The Theory and Practice of the Conversational Framework: Proposed Amendments and Enrichments
Aleksej Heinze, a.heinze@salford.ac.uk
Chris Procter, c.t.procter@salford.ac.uk
Bernard Scott, b.c.e.scott@cranfield.ac.uk
Abstract
Our work is concerned with the search for a viable pedagogical theory for a part time blended learning course. It was initially thought that the Conversational Framework (Laurillard 1993) would provide this, and could be examined utilising action research. 
We examine the Conversation Theory related literature (Scott 2001, Harri-Augstein and Thomas 1991) and our action research data, including staff and student interviews and focus groups. 
The findings suggest that despite some theoretical alignment to Blended Learning, there is a need to amend and enrich the Conversational Framework in order to make it more applicable. 
Introduction
The development of courses in higher education is increasingly benefiting from educational technology. Both proprietary and open source Virtual Learning Environments are becoming popular in higher education settings (Britain and Liber 2004). Some authors emphasise the importance of technology and investigate the various options driven by the technology (Bonk and Kim 2005).  Gilly Salmon (Salmon 2002) and Diana Laurillard (Laurillard 2002) emphasise educational theory as a base for the use of information technology in higher education settings. There are a number of approaches
…which, though useful for the professional instructional designer, are cumbersome and unwieldy for the working academic wishing to produce learning materials. 
(Scott 2001:12)
Despite the recent developments in the field of education technology introduction, the term associated with the student learning experience “Blended Learning” remains ill defined (Oliver and Trigwell 2005). 
As part of a strategy to encourage more students to study on a part time degree in Information Technology (IT), a project supported by the European Social Fund was initiated in 2003. A major element of this project was the development of a part time course that would take advantage of both the technology, through a Virtual Learning Environment (facilitated by Blackboard, SkillSoft etc), and traditional face-to-face classes.
The initial understanding was that the new course would be developed to reflect blended learning ideas (Procter 2003). It would provide an attractive alternative for local students who are not willing to study entirely over distance, but are not able to attend daily class sessions. It was soon realised that there was a need for a common understanding of ‘blended learning’ amongst all staff on the course in order to deliver the material in a way that was able to fulfil the following definition:
Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and is founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course.
(Heinze and Procter 2004:11)
In this paper, we aim to explore the Conversational Framework in the context of blended learning and to propose possible improvements. 
First of all, we will focus on the literature and outline key references related to the Conversational Framework, which originated from Conversational Theory. We then outline action research as our chosen research method and finally we discuss our findings and relate these to the literature.
Conversation Theory
Gordon Pask, Bernard Scott and others advanced the conversational theory that is the basis for the Conversational Framework (Scott 2001). One of the drawings by Gordon Pask from 1961 (Figure 1) of a “Classroom of the Future” resembles a current computer laboratory where students are able to learn with their individual machines. 

Figure 1. The Classroom of the Future.
Reproduced with kind permission of Bernard Scott 2005.

Some of the underlying assumptions of the conversational theory are:
Man is a system that needs to learn”, thus the problem of motivation is not “that we learn” it is rather what we learn and why. …
What is memorable is that which can be “taught back …
The particular conceptions and misconceptions (kinds of understanding) that participants have of the topic in question can, following Aristotle and others, be broadly classified as ‘knowing why’ and “knowing how”.
(Scott 2001:4)
Pask’s “Skeleton of Conversation” is depicted below (Figure 2). This representation maps out the basics of the interaction between Teacher and Learner. The horizontal arrows depicts the interaction of questions and answers. This verbal communication happens on two levels the “Why?” and “How?.” The “Why?” (comprehension learning) level sets out a context in which the How becomes meaningful. The “How?” (operation learning) is concerned with an understanding of the topic itself. The vertical lines on the other hand represent causal connections such as feedback. At the bottom of the figure is the practical modelling representation of the theory concerned. Thus a topic can be deemed as understood if a learner is able to demonstrate “teach back” the practical elements as well as the verbal explanations of “How?” and “Why?” (Scott 2001).

