or anticlockwise spin compare Spin. The spin signature is determined by the residualparity of a
braid which is the thick line enclosed by the cylinder. The plus sign labels a process seeking closure by "eating its
own tail". Three of these toroidal structures can produce aBorromean link model of the minimal stable concept.[5] Pask
said the prismatic tensegrity could be used as a model for the interaction in a Borromean link.

Prismatic Tensegrity space fillingunit cell of a minimal concept. The red, blue and green rods exert compressive
repulsions, the black lines represent attractive tensions. The Borromean link shown is regarded as a resonance form
(c.f. tautomerism[6]) of Pask's minimal persisting concept triple.

Interactions of Actors Theory (IA) is a process theory.[7] As a means to describe

the interdisciplinary nature of his work, Pask would make analogies to physical theories in the
classic positivist enterprises of the social sciences. Pask sought to apply the axiomatic properties of
agreement or epistemological dependence to produce a "sharp-valued" social science with precision
comparable to the results of the hard sciences. It was out of this inclination that he would develop his
Interactions of Actors Theory. Pask's concepts produce relations in all media and he regarded IA as
a process theory. In his Complementarity Principle he stated "Processes produce products and all
products (finite, bounded coherences) are produced by processes".[8]
Most importantly Pask also had his Exclusion Principle. He proved that no two concepts or products
could be the same because of their different histories. He called this the "No Doppelgangers" clause
or edict.[7] Later he reflected "Time is incommensurable for Actors".[9] He saw these properties as
necessary to produce differentiation and innovation or new coherences in physical nature and,
indeed, minds.
In 1995 Pask stated what he called his Last Theorem: "Like concepts repel and unlike concepts
attract". For ease of application Pask stated the differences and similarities of descriptions (the
products of processes) were context and perspective dependent. In the last three years of his life
Pask presented models based on Knot theory knots which described minimal persisting concepts.
He interpreted these as acting as computing elements which exert repulsive forces to interact and
persist in filling the space. The knots, links and braids of his entailment mesh models of concepts,
which could include tangle-like processes seeking "tail-eating" closure, Pask called "tapestries".
His analysis proceeded with like seeming concepts repelling or unfolding but after a sufficient
duration of interaction (he called this duration "faith") a pair of similar or like-seeming concepts will
always produce a difference and thus an attraction. Amity (availability for interaction), respectability
(observability), responsibility (able to respond to stimulus), unity (not uniformity) were necessary
properties to produce agreement (or dependence) and agreement-to-disagree (or relative
independence) when Actors interact. Concepts could be applied imperatively or permissively when a
Petri (see Petri net) condition for synchronous transfer of meaningful information occurred.

Extending his physical analogy Pask associated the interactions of thought generation
with radiation : "operations generating thoughts and penetrating conceptual boundaries within
participants, excite the concepts bounded as oscillators, which, in ridding themselves of this surplus
excitation, produce radiation"[10]
In sum, IA supports the earlier kinematic Conversation Theory work where minimally two concurrent
concepts were required to produce a non-trivial third. One distinction separated the similarity and
difference of any pair in the minimum triple. However, his formal methods denied the competence of
mathematics or digital serial and parallel processes to produce applicable descriptions because of
their innate pathologies in locating the infinitesimals of dynamic equilibria (Stafford Beer's "Point of
Calm"). He dismissed the digital computer as a kind of kinematic "magic lantern". He saw
mechanical models as the future for the concurrent kinetic computers required to describe natural
processes. He believed that this implied the need to extend quantum computing to emulate true field
concurrency rather than the currentvon Neumann architecture.
Reviewing IA[9] he said:
Interaction of actors has no specific beginning or end. It goes on forever. Since it does so it has very
peculiar properties. Whereas a conversation is mapped (due to a possibility of obtaining a vague
kinematic, perhaps picture-frame image, of it, onto Newtonian time, precisely because it has a
beginning and end), an interaction, in general, cannot be treated in this manner. Kinematics are
inadequate to deal with life: we need kinetics. Even so as in the minimal case of a strict conversation
we cannot construct the truth value, metaphor or analogy of A and B. The A, B differences are
generalizations about a coalescence of concepts on the part of A and B; their commonality and
coherence is the similarity. The difference (reiterated) is the differentiation of A and B (their
agreements to disagree, their incoherences). Truth value in this case meaning the coherence
between all of the interacting actors.
He added:
It is essential to postulate vectorial times (where components of the vectors are incommensurate)
and furthermore times which interact with each other in the manner of Louis Kaufmann's knots and
tangles.
In experimental Epistemology Pask, the "philosopher mechanic", produced a tool kit to analyse the
basis for knowledge and criticise the teaching and application of knowledge from all fields: the law,
social and system sciences to mathematics, physics and biology. In establishing the vacuity of
invariance Pask was challenged with the invariance ofatomic number. "Ah", he said "the atomic
hypothesis". He rejected this instead preferring the infinite nature of the productions of waves.
Pask held that concurrence is a necessary condition for modelling brain functions and he remarked
IA was meant to stand AI, Artificial Intelligence, on its head. Pask believed it was the job of

cybernetics to compare and contrast. His IA theory showed how to do this. Heinz von Foerster called
him a genius,[11] "Mr. Cybernetics", the "cybernetician's cybernetician".

Hewitt's actor model[edit]

The Hewitt, Bishop and Steiger approach concerns sequential processing and inter-process
communication in digital, serial, kinematic computers. It is a parallel or pseudo-concurrent theory as
is the theory of concurrency. See Concurrency. In Pask's true field concurrent theory kinetic
processes can interrupt (or, indeed, interact with) each other, simply reproducing or producing a new
resultant force within a coherence (of concepts) but without buffering delays or priority.[12]

No Doppelgangers[edit]
"There are no Doppelgangers" is a fundamental theorem, edict or clause of cybernetics due to
Gordon Pask in support of his theories of learning and interaction in all media: Conversation Theory
and Interactions of Actors Theory. It accounts for physical differentiation and is Pask's exclusion
principle.[13] It states no two products of concurrent interaction can be the same because of their
different dynamic contexts and perspectives. No Doppelgangers is necessary to account for the
production by interaction andintermodulation (c.f. beats) of different, evolving, persisting and
coherent forms. Two proofs are presented both due to Pask.

