Cybernetic and dialectic framework
Conversation theory is a cybernetic approach to the study of conversation, cognition and learning that may occur between two participants who are engaged in conversation with each other. It presents an experimental framework heavily utilizing human-computer interactions and computer theoretic models as a means to present a scientific theory explaining how conversational interactions lead to the emergence of knowledge between participants. The theory was developed by Gordon Pask, who credits Bernard Scott, Dionysius Kallikourdis, Robin McKinnon-Wood, and others during its initial development and implementation as well as Paul Pangaro during subsequent years.
Overview.
Conversation theory may be described as a formal theory of conversational process, as well as a theoretical methodology concerned with concept-forming and concept-sharing between conversational participants. 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. While the framework is interpretable as a psychological framework with educational applications (specifically, as a general framework to think about teaching and learning), Pask's motivation in developing the theory has been interpreted by some who closely worked with him develop upon certain theoretical concerns regarding the nature of cybernetic inquiry.
The theory has been noted to have been influenced by a variety of psychological, pedagogical and philosophical influences such as Lev Vygotsky, R. D. Laing and George H. Mead. With some authors suggesting that the kind of human-machine learning interactions documented in conversation theory to be mirroring Vygotsky's descriptions of the zone of proximal development, and his descriptions of spontaneous and scientific concepts.
The theory prioritizes learning and teaching approaches related to education. 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. 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". 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. While there is an acknowledgment of its similarities to phenomenology, the theory extends its analysis to examine cognitive processes. However, the concept of cognition is not viewed as merely being confined to an individual's brain or central nervous system. 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.
Initial results from the theory lead to a distinction in the type of learning strategies participants used during the learning process; whereby students in general gravitated towards "holistic" or "serialist" learning strategies (with the optimal mixture producing a "versatile" learning strategy).
Conversation.
Following Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro, a conversation in the context of conversation theory involves an exchange between two participants whereby each participant is contextualized as a learning system whose internal states are changed through the course of the conversation. What can be discussed through conversation, i.e., topics of discussion, are said to belong to a conversational domain.
Conversation is distinguished from the mere exchange of information as seen in information theory, by the fact that utterances are interpreted within the context of a given perspective of such a learning system. Each participant's meanings and perceptions change during the course of a conversation, and each participant can agree to commit to act in certain ways during the conversation. In this way, conversation permits not only learning but also collaboration through participants coordinating themselves and designating their roles through the means of conversation.
Since meanings are agreed during the course of a conversation, and since purported agreements can be illusory (whereby we think we have the same understanding of a given topic but in fact do not), an empirical approach to the study of conversation would require stable reference points during such conversational exchanges between peers so as to permit reproducible results. Using computer theoretical models of cognition, conversation theory can document these intervals of understanding that arise in the conversations between two participating individuals, such that the development of individual and collective understandings can be analyzed rigorously.
In this way, Pask has been argued to have been an early pioneer in AI-based educational approaches: Having proposed that advances in computational media may enable conversational forms of interactions to take place between man and machine.
Language.
The types of languages that conversation theory utilizes 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. 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 formula_1 is treated as an unrestricted language used between a source (say a participant) and an interrogator or analyst (say an experimenter).
For this reason, it may be considered a language for general discussion in the context of conversation theory.
An object language formula_2 meanwhile, has some of the qualities of a natural language (which permits commands, questions, ostentation and predication), but is used in conversation theory specifically as the language studied during experiments. Finally, the metalanguage formula_3 is an observational language used by an interrogator or analysis 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.
The object language formula_2 differs from most formal languages, by virtue of being "a command and question language[,] not an assertoric language like [a] predicate calculus". Moreover, formula_2 is a language primarily dealing with metaphors indicating material analogies and not on the kind of propositions dealing with truth or falsity values. Since conversation theory specifically focuses on learning and development within human subjects, the object language is separated into two distinct modes of conversing.