Figure 2. Skeleton of Conversation.
Reproduced with kind permission of Bernard Scott 2001

Learning Conversation
Psychologists Harri-Augstein and Thomas 1991 argued that:
…personally significant and valued learning through experience is not imposed by Skinnerian conditioning nor is it achieved by inventing any reality we choose. It is achieved by exercising the freedom to learn in ‘conversational encounters’, which are valued by using criteria that arise from within the experience itself.
(Harri-Augstein and Thomas 1991:9)
Their emphasis goes beyond the notion of “learning by doing” to awareness, review and reflection upon an experience. Furthermore the individual’s beliefs, values, needs and purposes have to be related to that experience. It is suggested that all people are in charge of their learning and therefore are “Self-Organised-Learners” and at times people are driven by others in other words “Other-Organised-Learners”. The more control we have of our learning the more organised we become and therefore increase our personal learning potential. A “full” learning conversation would therefore consciously include answers to the following questions (Scott 2001:7):
•	Why of learning? (Conversation about the purposes of learning)
•	How of learning? (Conversations about learning)
•	Why and How of Topic? (Subject related discourse).
The reflection upon “Why and How of learning” affects individuals’ beliefs, values, needs and purposes and hence the emphasis on learning how to learn is the contribution of Harry-Augstein and Thomas.
Conversational Framework
Diana Laurillard applied the underlying ideas of dialogue as developed by Pask 1976. The Conversational Framework depicts the communication process that occurs between the teacher and student in the development of the student’s knowledge. The 2002 version of this framework is shown in figure 3. Laurillard identifies four elements of the learning process that are part of the framework within which learning occurs. 
Figure 3 depicts the 12 stages that are recommended to take place when teaching students. This includes three cycles on which a student has the opportunity to communicate with the teacher. The teacher in turn has the opportunity to evaluate the student’s understanding at an early stage and correct it if there are any misconceptions. Using conversation as the basis for teaching, the learning relationship becomes more transparent and open to both student and teacher. 
The iterative learning cycles highlight the dialogic nature of the model. These require at least three engagements with one topic. Thus a student will have the opportunity to learn from theory, action and feedback (see Arrow 10, Figure 1). There is no one right medium for the conversation, each medium has its own drawbacks and hence it is important to maintain the various dialogic aspects all the time. These are some of the reasons for its application to Blended Learning. 
Subsequent criticism of the Conversational Framework includes the work of Draper 1997) who argues that there is a lack of attention to the management of learning and the need for learning negotiation between the student and the teacher. Other limitations include the application of the Conversational Framework to online group based learning (Britain and Liber 1999). In more recent work, student collaboration issues are acknowledged by Laurillard, but she believes that there is a need for further research into the student-student dialogue that leads to learning (Laurillard 2002:159). 

Teacher’s
conception

Teacher’s
constructed
environment

Student’s
action

Student’s
conception

1. Theory, ideas
2. Conceptions
3. Re-description
4. Re-description

6. Teacher sets goals
7. Student’s action
8. Feedback
9. Student’s modified action

5. Adaptation of task goal in light of student’s description

10. Adaptation
of actions in light of theory, goal, and feedback

12. Reflection on learner’s actions to modify descriptions

11. Reflection on concept in light of experience

Conversational Framework

Figure 3.  A framework for analysing educational media.
Adapted from Laurillard 2002:87)

Conversational Framework in Practice
The two modules that participated in the trial of the Conversational Framework are Project Management and Systems Analysis and Design. The following is a summary example of the implementation on the part time undergraduate Project Management module. 
Steps 1 - 4
In the face-to-face sessions students were issued with handouts. These contained the theory and ideas that were utilised in class for discursive exercises. These exercises provided students with the opportunity to share their conceptions and for the lecturer/teaching assistant to re-describe these if required.   
Multiple-choice questions were developed for each topic and released on a weekly basis in order to allow students to further their understanding of the theory. Every session started with a review of the previous week together with exercises that were issued for home self-study. 

Step 5
As a motivator for further discussion, students were issued with past exam papers, which were related to the topic covered in the face to face session. Students were encouraged to attempt these exam questions and share their answers with other students for discussion on an online discussion board that was set up within the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).
Step 6 - 10 
Students were given an assignment that related to practical theory application. For about six weeks students were working on the assignment in practical sessions where they were formatively assessed on their actions. Students’ action and feedback were communicated verbally in the face-to-face sessions. As an alternative, email and online discussion boards were utilised for further support, since students were not always able to attend the face-to-face sessions or wanted more feedback at other times. On the discussion boards students were able to openly share their experiences amongst themselves, whilst benefiting from the feedback given to individuals from the lecturer or the teaching assistant.
Finally, a summative assessment of the practical work was concluded by a demonstration and a report that included a reflective section of theory and practice.
Step 10 - 12
A further summative assessment came in the form of a written exam, where students were encouraged to use examples from their own experience.
As part of the action research a review of the module was conducted.
Research Method
Action research was the selected research method. The main reasons for this were a need for balance between the practice and theory and the option for intervention and improvement. In their review for the Economic and Social Research Council on pedagogical research and practice, the issue of theory and practice has been identified as problematic:
…practices are either grounded in the day to day minutae of ‘chalkface’ learning delivery (and hence ungrounded in theory) or, conversely, are tied to a particular ‘grand learning theory’ and are unsubstantiated in practice.
(Cullen, Hadjivassiliou et al. 2002: 3)
Where possible lecturers were interviewed before and after their experience of a blended learning module. Three staff focus groups were held to discuss the experience, problems and issues arising and to consider possible improvements and actions.
All students were given the opportunity to share their experience of the course in six focus groups that took place at the end of each semester over the two years. At the end of the second year, students were also invited to participate in semi-structured interviews; six of the students participated in these. In order to create a better appreciation of the course, student discussion boards were also used to supplement the understanding of their experience.
Overall a triangulation of methods - action research [Lau 1997] and grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967/1999) was used. Data collection techniques included interviews, focus groups, electronic communications and document analysis in order to establish a good understanding of the course development.
All subjects consented to their data being used for this research. Where possible interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed and then analysed using NVivo software to facilitate the generation of grounded theory.
Data
The following topics emerged as trends from the staff and student interviews. Whilst some of these issues might be contradictory it is important to stress the Interpretivist position of this work and its limitations of generalisation.
Conversational Framework – Ideal theory for blended learning?
It was not really clear for the staff involved with the course how the ideas of Blended Learning can be implemented in practice. Reducing contact time in face-to-face sessions, and utilisation of the virtual learning environment are new issues faced by staff. There were a number of people who expressed their concern about the clarity of the way the course was to be delivered. One year into the course one of the participants stated:
I think that we have probably underestimated the importance of some sort of theoretical grounding for the blended learning we are using, in hindsight now. …and obviously Laurillard is a key figure in that.
When asked about their knowledge of the Conversational Framework, the majority of staff on the course replied that they were not familiar with it. The interviewees or the focus group participants were then presented with figure 3 and a brief explanation of the concept. Once people were introduced to the basics of the Conversational Framework and the underlying ideas, the majority of them were able to identify the potential or at least not discard it as an option:
There may be an opportunity to improve the course by using some background theory for teaching and learning such as the Laurillard Conversational model. The face-to-face time could be made more interactive.
However, only two out of the eight lecturers agreed to incorporate the Conversational Framework in their modules.
Conversational Framework – “Complication framework”
There were also a number of staff who said that they didn’t have the time and effort that was required to read the work of Diana Laurillard and understand it. This quote illustrates exactly this:
Can’t really understand it and not sure how this could help the course. Need more time to think about this.
Most of the staff indicated that they were familiar with some learning theory and in particular the two that were mentioned were Kolb’s experiential learning and the related anecdotal theory of “learning by doing”. Both these have the common factor of being simple and easy to implement in practice.