Duration proof[edit]
Consider a pair of moving, dynamic participants A and B producing an interaction T. Their separation
will vary during T. The duration of T observed from A will be different from the duration of T observed
from B.[9][14]
Let Ts and Tf be the start and finish times for the transfer of meaningful information, we can write:
TsA TfB, TfA TsB
TsB TfB, TfA TsA
TsA TsB, TfA TfB
Thus
AB
Q.E.D.
Pask remarked:[9]
Conversation is defined as having a beginning and an end and time is vectorial. The components of
the vector are commensurable (in duration). On the other hand actor interaction time is vectorial with
components that are incommensurable. In the general case there is no well-defined beginning and

interaction goes on indefinitely. As a result the time vector has incommensurable components. Both
the quantity and quality differ.
No Doppelgangers applies in both the Conversation Theory's kinematic domain (bounded by
beginnings and ends) where times are commensurable and in the eternal kineticInteractions of
Actors domain where times are incommensurable.

Reproduction proof[edit]
The second proof[7] is more reminiscent of R.D. Laing:[15] Your concept of your concept is not my
concept of your concepta reproduced concept is not the same as the original concept. Pask
defined concepts as persisting, countably infinite, recursively packed spin processes (like many
cored cable, or skins of an onion) in any medium (stars, liquids, gases, solids, machines and, of
course, brains) that produce relations.
Here we prove A(T) B(T).
D means "description of" and <Con A(T), D A(T)> reads A's concept of T produces A's description
of T, evoking Dirac notation (required for the production of the quanta of thought: the transfer of "settheoretic tokens", as Pask puts it in 1996[9]).
TA = A(T) = <Con A(T), D A(T)>, A's Concept of T,
TB = B(T) = <Con B(T), D B(T)>, B's Concept of T,
or, in general
TZ = Z(T) = <Con Z (T), D Z(T)>,
also, in general
AA = A(A) = <Con A(A), D A(A)>, A's Concept of A,
AB = A(B) = <Con A(B), D A(B)>, A's Concept of B.
and vice versa, or, in general terms
ZZ = Z(Z) = <Con Z(Z), D Z>,
given that for all Z and all T, the concepts
TA = A(T) is not equal to TB = B(T)
and that
AA = A(A) is not equal to BA = B(A) and vice versa, hence, there are no
Doppelgangers.
Q.E.D.

A mechanical model[edit]
Pask attached a piece of string to a bar[16] with three knots in it. Then he
attached a piece of elastic to the bar with three knots in it. One
observing actor, A, on the string would see the knotted intervals on the
other actor as varying as the elastic was stretched and relaxed
corresponding to the relative motion of B as seen from A. The knots
correspond to the beginning of the experiment then the start and finish
of the A/B interaction. Referring to the three intervals, where x, y, z, are
the separation distances of the knots from the bar and each other, he
noted x > y > z on the string for participant A does not imply x > z for
participant B on the elastic. A change of separation between A and B
producingDoppler shifts during interaction, recoil or the differences in
relativistic proper time for A and B, would account for this for example.
On occasion a second knotted string was tied to the bar
representing co-ordinate time.

Further context[edit]
To set in further context Pask won a prize from Old Dominion
University for his Complementarity Principle: "All processes produce
products and all products are produced by processes". This can be
written:
Ap(ConZ(T)) => DZ (T) where => means produces and Ap means the
"application of", D means "description of" and Z is the concept mesh or
coherence of which T is part. This can also be written
<Ap(ConZ (T)), DZ (T)>.
Pask distinguishes Imperative (written &Ap or IM) from Permissive
Application (written Ap)[17] where information is transferred in
the Petri net manner, the token appearing as a hole in a torus
producing a Klein bottle containing recursively packed concepts.[7]
Pask's "hard" or "repulsive"[7] carapace was a condition he required
for the persistence of concepts. He endorsed Rescher's Coherence
Theory of Truth approach where a set membership criterion of
similarity also permitted differences amongst set or coherence
members, but he insisted repulsive force was exerted at set and
members' coherence boundaries. He said of Spencer
Brown's Laws of Form that distinctions must exert repulsive forces.
This is not yet accepted by Spencer Brown and others. Without a

repulsion, or Newtonian reaction at the boundary, sets, their

members or interacting participants would diffuse away forming a
"smudge"; Hilbertian marks on paper would not be preserved.
Pask, the mechanical philosopher, wanted to apply these ideas to
bring a new kind of rigour to cybernetic models.
Some followers of Pask emphasise his late work, done in the
closing chapter of his life, which is neither as clear nor as grounded
as the prior decades of research and machine- and theory-building.
This tends to skew the impression gleaned by researchers as to
Pask's contribution or even his lucidity.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask#Interactions_of_Actors_Theory

Text and conversation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Text and Conversation Theory)

Text and conversation is a theory in the field of organizational communication illustrating

how communication makes up an organization. In the theory's simplest explanation, an organization
is created and defined by communication. Communication "is" the organization and the organization
exists because communication takes place. The theory is built on the notion, an organization is not
seen as a physical unit holding communication.[1] Text and conversation theory puts communication
processes at the heart of organizational communication and postulates, an organization doesnt
contain communication as a "causal influence,"[1] but is formed by the communication within. This
theory is not intended for direct application, but rather to explain how communication exists. The
theory provides a framework for better understanding organizational communication.
Since the foundation of organizations are in communication,[2] an organization cannot exist without
communication, and the organization is defined as the result of communications happening within its
context. Communications begin with individuals within the organization
discussing beliefs, goals, structures, plans and relationships. These communicators achieve this
through constant development, delivery, and translation of "text and conversation." The theory
proposes mechanisms of communications are "textand "conversation."
Contents
[hide]

1 Definitions
2 Theorist
3 Foundational theories
o 3.1 Structuration theory
o 3.2 Conversation theory
4 Factors
o 4.1 Meaning

o 4.2 Culture
o 4.3 Structure
o 4.4 Knowledge
5 Impact
6 Weakness
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography

Definitions[edit]
The foundation of this theory is the concepts of text and conversation. Text is defined as the content
of interaction, or what is said in an interaction. Text is the meaning made available to individuals
through face-to-face or electronic mode of communication. Conversation is defined as what is
happening behaviorally between two or more participants in the communication process.
Conversation is the exchange or interaction itself.[2]
The process of the text and conversation exchange is reciprocal, text needs conversation and vice
versa for the process of communication to occur. Text, or content, must have context to be effective
and an conversation, or discourse, needs to have a beginning, middle and end. Individuals create
the beginning, middle and end by using punctuation,bracketing or framing. When conversation is
coupled with text, or meaning, communication occurs.[2] Taylor submits this process is a translation
process of: translation of text to conversation and the translation of conversation into text.[1]

"text" = content and meaning

"conversation" = discourse and exchange

Theorist[edit]
James R. Taylor, introduced text and conversation theory in 1996 with Franois Cooren, Giroux and
Robichaud and then further explored the theory in 1999. Taylor drew on the work of sociologist and
educator John Deweys pragmatic view society exists not "by" but "in" communication. Taylor
followed the same principle, putting communication as the essence of an organization. He was born
in 1928 and is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Communication of the Universit de
Montral, which he founded in the early 1970s. Drawing from research in fields of organizational
psychology (Karl E. Weick), ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel), Deirdre
Boden), phenomenology (Alfred Schtz) and collective minding (Edwin Hutchins), Taylor formed the
original text and conversation theory. This line of thought has come to be known as "The Montreal
School" of organizational communication, sometimes referred to as TMS, and has been
acknowledged as an original theory by authors such as Haridimos Tsoukas, Linda Putman, and Karl
E. Weick.

Taylor said,"...organization emerges in communication, which thus furnishes not only the site of
its appearance to its members, but also the surface on which members read the meaning of the
organization to them." Taylor argues communication is the "site and emergence of
organization."[2]

Foundational theories[edit]
Structuration theory[edit]
"Structuration theory" identifies how text and conversation theory evolved from this communication
construct. Proposed by Anthony Giddens (1984) in The Constitution on Society, structuration
theory, originated in the discipline of sociology. Giddens theory has been adapted to the field of
communication, particularly organizational communication; specifically, how and why structural
changes are possible and the duality of formal and informal communication. This theory is based on
concepts of structure and agency. structure is defined as rules and resources of an organization;
agency is the free will to choose to do otherwise than prescribed through structure.

"structure": is rules and resources, the reason we do things because of the structure of how we
were raised (culture, sociological and physiological). Giddens (1984) explains these rules as
recipes or procedures for accomplishing tasks within an organization. Resources have two
subsets: allocative and authoritative, which can be leveraged to accomplish desired outcomes.
Allocative are quantitative resources, while authoritative are qualitative.
"agency": is the free will to choose to do otherwise. Agency is the reason people do things,
because they have a choice[3] This is the process individuals internalize actions and make
choices, rather than making decisions because the structure says they should. Structure is
based on the formal organization and accepted policy. Agency is informal communication and
individually based.
"Dualism": mutually exclusive answer (i.e., either/or)
"Duality": mutually constitutive answer (i.e., both/and)
"Structuration": society itself is located in a duality of structure in which the enactments of
agency become structures that, across time, produce possibilities for agency enactment.
Another way explain it is structure is the context.

Structuration theory identifies structure and agency as coexisting. Formal rules and resources
impact informal communication and discourse. This duality and coexistence ensures a cyclical
nature between structure and agency, which has a cause and effect: new structure and agency is
created from the causal relationships of previous structure and agency decisions. The concept to
understanding structuration is to understand to duality of structure [4] The similarity of Giddens theory
and conversation and text theory is a mutual-existing and causal relationship of communication. The
main difference, between the two, is structuration theory explains how communication impacts the
organization, text and conversation, by means of structure and agency. Giddens' construct of
structuration explains how mutually causal relationships constitute the essence of an organization.
This concept illustrates how communication within an organization depends on the translation of
meaning.

Conversation theory[edit]
"Conversation theory", proposed by Gordon Pask in the 1970s, identifies a framework to explain
how scientific theory and interactions formulate the "construction of knowledge"[5]Conversation
Theory is based on the idea social systems are symbolic and language-oriented. Additionally, these
systems are based on responses and interpretations, and the meaning interpreted by individuals via
communication[6] This theory is based on interaction between two or more individuals, with unlike
perspectives[7] The significance of having unlike perspectives is that it enables a distinctive
standpoint: it permits the ability to study how people identify differences and understand meaning.
Additionally, these differences create shared and consensual pockets of interactions and
communications as discussed in Structure-Organization-Process.[8] Another idea of conversation
theory is learning happens by exchanges about issues, which assists in making knowledge explicit.
In order for this to happen, Pask organized three levels of conversation, according to:[9]

"Natural language": general discussion

"Object languages": for discussing the subject matter
"Metalanguages": for talking about learning/language

Additionally, to facilitate learning, Pask proposed two types of learning strategies.[9]

"Serialists": progress through a structure in a sequential fashion

"Holists": look for higher order relations

Ultimately, Pask found versatile learners neither favor one approach over the other. Rather, they
understand how both approaches are integrated into the structure of learning. The similarities of
conversation theory and text and conversation theory are they both focus on the foundational
aspects of meaning. Specifically, how and why meaning is established and interpreted amongst
individuals. However, the difference between the two theories is conversation theory specifically
focuses on the dynamics of two people. Text and conversation theory is typically applied to at least
two people. Conversation theory emphasizes the construct of knowledge of meaning and the cause
and effectrelationship that occurs as a result of self-learning from communication, based on
meaning.

Factors[edit]
Meaning[edit]
"Meaning management" is the control of "context" and "message" to accomplish a desired
communication effect. According to Fairhurst, leaders are change agents[10] Leaders define the value
of the organization and shape communication by implementing unique organizational communication
approaches. Within an organization, leaders and managers establish the framework for
communication, which helps to manage meaning. "Leaders" provide information to followers, such
as the organizations mission, vision, values, as well as its collective identity [11] Contrary to leaders,
"managers" are responsible for day to day problem solving. Their core framing tasks are solving
problems and stimulating others to find solutions.[10]
Individuals, regardless of positional authority, can manage meaning. Meaning management is to
communicate with a specific goal by controlling the context and message[10]Individuals utilizing
meaning management are communicating and shaping the meaning by using the power of framing.

