Skip to content

Learning as conversation

May 26, 2008

Land's End pigs

Diana Laurillard’s conversational framework feels like a very powerful model for understanding how formal learning works and how best to design effective learning objects. It is the best kind of theory: one that informs practice. It starts by identifying the main characteristics of a learning encounter, develops from these a typology of learning experiences, and finally maps this to a taxonomy of media forms appropriate to each type of experience.

Building on the Socratic tradition of dialectic, the social constructivist learning theories of Vygotsky and Piaget and the conversation theory of Pask, Laurillard maintains that all complex learning involves

a continuing iterative dialogue between teacher and student, which reveals the participants’ conceptions and the variations between them… There is no escape from the need for dialogue, no room for mere telling, nor for practice without description, nor for experimentation without reflection, nor for student action without feedback. (Laurillard, 2002)

She divides her learning conversation into four phases – “the basic characteristics of every learning encounter” – as follows:

  1. a discursive phase in which the teacher presents a new concept and learners enter into a dialogue with the teacher, trying out the idea and its corresponding language, questioning and clarifying.
  2. an interactive phase in which learners interact with teacher-constructed tasks, attempting to put the new concept into practice, and getting feedback on their performance
  3. an adaptive phase in which learners attempt to put their ideas into practice, modify their ideas and adapt their actions in the light of what they have learned, and make their own links between ideas and events; and
  4. a reflective phase in which learners consider their experience of 2) and 3), reflecting on their learning, relating the theory back to the practice, adjusting their thinking in the light of reflection and framing future actions to be more successful.

Next, she adduces from these characteristics a fourfold typology of learning experiences, like this:

Finally, Laurillard turns to the characteristics of the different teaching media – which she groups into narrative, interactive, adaptive, communicative and productive media – and maps these media forms to the types of learning they support, and the technologies needed to deliver them. The resulting taxonomy looks like this:

Laurillard’s framework is intended to define any formal learning encounter, and the appropriate media technologies she lists include traditional as well as digital ones. But for eLearning practitioners the framework poses the question – which online technologies are best suited to supporting the range of experiences needed for signficant online learning to take place?

Here’s my attempt at an answer..

Narrative media such as digital text, video or audio files are readily attended to and aid apprehension by providing structure and coherence to the learning content. However they are linear media. They can present only the teacher’s ideas, terminology or instruction – not the learner’s reaction or reformulation of them. They support only the first, non-dialogic, part of the discursive phase of learning.

Interactive media such as hypertext, simple learning objects and the world wide web itself are non-linear media and therefore support exploration and discovery. They allow students to make their own links and follow their own lines of enquiry. They also allow some limited intrinsic feedback (ie feedback that comes from the activity itself) and, when combined with narrative media setting goals and giving guidance, interactive media can support the discursive as well as the interactive phases of the learning encounter.

Adaptive media such as more elaborate learning objects, simulations and virtual environments give the learner significantly more control over their interaction with the learning experience. Learners can experiment with changing the parameters, can model systems or environments, and can see what happens when they try to put their new learning into practice. They can also get more detailed intrinsic feedback, and may be able to log the interactive process and thus begin to reflect upon it. Adaptive media therefore support both the interactive and adaptive phases of a learning encounter, and may also support the final reflective phase as well.

Communicative media such as CMC, chat and online social/collaborative environments obviously support the discursive dimension of learning. The discussion and debate that these media allow with both teachers and other learners support the second, dialogic, part of the discursive phase of learning; but they also provide an additional source of learning content in the form of information and ideas, and enable extrinsic feedback during the interactive and adaptive phases – thus supporting reflection during the final two stages. Communicative media (eg in the form of wikis and blogs) can even provide the output of productive learning. On their own however they cannot easily support the interactive and adaptive phases of the learning encounter.

Finally, productive media such as a webpage or blog post or digital object or model of some kind – these enable an output from the learning in which the learner articulates and shares what they have learned, considers the learning experience, adjusts their original conception in the light of the interaction, and reflects upon the significance of the experience. Productive media support the final, reflective phase of the learning encounter, and will often overlap with communicative media.

What emerges is that while each media form supports a different dimension or dimensions of the learning encounter, none of them can support every dimension. Narrative media support the apprehensive dimension and may be all you need for a purely instructional approach; interactive and adaptive media support immersive, exploratory learning and on their own result in a game-like experience; communicative media support the discursive and productive dimensions, and for pure peer-to-peer learning may be all you need. But to support the kind of deep or complex learning which engages all the phases of the learning encounter, you need a combination of media forms.

Laurillard, D, 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies, 2nd edition. London: RoutledgeFalmer


From → H806

  1. Yoke Sau Cheng permalink

    Hi John, Thanks for posting this. It has clarified Laurillard’s CF for me. I’m sure Lucidity is your middle name!

  2. johnmill permalink

    howdy Yoke Sau – i’m glad it was helpful.
    Interestingly, it doesn’t become lucid to me until I write it down and post it!

  3. johnmill permalink

    I amalgamated the two original parts of this post on 06/09/08 to form a single piece. This comment was left on the original part 2:

    Lucinda Searle said, on August 14th, 2008 at 3:49 pm (Edit)

    Hi John

    I am currently studying for a Master’s Degree in Education, Technology and society and am writing up my dissertation ( or trying to!) I am a Primary ICT Consultant and my research is based on the use of new technologies in the primary classroom and in particular the interactions between pupils teachers and the technology including PDAs. I came across this page on your blog and the link between Laurillards framework which fits in with my findings although not specifically online learning but the affordances of software and technology in the classroom learning environment. I would like to cite your thoughts and quote you and your blog with correct referencing – would you be able to give me your permission to do this?

    Kind regards


  4. Reblogged this on Design Thingies and commented:
    I’m a teacher by degree, so things like this blog interest me quite a bit.

    The model can even be loosely applied to modern game design:
    Designers sometimes begin with a theme – a baseline description that a player can relate to and hang their preconceptions on (the narrative).

    Next, a new player makes some tentative decisions to see how the model works (Interactive).

    Thirdly the new player experiments, adapting their ideas of the model to results they get out, with the goal of “victory.” (Adaptive phase)

    Next they are competing – even discussing with other players. Some games empasize this step with lots of player interaction, physically pitting ideas of the model against each other. Some, more euro-style games, pit the players’ models against each other indirectly, seeing who’s scores better independently.

    Finally, the players finish game and reflect on the experience. Often there will be a story that was produced from the game – a narrative of theme or of mechanics, but a story all the same. Sadly there few, if any, games that give you a physical “productive media” to take away from a game experience.

    Are take-aways the next frontier of board game design?

  5. Nice post John, it’s things like this that keep my mind fresh

  6. Formal learning methods are in need of revision, for sure. Great perspective.

  7. Great approach to conversational learning – the 4 phases is a really good insight. Thanks for sharing, John!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Visualisations of learning « JohnsBlog
  2. Learning Log 7 – Randy van Arsdale / Doctor of Education – Higher Education / Candidate Portfolio
  3. #DigitalScholar Day 5: Learning as Conversation | The Endocrine Witch
  4. MOOC 2 | FutureLearn | Kursstart – Kommunikation in "Massive Open Online Courses" (MOOCS)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: