This theme was inspired by Norm Friesen’s article where he emphasizes the central role of dialogue in the imaginary of educational technology. The author describes a long history of the dialogical method of teaching and links it to the promises of personalized learning. As a student, teacher and family member, I decided to analyze how much one-to-one communication I have in my WFH life, and whether it has any educational/enlightening impact on me.
So I tracked all my one-to-one conversations for four working days (Tue-Fri) and focused on the following: 1) who I’m talking to; 2) how we do this (media); 3) how long we talk; 3) if I’m learning/developing in the process of our talk
At the start, I also tried to note down the topics we covered, but it turned out to be next to impossible to keep track of them, as they change quickly and are sometimes even difficult to define. For instance, when talking about education at work (I’m an educator) – what are we talking about ‘work’ or ‘education’? If I failed here, the speech recognition system would have done even worse. As Friesen concludes, dialogue is ‘a ubiquitous yet irreducible experience…’ that ‘cannot be reduced to the requirements and usecases of engineering nor the certainties and probabilistic measurements of the natural sciences’ (p.155).
As a result of my mini-research, I haven’t identified any ‘enlightening conversations’ in my experience this week. However, I completed training at work, read for university and reflected on new ideas in my head. I believe that without one-to-one tutoring, I did quite well as a learner this week, but if the system had tracked my dialogical activities, maybe, it wouldn’t have arrived at the same conclusion, as it tends to count ‘what is easy to be counted’ (Selwyn et al, p.534) and ‘lingers on’ the level of behavior and words.