Culture[edit]
"Culture" is a unique set of behaviors, including language, belief and customs learnt from being
raised in social groups or by joining a particular group throughout time. Culture defines context and
is the social totality that defines behavior, knowledge, beliefs and social learning. It is a set of shared
values characterizing a specific organization. Fairhurst identifies culture as defining events, people,
objects, and concepts.[10] Communication and culture are intertwined. Shared language of a group
links together individuals and joins common cultures. Culture influences mental models. "Mental
models" are the images in your mind about other people, yourself, substance and events.[10]
Additionally, culture defines social interactions and how individuals and groups interpret and apply
context. Organizations with good communication foundation are able to interpret and differentiate
individuals cultural discourses, as well as creatively combine and constrain these discourses.[12] Ir
defines the ideological basis for people and lays the foundation for how they frame and can be
observed and described, but not controlled. It is defined by the group or individual accepting the
specific patterns of behavior, knowledge, or beliefs Individuals can shape culture and make changes
over time, as long as they are clear about specific attitudes and behaviors that are
desired [12] As Weickand Sutcliffe (2007) discussed, culture can be changed through symbols, values,
and content organizations shape culture. An organizational culture emerges from a set of

expectations that matter to people, from things like [inclusion, exclusion, praise, positive
feelings, social support, isolation, care, indifference, excitement and anger [13] Individuals are shaped
by an organization's culture. However, an organization has its own culture. According to Martin
(1985), within that organizational culture, three forms of culture can result: integration, differentiation
and fragmentation.

"Integration" (bring people together)

"Differentiation" (act or process by which people undergo change toward more specialized
function)
"Fragmentation" (process of state of breaking or being broken into smaller parts)

With Integration, all organizational members consistently share values and assumptions about work.
As a result the members of the organization share uniquely organizational experiences and thus, a
unique culture[14] If differentiation occurs, cultures are not unitary. Sub-groups consistently share
values and assumptions about work. Members tend to operate in different areas, different projects
and at different levels of the hierarchy.[14] Cultures are often ambiguous if fragmentation happens.
Individuals are interconnected with some members and disconnected with others. This creates
inconsistently shared values and assumptions about the organization[14] As a result
friendship/romantic as well as enemy/competitor type relationships are cut across an organizations
sub-groups.

Structure[edit]
Individuals who understand the structure and inner working of their organizations can leverage
knowledge toward achieving communication goals. Likewise, organizations can also leverage their
hierarchical structures to achieve targeted outcomes. Two types of structures exist within an
organization.

"Hierarchical" (formal hierarchical structure, typical flow/pyramid chart)

"Network" (informal structure, based on relationships, go to people, subject-matter experts)

Goldsmith and Katzenback (2008) explained organizations must understand the informal
organization. For example, of being a part of an informal or formal structure, it is important for
managers to learn to recognize signs of trouble in order to shape context as they attempt to
coordinate meaning and solve day-to-day problems. Specific implications for organizational
learning include enhanced performance, coordinated activity and structure, division of labor and
collective goal setting [15] While a formal organization is visually represented by a typical hierarchical
structure, it visually shows how formal responsibilities are spread, as well as job dispersal and the
flow of information[16] In contrast, the informal organization embodies how people network to
accomplish the job, via social relationships and connections or subject-matter experts that are not
represented on the organizational chart[17] By leveraging this informal organization, people within the
organization are able to use their social network to access and shape the decision-making
processes quicker, as well as establish cross-structural collaboration amongst themselves.
Additionally, by understanding and using both structures, leaders and managers are able to learn
more about their people. Interpreting all forms of communication, verbal and visual, whether you are
a supervisor or a subordinate is invaluable. The hierarchical and network structures can allow an
organization to recognize signs of trouble from people, accomplish core framing tasks, and to be
able to communicate with mindfulness and meaning. By unlocking the value of an organization's
structure, leaders and managers can use this knowledge to boost performance or achieve specific
goals.[15] Signs of trouble can be emotional, hidden, physical, or in plain sight.

Knowledge[edit]
Knowing individuals personalities, conflict tendencies, as well as their unique circumstances help an
organization to understand its mental models and cultural discourse. Additionally, by noticing

abnormalities and not being blind to details, an organization should be able to recognize signs of
trouble within day-to-day operations and management, whether it is fraud, lack of maintenance
standards, sexual harassment, or even a poor framework for communication. Understanding and the
ability to recognize signs of trouble empower managers to employ the rules of reality construction:
control the context, define the situation, apply ethics, interpret uncertainty, and design the response,
which leads to communicating by a structured way of thinking.[10]
Ultimately, by understanding how an organization works, you enhance communication
collectively.[15] Additionally, by knowing how employees and relationships are shaped and the context
that defines how each person interacts with one another, you can shape contagious emotions. Basic
building blocks of Taylors theories is the relationship of text and conversation, and how that
relationship requires a "two-step translational process"[1]

translation One: From text to conversation

translation Two: From conversation to text

Following this translational process, text and conversation is transferred to organizational

communication. If context, or text, defines the organization then ongoing introductions and meaning
are crucial to define what is meant by the term organization.[1] To examine this further, Taylor defined
"six degrees of separation" to understand organizational communication:[18]

First Degree of Separation: Intent of speaker is translated into action and embedded in
conversation.
Second Degree of Separation: Events of the conversation are translated into a narrative
representation, making it possible to understand the meaning of the exchange.
Third Degree of Separation: The text is transcribed (objectified) on some permanent or semipermanent medium (e.g., the minutes of a meeting are taken down in writing).
Fourth Degree of Separation: A specialized language is developed to encourage and channel
subsequent texts and conversations(e.g., lawyers develop specific ways of talking in court, with
each other, and in documents).
Fifth Degree of Separation: The texts and conversations are transformed into material and
physical frames (e.g., laboratories, conference rooms, organizational charts, procedural
manuals).
Sixth Degree of Separation: The standardized form is disseminated and diffused to a broader
public (e.g., media reports and representations of organizational forms and practices).

Impact[edit]
This theory uses interactions of text and conversation to construct networks of relationships. By
doing so, the theory enables a deep understanding of personal communication within an
organization. Additionally, it explains how that communication ends up actually defining the
organization, rather than the individuals within the organization. Taylors theory places more
importance on personal communication, rather than individuals. The practical application, as a
result, is communication behaviors can constitute how and what we think of an organization.
Additionally, by manipulating communication processes, not only could structure be altered, but the
entire organization could be changed as well[19] whether change is beneficial or negative, is based on
desired meaning, or context and message, people within the organization want to exchange and
translate.
Taylor stresses the importance and impact of dialogue, specifically relating to how people interact
with one another and interpret context. Taylor explains in Heath et al. (2006) that virtuous reasoning
embodies entire discussions. Additionally, he points out dialogue should not prevent issues that
arise from debate[19] Since 1993, Taylors theory has been the focus of more than six organizational

communication books. Additionally, Taylors ideas are referred to as "The Montreal School" of
organizational communication[9] Within the field of communication, TMS has been recognized for its
contributions to organizational communication as well as related disciplines. Books focusing on text
and conversation theory have sold internationally[9] One to the largest and simplest contributions this
theory provided the communication academic field was the ability to describe and characterize and
organization. From this, people could better understand and fully construct and organizations
identity.

Weakness[edit]
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), organizational learning is the study of how collectives
adapt to, or fail to adapt to, their environments. It utilizes tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.

"Tacit Knowledge": personal, contextual, subjective, implicit, and unarticulated

"Explicit Knowledge": codified, systematic, formal, explicit, and articulated

Ultimately, organizational learning achieves enhanced performance, coordinated activity and

structure, and achievement of collective goals by externalization and internalization.

"Externalization": getting key workers to make their tacit knowledge the organizations explicit
knowledge that can be shared
"Internalization": getting the organizations explicit knowledge to become workers tacit
knowledge

Text and conversation theory places significant challenges and burdens on the organization to
articulate knowledge. Whether knowledge is passed directly by individuals, up and down or
horizontally on the formal or informal organizational structure, there is no guarantee text has proper
context to be effective as conversation. Additionally, conversation codes are influenced by how the
organization ensures knowledge carriers pass information and communicate with purpose,
message, and meaning. How information is passed can be unclear, and consistently has to adapt to
new challenges. Some of these challenges, or factors, include how individuals and an organization
adapt to meaning, culture, structure, and knowledge, in order to communicate. Ultimately, within the
organization itself, people are impacted by bias on group and individual levels.
"Problems with Group Learning"

Responsibility bias: belief of group members that someone else in the group will do the work
Social desirability bias: group members are reluctant to provide critical assessments for fear of
losing face or relational status
Hierarchical mum effect: subordinates reluctance to provide negative feedback for fear of
harming identifies of superiors
Groupthink: failure to consider decision alternatives
Identification/ego defense: highly identified group members begin to associate their identify with
their group membership and will in turn refuse to see the group as wrong, and themselves by
extension

"Problems with Individual Learning"

Confirmation bias: individuals seeks to confirm their own ideas, guesses and beliefs rather than
seek dis-confirming information
Hindsight bias: individuals tend to forget when their predictions are wrong
Fundamental attribution error: individuals tend to attribute others shortcomings to their character,
while attributing their own shortcomings to external forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_and_conversation_theory

Folder-http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/scott.pdf

Conversation Theory (Gordon Pask)

The Conversation Theory developed by G. Pask originated from a cybernetics framework and attempts to
explain learning in both living organisms and machines. The fundamental idea of the theory was that
learning occurs through conversations about a subject matter which serve to make knowledge explicit.
Conversations can be conducted at a number of different levels: natural language (general discussion),
object languages (for discussing the subject matter), and metalanguages (for talking about
learning/language).
In order to facilitate learning, Pask argued that subject matter should be represented in the form of
entailment structures which show what is to be learned. Entailment structures exist in a variety of different
levels depending upon the extent of relationships displayed (e.g., super/subordinate concepts, analogies).
The critical method of learning according to conversation theory is "teachback" in which one person
teaches another what they have learned. Pask identified two different types of learning strategies:
serialists who progress through an entailment structure in a sequential fashion and holists who look for
higher order relations.

Application
Conversation theory applies to the learning of any subject matter. Pask (1975) provides an extensive
discussion of the theory applied to the learning of statistics (probability).

Example
Pask (1975, Chapter 9) discusses the application of conversation theory to a medical diagnosis task
(diseases of the thyroid). In this case, the entailment structure represents relationships between
pathological conditions of the thyroid and treatment/tests. The student is encouraged to learn these
relationships by changing the parameter values of a variable (e.g., iodine intake level) and investigating
the effects.

Principles
1. To learn a subject matter, students must learn the relationships among the concepts.
2. Explicit explanation or manipulation of the subject matter facilitates understanding (e.g., use of
teachback technique).
3. Individual's differ in their preferred manner of learning relationships (serialists versus holists).

References
Pask, G. (1i975). Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier.

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/conversation-theory.html

Systems and Conversations:

Pask and Laurillard
The Process of the Learning Conversation

Two levels of the conversation

Gordon Pask's work stands rather outside the mainstream of the psychology of education,
but is immediately recognised by many learners and teachers in adult education as being
very significant. He was a cyberneticist rather than an educationalist, and developed a
systems approach to learning which is highly abstract and difficult, although rewarding: it is
reflected in the conversational models of learning of Laurillard and Thomas and HarriAugstein.
More (Pasks obituary)And the TIP accountAnd the technical angle in Wikipedia

His most accessible work, however, is based on the recognition of two different kinds of
learning strategy: "serialist" and "holist". Note "strategy" rather than "style".

When confronted with an unfamiliar area, serialists tackle the subject step by
step, building from the known to the unknown with the simplest possible
connections between the items of knowledge.

Holists, on the other hand, seek an overall framework and then explore areas
within it in a more less haphazard way, until they have filled in the whole.

Serialists

Build up their knowledge sequentially

May lose sight of the broader picture

Are impatient with "jumping around"

May be more comfortable with inherently

"linear" subjects

Holists

Pick up bits and pieces within a broad

framework

May leave gaps, or repeat themselves

May make mistakes about the connections

between things

May over-generalise

May be more comfortable with "topic" based

learning

As with most models of learning style, most people are more or less "versatile", but the
implications of the Pask model do not stop with labels for learners. As a systems thinker, he
was interested in matches and mismatches within the whole. Thus he found that matched
style on the part of both learners and teacher promoted learning, while mismatches
inhibited it. Moreover, there are some subjects which lend themselves readily to serial
learning on the one hand, or holistic on the other. Thus the initial stages of learning
arithmetic must follow a serial sequencethey do not make sense any other waywhereas
history or literature need a more holist approach. These different assumptions have led, for
example, to quite different ways of learning foreign languages: structural (serialist) and
communicative (holist). You can see some parallels with convergence and divergence, but
don't push them too far.
Note that while this whole site is occasionally (!) guilty of over-simplification, this is nowhere as true as
here: Pasks work is both complex and ingenious, as well as being firmly empirically based to see it in
terms of just another pair of learning styles is extremely unfair.
Or of course it may just be a case of imperial tailoring! I do tend to get suspicious of what appears to be any
wilfully obscurantist style.
Nevertheless, this work does present an interesting angle on current approaches to teaching, which, in their
attempt to "ensure quality" and standardise the "delivery" of learning, force practically everything into a
Procrustean serialist mode. You can find some associated issues discussed in a downloadable conference
paper here