Conversational Framework and Relevance to Practice
Those lecturers who have read Laurillard’s book found it abstract and
difficult to relate to practice. Although there was an appreciation of the framework, the potential of it being implemented into practice was limited. One of the participants said:
Yes, I read it years ago, but I have never used it quite honestly.
The two main aspects that hinder the leap from theory into practice are the class sizes and the reliance on students to play a full part in the learning conversation. The emphasis on student willingness to engage in the conversations is one of the assumptions for this theory to work. This issue is highlighted in the following comment:
…and I suspect that if you look at people like Laurillard, she only teaches classes of 25 - I am teaching classes of 150, and she probably has very bright students.
Conversational Framework and Student Centered Learning
Staff who tried to implement the framework found that it only works with the "ideal type" of students – “who will read everything you ask them to”. These are usually students who get a good mark in every subject due to their motivation and intellectual abilities. It was felt that students (on our part time course) don't like and can’t put too much time into activities that only give them formative feedback. Most of the students interviewed found that they had little time for step 5, and also for some of the tutorial sessions, which constituted steps 7 and 9 of the Conversational Framework. 
Another issue flagged up by the lecturers was the lack of student reading “Reading for a degree” of relevant material.
One of the lecturers relied on home reading to inform dialogue in class, which was not successful and resulted in a change of approach:
There was one occasion when students were told to read at home and discuss the material in class, however none of them did it - so this approach was dropped as unworkable.
Students generally blame their work places and social commitments for hindering them in carrying out study reading.
Conversational Framework – what Conversational Framework?
Students were not able to see any differences between a module that utilised Conversational Framework and a module that did not. Generally there was consensus amongst the students that they appreciated the use of discussion boards and face-to-face topic discussions for feedback generation.
One of the students suggested using multiple choice questions so that students were able to gain more feedback on their progression, he was not aware of the multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on Blackboard. Generally, students did not make use of MCQs for formative assessment, whereas those used for summative assessment were all made use of.
Based on the experience of all the part time modules, the impression emerges that students were not willing to commit time and effort to study activities that were part of formative assessment.

Discussion
Data suggests that the Conversational Framework is a useful starting point when considering a theoretical foundation for Blended Learning, but it is not ideal. It became apparent that the theory relies heavily on student and staff willingness and ability to take part in the dialogue. The following are some of the emerging requirements for a viable theoretical framework:
•	Grounded in established pedagogical theories
•	Easy to understand and implement by busy academic practitioners
•	Applicable for large and small classes
•	Adaptable for various academic student abilities
•	Prominent interrelationship between the formative and summative assessment.

Receives or offers explanation in terms learning (including study skills and individuality)

Receives or offers explanation in terms of learning

Receives or offers explanation in terms of learning reflection and individual progression/ learning contracts

Receives or offers explanation in terms of relations between topics
Offers demonstrations or elicits models and problems solutions

Receives or offers explanation in terms of relations between topics
Receives demonstrations, builds models or solves problems

Demonstration 
Teaching Back
& 
Reflection  on learning in general

Why & How topic 
questions  and responses

Extended model of conversation skeleton adapted for our Blended Learning Theory

Why & How learning questions and responses

Teacher 					   Learner(s)             Summative Assessment

Figure 4. Attempt at enhancing the conversation skeleton to fulfil all requirements.