Conversation theory conceptualises learning as being the result of two integrated levels of control: The first level of control is designated by formula_6 and designates a set of problem-solving procedures which attempt to attain goals or subgoals, whereas the second level of control is designated as formula_7 and denotes various constructive processes that have been acquired by a student through maturation, imprinting and previous learning.
The object language formula_2 then is demarcated in conversation theory based on these considerations, whereby it is split between formula_9 and formula_10 lines of inquiry such that an object language is the ordered pair of such discourse types formula_11.
According to Bernard Scott, formula_9 discourse of an object language may be conceptualized as the level of how, i.e., discourse that is concerned with "how to “do” a topic: how to recognize it, construct it, maintain it and so on".
Meanwhile, formula_10 discourse may be conceptualized as the level of why, i.e., it is discourse "concerned with explaining or justifying what a topic means in terms of other topics".
Concepts.
A concept in conversation theory, is conceived of as the production, reproduction, and maintenance of a given topic relation formula_14 from other topic relations formula_15, all belonging to a given conversational domain formula_16. This implies formula_17, where formula_18 and formula_19 are used to represent a number on a finite index of numbers. A concept must satisfy the twin condition that it must entail formula_20 and be entailed formula_21 by other topics.
A concept in the context of conversation theory is not a class, nor description of a class, nor a stored description: Instead, a concept is specifically used to reconstruct, reproduce or stabilize relations. Thus, if formula_22 is the head topic of discussion, then formula_23 implies that the concept of that relation produces, reproduces, and maintains that relation.
Now, a concept itself is considered to consist of the ordered pair containing a program and an interpretation:
formula_24
Whereby a program attempts to derive a given topic relation, while an interpretation refers to the compilation of that program. In other words, given a specific topic relation, a program attempts to derive that relation through a series of other topic relations, which are compiled in such a way as to derive the initial topic relation. A concept as defined above is considered to be a formula_2-procedure, which is embodied by an underlying processor called a formula_2-processor.
In this way, Pask envisages concepts as mental organisations that hold a hypothesis and seek to test that hypothesis in order to confirm or deny its validity. This notion of a concept has been noted as formally resembling a TOTE cycle discussed by Miller, Galanter and Pribram. The contents and structure that a concept might have at a given interaction of its continuous deformation can be represented through an entailment structure.
Such conceptual forms are said to be emergent through conversational interactions. They are encapsulated through entailment structures, which is a way by which we may visualize an organized and publicly available collection of resultant knowledge. Entailment structures may afford certain advantages compared to certain semantic network structures, as they force semantic relations to be expressed as belonging to coherent structures. The entailment structure is composed of a series of nodes and arrows representing a series of topic relations and the derivations of such topic relations. For example:
In the above illustration, let formula_27, such that there are topic relations that are members of a set of topic relations. Each topic relation is represented by a node, and the entailment represented by the black arc. It follows that formula_28 in the case above, such that the topics "P" and "Q" entail the topic of "T".
Assuming we use the same derivation process for all topics in above entailment structure, then we are let with the following product as illustrated above. This represents a minimal entailment mesh consisting of a triad of derivations: formula_29, formula_30, and formula_31. The solid arc indicates that a given head topic relation is derived from subordinate topics, whereas the arcs with dotted lines represent how the head topic may be used to derive other topics. Finally:
Represents two solid arcs permitting alternative derivations of the topic "T". This can be expressed as formula_32, which reads either the set containing "P" and "Q", or the set containing "R" and "S" entail "T". Lastly, a formal analogy is shown where two topics "T" and "T"' belonging to two entailment meshes are demonstrated to have a one-to-one correspondence with each other. The diamond shape formula_16 below denotes analogy relation that can be claimed to exist between any three topics of each entailment mesh.
The relation of one topic "T" to another "T"' by an analogy can also be seen as: Being based on an isomorphism formula_34, a semantic distinction formula_35 between two individual universes on interpretation formula_36. Assuming an analogy holds for two topics in two distinct entailment meshes, then it should hold for all if the analogy is to be considered coherent and stable.
Cognitive Reflector.
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. 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 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,