Conversational Approach
The conversational approach to learning and teaching is slightly different from others we
have considered, because like Pask, it is based on discussion of the
teaching/learning system. While this is a feature of some of the humanistic approaches,
they are largely interested in the values underpinning teacher/learner interaction. Other
approaches focus on learning as an attribute of the learner (as the person who is changed

by the experience), and separate out the teaching as simply a process of facilitation, a
means to an end.
The conversational approach looks at the on-going learner-teacher interaction, and
particularly in Laurillard's model, at the process of negotiation of views of the subjectmatter which takes place between them in such a way as to modify the learner's
perceptions. From this she develops a set of criteria for the judgement of teaching/learning
systems, particularly those based on educational technology. Thomas and HarriAugstein derive the basis for the learning conversation from an analysis of the personal
construct system of the learner.

The Process of the Learning Conversation

In Laurillard's view, the pattern of the conversation needs to be:
1.

The Teacher can set the task goal

2.

The Teacher can describe her conception of the subject (or that aspect of it being taught)

3.

The Learner can describe his conception of it

4.

The Teacher can re-describe in the light of the Learner's conception or action

5.

The Learner can re-describe in the light of the Teacher's re-description or Learner's action

6.

The Teacher can adapt the task goal in the light of the Learner's description or action.
And so on....
based on Laurillard 1993

This requires the following features of the teaching-learning system

1.

The Teacher can set the task goal

2.

The Learner can act to achieve the task goal

3.

The Teacher can "set up the world" (i.e. control the learning environment) to give intrinsic
feedback on actions

4.

The Learner can modify his action in the light of feedback

5.

The Learner can modify his action in the light of the Teacher's description or his (the
Learner's) re-description

6.

The Learner can reflect on interaction to modify re-description

7.

The Teacher can reflect on the Learner's action to modify re-description

(based on Laurillard, 1993: 119
note that this has been slightly modified in the 2nd [2002] edition)

Two levels of the conversation

So the learning conversation operates on two levels:

cf. Laurillard 2002: 87

At the "lower" level (on the diagram) the student is engaged in the goal-oriented behaviour
of trying to master the topic of learning, while the teacher is providing the experiential
environment within which this can happen, including managing the class or tutorial, setting
tests, delivering resources, etc. As this is going on, the teacher and learner are engaged in
a conversation about it, exchanging their representations of the subject matter, and their
experience of the lower level, and adapting each to the other. This process of talking about
what you are doing is one of reflection, and modification of what you are doing in the light
of the talk is adaptation.
The critical feature of Laurillard's model is the way she uses it as a means of evaluating
technologically-supported teaching, asking of ever-more sophisticated technology just how
much it can rise up to the challenge of doing what comes naturally to involved teachers and
students. It may not be a simple or intuitive model like, for example,Kolb's experiential
learning cycle, but it is powerful and does repay study.

Read more: Conversational learning theory; Pask and

Laurillard http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/pask.htm#Process#ixzz3IiRaIGku
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/pask.htm#Process

Reflections on the conversation theory of

Gordon Pask

Article Options and Tools

View:

HTML
PDF

References (36)
Cited by (Crossref, 3)

Add to Marked List

Download Citation

Track Citations

Author(s):
Gary Boyd (Education Department, Centre for System Research and Knowledge Engineering, Concordia
University, Montreal, Canada)
Citation:
Gary Boyd, (2001) "Reflections on the conversation theory of Gordon Pask", Kybernetes, Vol. 30 Iss: 5/6,
pp.560 - 571
Downloads:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 382 times since 2006
Abstract:
The most satisfying and interesting human learning gameoflife is probably a conversation where there is a
common will among the participants to promote understanding of our world despite possibly large
differences in knowledge and experience. Gordon Pask took conversational learning as more than a general
metaphor for humanly significant learning. He identified the essential minimal characteristics of the entities
and relationships involved and formalised all that into a recursive learning theory of very broad scope. Over
the years, Pask and his various System Research associates validated conversation theory by embodying it
in a number of (n) personmachine systems (SAKI, CASTE, THOUGHTSTICKER, TDS, etc.), and by doing
case studies with various kinds of learners and tutorlearners learning and teaching through these
interfaces. Reviews some interesting aspects of conversation theory, including both its remarkable insights
and some limitations. Concludes that there are good reasons for expecting that the implications of Pasks
approach to educational cybernetics will continue to be explored for many years to come.
Keywords:
Education, Cybernetics, Learning, Learning styles
Type:
Research paper
Publisher:
MCB UP Ltd

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03684920110391788

Andrew Gordon Speedie Pask (28 June 1928 29 March 1996) was an
English cybernetician and psychologist who made significant contributions
to cybernetics, instructional psychology, experimental epistemology and educational technology.
Contents
[hide]

1 Biography
2 Work: overview
3 Interactions of Actors Theory
o 3.1 Hewitt's actor model
4 No Doppelgangers
o 4.1 Duration proof
o 4.2 Reproduction proof
o 4.3 A mechanical model
o 4.4 Further context
5 See also
6 Publications
o 6.1 About Gordon Pask
7 References
8 External links

Biography[edit]
Pask was born in Derby, England in 1928. After qualifying precociously as a Mining Engineer at
Liverpool Polytechnic, now Liverpool John Moores University, Pask obtained anMA in Natural
Sciences from Cambridge in 1952 and a PhD in Psychology from the University of London in 1964.
Whilst Visiting Professor of Educational Technology he obtained the first DSc from the Open
University and an ScD from his College, Downing Cambridge in 1995. From the sixties Pask directed
commercial research at System Research Ltd inRichmond, Surrey and his partnership, Pask
Associates.

Work: overview[edit]
Gordon's primary contributions to cybernetics, educational psychology, learning theory and systems
theory, as well as to numerous other fields, was his emphasis on the personal nature of reality, and
on the process of learning as stemming from the consensual agreement of interacting actors in a
given environment ("conversation").
His work was complex, extensive, and deeply thought out, at least until late in his life, when he
benefited less often from critical feedback of research peers, reviewers of proposals and reports to
government bodies in the US and UK, and, perhaps most especially, the tension between

experimentation and theoretical stands. His publications, however, represent a storehouse of ideas
that are not fully mined.[1]
Pask's most well known work was the development of:

Conversation Theory: is a cybernetic and dialectic framework that offers a scientific theory to
explain how interactions lead to "construction of knowledge", or, as Pask preferred "knowing"
(wishing to preserve both the dynamic/kinetic quality, and the necessity for there to be a
"knower").[2] It came out of his work 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.