In practice blended learning means a reduction of face-to-face contact time, which reduces opportunities for face-to-face teacher-learner dialogue. It is therefore important that conversation is encouraged via alternative channels and is an integral part of blended learning theory or practice. A good starting point for our search for a Blended Learning Theory that fulfils the above issues is the Skeleton of Conversation (Figure 2). This can fulfil most of the criteria above but has difficulties with the issue of large classes or the ease of implementation. Not all higher education institutions are prepared or able to commit considerable funds to teaching material development. The possible option for large-number classes is the use of self-reflection and dialogue with learner peers. This is also relatively easy to implement by setting up discussion boards or making use of learning logs such as Personal Development Portfolios (PDP). Self-reflection or reflection with one’s learning peers is depicted by the curved arrow see figure 4.     
In our implementations of the Conversational Framework, one issue was particularly lacking - that is student reflection. All previously discussed theories - those of Pask and Scott, Laurillard, Harri-Augstein and Thomas emphasise learners’ reflection. In practice what was seen is that students were interested in the marks for their modules rather than in gaining skills and knowledge and developing as individuals. Assessment plays the role of student motivator. To ensure ongoing student participation, a continuous assessment with a major deliverable is desirable.
The above attempt (Figure 4) has two major differences from the work of Pask & Scott and Harry-Augstein & Thomas. The first is the conscious positioning of the summative assessment as a follow up step on the right hand side of the diagram. The horizontal arrows from the learners towards the summative assessment indicate that the student is required to fulfil the same task that will be formally assessed.
The second difference is the introduction of multiple learners. Topics are discussed amongst learners first before discussing them with the teacher (formative assessment) and subsequently carrying out summative assessment. This learner interaction is indicated with a reverse arrow on the learner box of figure 4.
We believe that reinstating the Pask and Scott Conversation Theory that distinguishes between ‘why’ and ‘how’ discourse provides a framework that is easier to understand and implement compared to the Conversational Framework (figure 3). Further developments and enhancements of the original theory through the work of Harri-Augstein and Thomas, which emphasise the aspect of learning to learn and building an individual’s learning skills is another important feature. It is one of the main differences between corporate training courses and academic courses that students are learning to learn as well as learning a particular topic.
Conclusions
It can be argued that in its basic form, blended learning is concerned with the implementation of information technology (IT) into the teaching and learning process. However, it is important that the implementation is grounded in a pedagogical base. After the first iteration of our action research, the Conversational Framework (Laurillard 1993) was chosen as the pedagogical foundation for a module that is delivered in blended learning mode (Heinze and Procter 2004). The Conversational Framework is based on the concept of conversation theory that in turn relies on a dialogue for facilitating the learning process.
Despite some theoretical applicability we believe that there is a need to amend and enrich the Conversational Framework in order to make it more useful.  In particular, we propose revisiting the original formulation of the Conversation Theory by Pask and Scott (Scott 2001) and the extended concept of a ‘full learning conversation’ as developed by Thomas and Harri-Augstein (Harri-Augstein and Thomas 1991). The two main issues to be added to the Conversational Theory are Assessment and Learner interaction with each other.
Figure 4 depicts our attempt at developing a framework that would potentially fulfil the five criteria, it:
•	Provides a solid grounding in established pedagogical theory such as Conversation Theory.
•	Is relatively easy to understand and implement by busy academic practitioners. Simple tools such as multiple choice questions and online discussion boards will be able to facilitate the necessary infrastructure in combination with face-to-face tutorials and practical sessions.
•	Is applicable for large and small classes. For example, utilisation of self-reflection and group learning can minimise the overheads of one-to-one conversation.
•	Is adaptable for various academic student abilities. There is more flexibility for the student pace of learning, for example individuals might be able to set their own learning contracts etc.
•	Indicates formative and summative assessment, which is to some extent the starting point and the motivator for the student to carry out work.
Further research is required to investigate the application of the Conversation Theory to Blended Learning. This model will be used to re-structure a part time and a full time module and the results will be compared.
Student assessment is emerging as the main motivator of students to participate in learning activities, which has a particular drawback when considering Blended Learning for part time adult learners. It is unlikely that students will engage with additional reading or activities which don’t help them with their work and that will not be assessed.
Blended Learning means that less time will be spent face to face in the classroom, which distances the Learner and the Teacher and unless there is effort being put into interacting with each other, there is a chance that there may be no dialogue between the learner and the teacher. The Conversational Theory addresses this central issue of interaction and we therefore feel that the time spent in a face to face classroom situation should aim for student-student and teacher-student dialogue.
References
Bonk, C. J. and K.-J. Kim (2005). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham. San Francisco, Pfeiffer Publishing.
Britain, S. and O. Liber (1999). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments. Report 41. Manchester, JISC Technologies Applications Programme.
Britain, S. and O. Liber (2004). A Framework for the Pedagogical Evaluation of eLearning Environments. Bolton, Bolton Institute of Higher Education.
Cullen, J., K. Hadjivassiliou, et al. (2002). Review of current pedagogic research and practice in the fields of post-compulsory education and lifelong learning, The Tavistock Institute.
Draper, S. W. (1997). Adding (negotiated) learning management to models of teaching and learning, ITFORUM. 2004.
Glaser, B. G. and F. Strauss (1967/1999). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York, Aldine Publishing Company.
Harri-Augstein, S. and L. F. Thomas (1991). Learning Conversations. London, Routledge.
Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, EDU.
Lau, F. (1997). A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies. IFIP 8.2., London, Chapman & Hall.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, Routledge/Falmer.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, Routledge/Falmer.
Oliver, M. and K. Trigwell (2005). "Can "Blended Learning" Be Redeemed?" E-learning 2(1): 17-26.
Pask, G. (1976). "Conversational techniques in the study and practice of education." British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 12 - 25.
Procter, C. (2003). Blended Learning in Practice. Inaugural Education in a Changing Environment conference, Salford, University of Salford.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-Tivities: The key to active online learning. London, Kogan Page Limited.
Scott, B. (2001). "Conversation Theory: A Constructivist, Dialogical Approach to Educational Technology." Cybernetics and Human Knowing 8(4): 25 - 46.
Scott, B. (2005). Introduction to Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Manchester, Cranfield University, Defence Academy, Shrivenham: Presentation held in Manchester University.