Kudos for you, Susan for making your way into wiki for the first time! And I'm glad to hear it was easy for you. Thank you for the reference and I'll definitely check it out.
I must also thank Susan for re-focusing our attention of our discussion at hand in the context of online dialogue. So far we’ve had some very valuable discussion on leadership, but largely from the sense of social psychology. By all means, it is very much relevant to the topic of this seminar and there is much left to talk about so do keep it going. However, as Susan asked, "how do we transform that to the on-line medium?"
Leadership in online dialogue to me is not so much in the sense of a leader as in a social group, but rather in the sense of a leader to keep a dialogue going as in a play – each move is to evoke the next move so as to keep the game going. In a sense, we can think of it as a dialogue game. There is a tension of a back-and-forth motion that goes from one move to the next. Gadamer (1982) emphasizes the tension of this to-and-fro motion as the central attribute that relates partners in play. What draws us to a game is the interest in the next move in the action. In online dialogue, Feenberg argues that what keeps it alive is the effort to initiate the next move and avoiding making the last one. To sustain the dialogue game, each message fulfills a triple goal: to respond to something that was said previously, to communicate something new, and to evoke further response. Here, I see the leadership role lies in the effort to produce these kind of messages. As you can see clearly such kind of leadership must be shared among the participants for a dialogue to be successful. A moderator assumes a big part of this responsibility but her success is largely measured by how effectively she is able to get other participants to shoulder the responsibility naturally as the situation calls for it.
Does this make sense?
Gadamer, H.-G. (1982). Truth and method. New York: Crossroad.
Cindy
Cindy Xin
Posts made by Cindy Xin
Nick you have raised many valuable points in your message. I’d like to respond first to the problem of control.
You argued, “I see this (leadership) as one of the key issues for anyone involved in education who is seriously interested in learner-centred approaches. How do we really, I mean really- no disguises, no rhetoric - relinquish that leadership role? Is that possible in an institution?”
You later said, “… neither the hero nor the host has relinquished control, there is only a modulation in the nature of the control. I would see the search as a search for a word that expresses the way control disappears.”
Let me be a bit controversial here. I’d like to ask the question – do we really want control to disappear completely? Is all or any kind of control undesirable? John Dewey, the man who started the learner-centred approach, eloquently argues, “the mere removal of external control” cannot guarantee “the production of self-control.” “It may be a loss rather than a gain.” Dewey write, “to escape from the control of another person (may be) only to find one’s conduct dictated by immediate whim and caprice; that is, at the mercy of impulses into whose formation intelligent judgment has not entered. A person whose conduct is controlled in this way has at most only the illusion of freedom. Actually he is directed by forces over which he has no command.” Learning occurs, Dewey argues, when teachers exercise control indirectly through “work done as a social enterprise in which all individuals have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility.” Productive community life of this sort, Dewey insists, “does not organize itself in an enduring way spontaneously. It requires thought and planning ahead.”
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
So that was quite a bit of quoting, but I think it is needed to show that Dewey actually makes important argument for himself on what he implies by learner-centred approach. Nick, I realize that when you were talking about the issue of control, perhaps you meant at a much macro level. I am more thinking about the classroom contexts, hence the quotes from Dewey. So I think what I’m trying to say is that depending on the contexts and the characteristics of the group members, control may or may not be a bad thing.
Also based on Dewey’s argument, I believe group activities are often more successful when leadership is shared among members who all feel a responsibility to contribute to their collective enterprise. It is particularly true for online dialogue where leadership is responsibility.
Cindy
You argued, “I see this (leadership) as one of the key issues for anyone involved in education who is seriously interested in learner-centred approaches. How do we really, I mean really- no disguises, no rhetoric - relinquish that leadership role? Is that possible in an institution?”
You later said, “… neither the hero nor the host has relinquished control, there is only a modulation in the nature of the control. I would see the search as a search for a word that expresses the way control disappears.”
Let me be a bit controversial here. I’d like to ask the question – do we really want control to disappear completely? Is all or any kind of control undesirable? John Dewey, the man who started the learner-centred approach, eloquently argues, “the mere removal of external control” cannot guarantee “the production of self-control.” “It may be a loss rather than a gain.” Dewey write, “to escape from the control of another person (may be) only to find one’s conduct dictated by immediate whim and caprice; that is, at the mercy of impulses into whose formation intelligent judgment has not entered. A person whose conduct is controlled in this way has at most only the illusion of freedom. Actually he is directed by forces over which he has no command.” Learning occurs, Dewey argues, when teachers exercise control indirectly through “work done as a social enterprise in which all individuals have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility.” Productive community life of this sort, Dewey insists, “does not organize itself in an enduring way spontaneously. It requires thought and planning ahead.”
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
So that was quite a bit of quoting, but I think it is needed to show that Dewey actually makes important argument for himself on what he implies by learner-centred approach. Nick, I realize that when you were talking about the issue of control, perhaps you meant at a much macro level. I am more thinking about the classroom contexts, hence the quotes from Dewey. So I think what I’m trying to say is that depending on the contexts and the characteristics of the group members, control may or may not be a bad thing.
Also based on Dewey’s argument, I believe group activities are often more successful when leadership is shared among members who all feel a responsibility to contribute to their collective enterprise. It is particularly true for online dialogue where leadership is responsibility.
Cindy
Thanks Susan and Monica for your responses.