Interactions of Actors Theory: This is a generalised account of the eternal kinetic processes that
support kinematic conversations bounded with beginnings and ends in all media. It is
reminiscent of Freud's psychodynamics, Bateson's panpsychism (see "Mind and Nature: A
Necessary Unity" 1980). Pask's nexus of analogy, dependence and mechanical spin produces
the differences that are central to cybernetics.

Pask participated in the seminal exhibition "Cybernetic Serendipity" (ICA London, 1968) with the
interactive installation "Colloquy of Mobiles", continuing his ongoing dialogue with the visual and
performing arts. (cf Rosen 2008, and Dreher's History of Computer Art) Pask influenced such
diverse individuals as Ted Nelson, who references Pask in Computer Lib/Dream Machines and
whose interest in hypermedia is much like Pask's entailment meshes; and Nicholas Negroponte,
whose earliest research efforts at the Architecture Machine Group on "idiosyncratic systems" and
software-based partners for design have their roots in Pask's work as a consultant to Negroponte's
efforts.

Interactions of Actors Theory[edit]

While working with clients in the last years of his life, Gordon Pask produced an axiomatic
scheme[3] for his Interactions of Actors Theory, less well-known than his Conversation Theory.
"Interactions of Actors (IA), Theory and Some Applications", as the manuscript is entitled, is
essentially a concurrent spin calculus applied to the living environment with strict topological
constraints.[4] One of the most notable associates of Gordon Pask, Gerard de Zeeuw, was a key
contributor to the development of Interactions of Actors theory.

The figure shows Pask's famous "repulsive carapace" force surrounding a concept. It is shown by the minus sign, it
has a clockwise or anticlockwise spin compare Spin. The spin signature is determined by the residualparity of a
braid which is the thick line enclosed by the cylinder. The plus sign labels a process seeking closure by "eating its
own tail". Three of these toroidal structures can produce aBorromean link model of the minimal stable concept.[5] Pask
said the prismatic tensegrity could be used as a model for the interaction in a Borromean link.

Prismatic Tensegrity space fillingunit cell of a minimal concept. The red, blue and green rods exert compressive
repulsions, the black lines represent attractive tensions. The Borromean link shown is regarded as a resonance form
(c.f. tautomerism[6]) of Pask's minimal persisting concept triple.

Interactions of Actors Theory (IA) is a process theory.[7] As a means to describe

the interdisciplinary nature of his work, Pask would make analogies to physical theories in the
classic positivist enterprises of the social sciences. Pask sought to apply the axiomatic properties of
agreement or epistemological dependence to produce a "sharp-valued" social science with precision
comparable to the results of the hard sciences. It was out of this inclination that he would develop his
Interactions of Actors Theory. Pask's concepts produce relations in all media and he regarded IA as
a process theory. In his Complementarity Principle he stated "Processes produce products and all
products (finite, bounded coherences) are produced by processes".[8]
Most importantly Pask also had his Exclusion Principle. He proved that no two concepts or products
could be the same because of their different histories. He called this the "No Doppelgangers" clause
or edict.[7] Later he reflected "Time is incommensurable for Actors".[9] He saw these properties as

necessary to produce differentiation and innovation or new coherences in physical nature and,
indeed, minds.
In 1995 Pask stated what he called his Last Theorem: "Like concepts repel and unlike concepts
attract". For ease of application Pask stated the differences and similarities of descriptions (the
products of processes) were context and perspective dependent. In the last three years of his life
Pask presented models based on Knot theory knots which described minimal persisting concepts.
He interpreted these as acting as computing elements which exert repulsive forces to interact and
persist in filling the space. The knots, links and braids of his entailment mesh models of concepts,
which could include tangle-like processes seeking "tail-eating" closure, Pask called "tapestries".
His analysis proceeded with like seeming concepts repelling or unfolding but after a sufficient
duration of interaction (he called this duration "faith") a pair of similar or like-seeming concepts will
always produce a difference and thus an attraction. Amity (availability for interaction), respectability
(observability), responsibility (able to respond to stimulus), unity (not uniformity) were necessary
properties to produce agreement (or dependence) and agreement-to-disagree (or relative
independence) when Actors interact. Concepts could be applied imperatively or permissively when a
Petri (see Petri net) condition for synchronous transfer of meaningful information occurred.
Extending his physical analogy Pask associated the interactions of thought generation
with radiation : "operations generating thoughts and penetrating conceptual boundaries within
participants, excite the concepts bounded as oscillators, which, in ridding themselves of this surplus
excitation, produce radiation"[10]
In sum, IA supports the earlier kinematic Conversation Theory work where minimally two concurrent
concepts were required to produce a non-trivial third. One distinction separated the similarity and
difference of any pair in the minimum triple. However, his formal methods denied the competence of
mathematics or digital serial and parallel processes to produce applicable descriptions because of
their innate pathologies in locating the infinitesimals of dynamic equilibria (Stafford Beer's "Point of
Calm"). He dismissed the digital computer as a kind of kinematic "magic lantern". He saw
mechanical models as the future for the concurrent kinetic computers required to describe natural
processes. He believed that this implied the need to extend quantum computing to emulate true field
concurrency rather than the currentvon Neumann architecture.
Reviewing IA[9] he said:
Interaction of actors has no specific beginning or end. It goes on forever. Since it does so it has very
peculiar properties. Whereas a conversation is mapped (due to a possibility of obtaining a vague
kinematic, perhaps picture-frame image, of it, onto Newtonian time, precisely because it has a
beginning and end), an interaction, in general, cannot be treated in this manner. Kinematics are
inadequate to deal with life: we need kinetics. Even so as in the minimal case of a strict conversation
we cannot construct the truth value, metaphor or analogy of A and B. The A, B differences are

generalizations about a coalescence of concepts on the part of A and B; their commonality and
coherence is the similarity. The difference (reiterated) is the differentiation of A and B (their
agreements to disagree, their incoherences). Truth value in this case meaning the coherence
between all of the interacting actors.
He added:
It is essential to postulate vectorial times (where components of the vectors are incommensurate)
and furthermore times which interact with each other in the manner of Louis Kaufmann's knots and
tangles.
In experimental Epistemology Pask, the "philosopher mechanic", produced a tool kit to analyse the
basis for knowledge and criticise the teaching and application of knowledge from all fields: the law,
social and system sciences to mathematics, physics and biology. In establishing the vacuity of
invariance Pask was challenged with the invariance ofatomic number. "Ah", he said "the atomic
hypothesis". He rejected this instead preferring the infinite nature of the productions of waves.
Pask held that concurrence is a necessary condition for modelling brain functions and he remarked
IA was meant to stand AI, Artificial Intelligence, on its head. Pask believed it was the job of
cybernetics to compare and contrast. His IA theory showed how to do this. Heinz von Foerster called
him a genius,[11] "Mr. Cybernetics", the "cybernetician's cybernetician".