Anyone who has facilitate online discussion can agree with Susan - “on-line leaders need to spend considerable thought and time constructing the ideal learning environment that will encourage, sustain and celebrate on-line dialogue.” It is true also for quality face-to-face teaching. The difference is that online, the communication link is much easier to break than it is in a physical classroom. All you have online is pretty much text. There is no physical tension, the silent eye contacts, etc. etc to hold your audience. If one is not careful and thoughtful, one can quickly loose her audience, and it is very easy to quit online. Therefore as an online lead, one must spend much thought in structure the conversation and considerable time prepare one’s responses in order to keep a discussion going in an engaging way.
Interestingly enough, the reason we spend so much time writing our online responses is because we can. In the face-to-face environment we have to react quickly otherwise you miss the boat. Asynchronous communication gives us the time and space to reflect and to think carefully before respond. This is one of the most important features of online dialogue.
Knowing your audience is an important part of the preparation mentioned above. It is very true, as Monica pointed out, depending on who the audience is, it calls very different styles of leadership. In a typical undergraduate online course discussion, the instructor most probably needs to provide a lot more structure and exercise a lot more control than if she teaches a Ph.D. level or professional level class. This actually touches the control issue Nick argues in his latest message, which I’ll respond next.
Cindy
Anyone who has facilitate online discussion can agree with Susan - “on-line leaders need to spend considerable thought and time constructing the ideal learning environment that will encourage, sustain and celebrate on-line dialogue.” It is true also for quality face-to-face teaching. The difference is that online, the communication link is much easier to break than it is in a physical classroom. All you have online is pretty much text. There is no physical tension, the silent eye contacts, etc. etc to hold your audience. If one is not careful and thoughtful, one can quickly loose her audience, and it is very easy to quit online. Therefore as an online lead, one must spend much thought in structure the conversation and considerable time prepare one’s responses in order to keep a discussion going in an engaging way.
Interestingly enough, the reason we spend so much time writing our online responses is because we can. In the face-to-face environment we have to react quickly otherwise you miss the boat. Asynchronous communication gives us the time and space to reflect and to think carefully before respond. This is one of the most important features of online dialogue.
Knowing your audience is an important part of the preparation mentioned above. It is very true, as Monica pointed out, depending on who the audience is, it calls very different styles of leadership. In a typical undergraduate online course discussion, the instructor most probably needs to provide a lot more structure and exercise a lot more control than if she teaches a Ph.D. level or professional level class. This actually touches the control issue Nick argues in his latest message, which I’ll respond next.
Cindy
Nick, thank you very much for bringing up the topic of leadership. Leadership, I believe, together with many others, is the central concern of online dialogue. And thank you Derek for giving us some real chewy food for thought on this topic! There is a lot to think about your message.
I was recently at a workshop. Someone asked a question of how come there were so many online discussion forums but only a few of them were active. The answer lies in leadership. Simply imagine the seminars hosted in SCoPE without the facilitators/moderators or imagine SCoPE without Sylvia. We wouldn’t get very far, would we? This is particularly true online because of the asynchronous and many-to-many nature of the communication. An early work in conversation analysis investigated mundane daily conversation between two people and concluded that conversations were highly coordinated activities that consist of collective performances of participants working together (Clark and Schaefer, 1989). Online we have multiple people, often multiple concurrent threads, engaging in substantive matters. The complexity is multi-fold. Leadership is essential in getting people started in a dialogue, sustain it, and advance it.
Derek has said leadership is not in its status or its formal pointed position, but rather in its function. I think we can all readily agree on it. But what are the functions in leadership in online dialogue? Facilitator, guide, moderator, servant, hero, host, etc. etc., these are all powerful roles. Let’s drill deeper into these roles and see what the functions (what do they actually do) lie behind. Hopefully this will help us crystallize our understanding.
Clark, H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259-294.
Cindy
I was recently at a workshop. Someone asked a question of how come there were so many online discussion forums but only a few of them were active. The answer lies in leadership. Simply imagine the seminars hosted in SCoPE without the facilitators/moderators or imagine SCoPE without Sylvia. We wouldn’t get very far, would we? This is particularly true online because of the asynchronous and many-to-many nature of the communication. An early work in conversation analysis investigated mundane daily conversation between two people and concluded that conversations were highly coordinated activities that consist of collective performances of participants working together (Clark and Schaefer, 1989). Online we have multiple people, often multiple concurrent threads, engaging in substantive matters. The complexity is multi-fold. Leadership is essential in getting people started in a dialogue, sustain it, and advance it.
Derek has said leadership is not in its status or its formal pointed position, but rather in its function. I think we can all readily agree on it. But what are the functions in leadership in online dialogue? Facilitator, guide, moderator, servant, hero, host, etc. etc., these are all powerful roles. Let’s drill deeper into these roles and see what the functions (what do they actually do) lie behind. Hopefully this will help us crystallize our understanding.
Clark, H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259-294.
Cindy
Derek,
I put some of the quotes and resources you mentioned in the message you just posted in our seminar wiki.
You mentioned "emergent leadership." It's an interesting concept. Can you elaborate it more either here or directly in the wiki page?
Cindy
I put some of the quotes and resources you mentioned in the message you just posted in our seminar wiki.
You mentioned "emergent leadership." It's an interesting concept. Can you elaborate it more either here or directly in the wiki page?
Cindy