Hewitt's actor model[edit]

The Hewitt, Bishop and Steiger approach concerns sequential processing and inter-process
communication in digital, serial, kinematic computers. It is a parallel or pseudo-concurrent theory as
is the theory of concurrency. See Concurrency. In Pask's true field concurrent theory kinetic
processes can interrupt (or, indeed, interact with) each other, simply reproducing or producing a new
resultant force within a coherence (of concepts) but without buffering delays or priority.[12]

No Doppelgangers[edit]
"There are no Doppelgangers" is a fundamental theorem, edict or clause of cybernetics due to
Gordon Pask in support of his theories of learning and interaction in all media: Conversation Theory
and Interactions of Actors Theory. It accounts for physical differentiation and is Pask's exclusion
principle.[13] It states no two products of concurrent interaction can be the same because of their
different dynamic contexts and perspectives. No Doppelgangers is necessary to account for the
production by interaction andintermodulation (c.f. beats) of different, evolving, persisting and
coherent forms. Two proofs are presented both due to Pask.

Duration proof[edit]
Consider a pair of moving, dynamic participants A and B producing an interaction T. Their separation
will vary during T. The duration of T observed from A will be different from the duration of T observed
from B.[9][14]
Let Ts and Tf be the start and finish times for the transfer of meaningful information, we can write:
TsA TfB, TfA TsB
TsB TfB, TfA TsA
TsA TsB, TfA TfB
Thus
AB
Q.E.D.
Pask remarked:[9]
Conversation is defined as having a beginning and an end and time is vectorial. The components of
the vector are commensurable (in duration). On the other hand actor interaction time is vectorial with
components that are incommensurable. In the general case there is no well-defined beginning and
interaction goes on indefinitely. As a result the time vector has incommensurable components. Both
the quantity and quality differ.
No Doppelgangers applies in both the Conversation Theory's kinematic domain (bounded by
beginnings and ends) where times are commensurable and in the eternal kineticInteractions of
Actors domain where times are incommensurable.

Reproduction proof[edit]
The second proof[7] is more reminiscent of R.D. Laing:[15] Your concept of your concept is not my
concept of your concepta reproduced concept is not the same as the original concept. Pask
defined concepts as persisting, countably infinite, recursively packed spin processes (like many
cored cable, or skins of an onion) in any medium (stars, liquids, gases, solids, machines and, of
course, brains) that produce relations.
Here we prove A(T) B(T).
D means "description of" and <Con A(T), D A(T)> reads A's concept of T produces A's description
of T, evoking Dirac notation (required for the production of the quanta of thought: the transfer of "settheoretic tokens", as Pask puts it in 1996[9]).
TA = A(T) = <Con A(T), D A(T)>, A's Concept of T,
TB = B(T) = <Con B(T), D B(T)>, B's Concept of T,

or, in general
TZ = Z(T) = <Con Z (T), D Z(T)>,
also, in general
AA = A(A) = <Con A(A), D A(A)>, A's Concept of A,
AB = A(B) = <Con A(B), D A(B)>, A's Concept of B.
and vice versa, or, in general terms
ZZ = Z(Z) = <Con Z(Z), D Z>,
given that for all Z and all T, the concepts
TA = A(T) is not equal to TB = B(T)
and that
AA = A(A) is not equal to BA = B(A) and vice versa, hence, there are no
Doppelgangers.
Q.E.D.

A mechanical model[edit]
Pask attached a piece of string to a bar[16] with three knots in it. Then he
attached a piece of elastic to the bar with three knots in it. One
observing actor, A, on the string would see the knotted intervals on the
other actor as varying as the elastic was stretched and relaxed
corresponding to the relative motion of B as seen from A. The knots
correspond to the beginning of the experiment then the start and finish
of the A/B interaction. Referring to the three intervals, where x, y, z, are
the separation distances of the knots from the bar and each other, he
noted x > y > z on the string for participant A does not imply x > z for
participant B on the elastic. A change of separation between A and B
producingDoppler shifts during interaction, recoil or the differences in
relativistic proper time for A and B, would account for this for example.
On occasion a second knotted string was tied to the bar
representing co-ordinate time.

Further context[edit]
To set in further context Pask won a prize from Old Dominion
University for his Complementarity Principle: "All processes produce
products and all products are produced by processes". This can be
written:

Ap(ConZ(T)) => DZ (T) where => means produces and Ap means the
"application of", D means "description of" and Z is the concept mesh or
coherence of which T is part. This can also be written
<Ap(ConZ (T)), DZ (T)>.
Pask distinguishes Imperative (written &Ap or IM) from Permissive
Application (written Ap)[17] where information is transferred in
the Petri net manner, the token appearing as a hole in a torus
producing a Klein bottle containing recursively packed concepts.[7]
Pask's "hard" or "repulsive"[7] carapace was a condition he required
for the persistence of concepts. He endorsed Rescher's Coherence
Theory of Truth approach where a set membership criterion of
similarity also permitted differences amongst set or coherence
members, but he insisted repulsive force was exerted at set and
members' coherence boundaries. He said of Spencer
Brown's Laws of Form that distinctions must exert repulsive forces.
This is not yet accepted by Spencer Brown and others. Without a
repulsion, or Newtonian reaction at the boundary, sets, their
members or interacting participants would diffuse away forming a
"smudge"; Hilbertian marks on paper would not be preserved.
Pask, the mechanical philosopher, wanted to apply these ideas to
bring a new kind of rigour to cybernetic models.
Some followers of Pask emphasise his late work, done in the
closing chapter of his life, which is neither as clear nor as grounded
as the prior decades of research and machine- and theory-building.
This tends to skew the impression gleaned by researchers as to
Pask's contribution or even his lucidity.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask