Fostering Constructive
Dialogue: Building
Toward More Effective
Communication in the
Educational
Technology Field
Carol Watson
Ana Correia
Mimi Lee
Thomas Schwen
Introduction
A lack of dialogue poses a problem both for
practitioners as well as researchers i n the field of
educational technology. As Banathy (2003) stated:
"Our current educational institutions do not even
understand what evolutionary learning and dialogic
conversation are" (p. 17). If our learning institutions do
not, h o w can we expect individuals (and then
communities of individuals) to begin using this tool that
i s little understood but of great value and importance?
Dialogue is not the traditional mode of communication
because people do not know how to engage in
dialogue, and dialogue is a change from their habitual
forms of communication. Therefore, the goals of this
article are to foster an awareness of the differences
between debate and dialogue; briefly review an
example, the evolution of the Clark and Kozma debate;
and define a discipline for dialogue. A set of guidelines
are provided that can foster constructive dialogue in the
educational technology field. While we agree that there
is a certain limited value to debate, we prefer to stress
Carol Watson is a doctoral candidate in the lnstructional
Systems Technology Department, Indiana University,
Bloomington, lndiana (e-mail: watsonc@indiana.edu). Ana
Correia i s a doctoral candidate in the lnstructional Systems
Technology Department. Mimi Lee is a doctoral candidate in
the lnstructional Systems Technology Department. Thomas
Schwen i s a Professor of Education in the lnstructional
Systems Technology Department.
54
the importance of seeking a more collaborative and
open environment for communication, based on
dialogue, on both inter- and intra- disciplinary levels.
Debate and Dialogue
In order to inform the reader of our frame of
reference with regard to debate and dialogue, we offer
the following definitions. Debate, according to
Webster's Dictionary (1982), is "to fight or contend, to
dispute about or to argue." It i s black and white, not
gray. It carries overtones of controversy and strife and
sometimes implicit attacks on a particular person or
idea. The intent of debate is to establish a position of
rightness.
Banathy (2003) points out that our current
conversations are "hostile and rude" (p. 11).
"Participants express unwavering commitment to their
own point of view. There i s often a great deal of heat
but little light" (Suter, n.d.). Unfortunately, arguments
and isolation are common throughout the cloistered
Ivory Towers in which many of us dwell. There is little
fostering of collaboration or open sharing of ideas.
In sharp contrast, dialogue is defined (Boone, 2001;
Roth, 1994; Stewart, n.d.) as the interchange of ideas
that seeks to establish greater learning or understanding
in the context of mutual harmony. We like Banathy's
(2003) definition, which more specifically defines
dialogue as a "disciplined, consensus-building process
of collective communication based on shared values
and beliefs" (p. 11). In dialogue, "the goal i s changed
from conquering to growing; from silencing to
knowing; from telling to asking" (Phelps, n.d.). Debate
speaks of differences, while dialogue highlights
equivalences. In the literature, "dialogue" is often
related to or used synonymously with terms such as
llc~n~er~ationll'
"interaction," and "communication."
The underlying assumptions in debate and dialogue
also differ dramatically. In debate, the implied
assumption i s that there is only one right or best
answer. Others cannot have a "right" answer unless it is
the same as our own. There i s no willingness to see
another's point of view. We listen to their arguments
only to gain fodder for intellectual refutations.
O n the other hand, according to the collaborative
nature of dialogue, it is assumed that many people may
have parts of the answer and the goal is to bring all of
the diverse pieces together to form one new whole.
Collaboration is celebrated and sought as a means of
creating something richer and more robust than any
one person initially imagined. Table 1, liberally
adapted from the Conflict Resolution Network's
Website, examines five aspects of debate and dialogue,
offering a convenient (albeit simplistic) method for
differentiating between the two.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April2004
Table 1. Five aspects of debate and dialogue (adapted from Conflict Resolution Network Website).
Debate
Dialogue
Assumptions Assuming there is only one right answer (and you
have it).
Assuming that other people have pieces of the
answer.
Anticipatory
Advance communication is minimal and not
specifically linked to what follows.
Advance communication is essential in order to
prepare participants for the process.
Audience
Participants speak as representatives of the group:
They are known for propounding a carefully
crafted position.
Their behavior conforms to stereotypes.
Participants speak as individuals from their unique
experiences:
They are not outspoken leaders, but have a
range of different experiences.
Their behavior will vary from stereotypic images.
Atmosphere
Combative:
Attempting to prove the other side wrong, thus
declaring you the "winner."
Defending your views and assumptions.
Determinationto be right.
Hearing
(as opposed to listening):
To find flaws and make counter-arguments.
To criticize the other side's point of view.
Collaborative:
Finding common understanding and common
ground.
Bringing your assumptions into the open for
inspection and discussion.
Admitting that others' thinking may improve your
own.
Listening:
For understanding and finding a basis for
agreement.
Being willing to examine all points of view.
Searching for strength and value in other
positions.
(Belittles others and is divisive.)
(Involves concern for others.)
Afterward
Seeking an outcome that agrees with your own,
which usually offers little new information and is
predictable.
I
The Clark and Kozma Debate
As mentioned previously, we have chosen to share a
synopsis o f the Clark and Kozma debate, aptly named
and familiar to many. In brief, according to Clark, it i s
not the media that influence learning effectiveness, but
the instructional method (media and method are two
distinct identities). "An instructional method i s any way
to shape information that compensates for or supplants
the cognitive processes necessary for achievement or
motivation" (Clark, 1991, p. 35). The media and the
systems of symbols associated with them only offer
"operational vehicles for methods that reflect the
cognitive processes necessary to perform a given
learning task" (Clark, 1983, p. 454). It is possible to
accomplish the same levels of performance by utilizing
a variety of media and their correspondent symbolic
elements. Clark addresses the media-attribute argument
(e.g., "zooming in" in movies and television) by
referring to the fact that an array of media attributes can
accomplish the same learning goals.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April2004
Discovering new possibilities and opportunities
where new information can surface. Dialogue
liberates creativity.
Kozma counters that Clark's view of media as mere
"delivery trucks" generates an "unnecessary schism
between medium and method" (Kozma, 1991, p. 205).
He proposes an alternative argument that media can
influence learning. He states that "some students will
learn a particular task regardless of the delivery device.
Others w i l l be able to take advantage of a particular
medium's characteristics to help construct knowledge"
(Kozma, 1991, p. 205). According to Kozma, media
can have an important role i n learning. His main
arguments are that media and methods are
interconnected (contrary to Clark's argument) and that
the media interact with learning. Learning is influenced
by "cognitively relevant characteristics of media-their
technologies, symbol systems, and processing
capabilities" (Kozma, 1991, p. 205). Media and
instructional method have a complementary
relationship-they
are an integral part o f the
instructional design process. "Within a particular
design, the medium enables and constrains the method:
the method draws on and instantiates the capabilities of
the medium" (Kozma, 1991, p. 205).
Figure 1. From debate to dialogue.
While their positions are not in and of themselves
argumentative, the conversation began with attempts to
prove that only one point of view was right. Even the
titles of their articles were often inflammatory. Consider
Clark's "When Researchers Swim Upstream: Reflections on an Unpopular Argument About Learning from
Media" (1991) or "Media W i l l Never Influence
Learning" (1994). The titles themselves suggest a
position that is carefully crafted to incite the opposition.
Kozma is not entirely innocent either and titles one of
his articles, "Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing
the Debate" (1994), acknowledging and restating the
debate from his position. The initial debate between
Clark and Kozma certainly appears divisive and
centered around verification of their own theories.
Fortunately, while Clark and Kozma may not have
intended to falsify their own theories (Popper, 1962),
they did put their ideas into the public arena to be
tested by others, and this should be acknowledged as a
valuable point i n the debate.
One of the events that helped move the original
debate between Clark and Kozma into the arena of
dialogue was the appearance of several other authors.*
*For the purposes of this article, only three authors are
represented, though Tennyson's (1994) article was a summary
of seven other authors.
56
These new perspectives opened that debate toward a
collaborative dialogue. New authors questioned the
original assumptions (bringing them into the open),
broadened the perspectives (now there are more than
simply two opposing viewpoints), and redefined the
expected outcomes (establishing collaboration and
creativity). N o w it is not merely "medium versus
method," but rather an interesting and intriguing,
holistic dialogue that urges the observer to come to
his/her own conclusions rather than choosing sides.
The addition of others who were willing to share their
thoughts in an open and candid manner has assisted in
moving the debate more toward a dialogue (Figure 1).
The Process of Dialogue
So, what would an ideal dialogue look like? We
recommend that a dialogue should follow an intentional framework-or,
as Banathy (2003) suggested, be
disciplined-providing
structure for analysis and
deleting personal assaults from the conversation. In this
manner, dialogue would not be an attack on the author
of a theory; it would not be centered on opinions;
instead, it would be an effective way to begin
discussions regarding essential foundational pieces of
the field and engaging in intellectual exercise. Table 2
summarizes the features that are crucial for a
constructive dialogue.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYIMarch-April2004
Table 2. Framework for fostering constructive
dialogue.
Features
Definitions
Mutual respect
Respect people as well as
ideas.
Clearly stated goals
Assist in keeping the
dialogue focused and
positive.
Explicit assumptions and
definitions
Give participants access to
your perspective and the
way in which you are using
terminology.
Openness to criticism and
willingness to "hear"
Acknowledge strengths and
weaknesses of each
position toward building a
shared perspective.
Shared space
Provide access and
opportunities to dialogue for
practitioners as well as
researchers.
First, the basis of any successful dialogue should be
mutual respect for people as well as their ideas. While
it i s probable that two such sophisticated scholars as
Clark and Kozma held each other i n high professional
regard, and it is unlikely that they took personal offense
(perhaps even experienced some delight) in their
debate, the structure of their prose connotes a "we're
on different sides of the fence" sentiment. Dialogue for
public consumption should be more cooperative in
tone, clearly inviting the audience to carefully consider
all perspectives.
Without a level of mutual respect, there can be no
dialogue, o n l y disagreement. The underlying
assumptions i n a debate are that one person i s right,
one i s wrong; that I am right, therefore, you must be
wrong. This lack of respect, in the end, blocks critical
contributions, which ultimately limits solutions and
ideas. If the field of educational technology, as some
have suggested, i s i n its infancy, then perhaps acting in
selfish, childish ways can be excused. However, if
growth is the desired goal, a willingness to cooperate
and collaborate must be fostered. "Keeping the spirit of
mutuality and respect alive as we converse about our
different views, then, i s a way of allowing all the
differences-which
are valuable to creating the best
thinking-to
come to the surface and be carefully
considered" (Stewart, n.d.). Tennyson (1 994) cautions
that [with respect to the Clark and Kozma debate], we
"should be looking to increase our range of tools rather
than seeking the one 'best' toolN (p. 27).
Secondly, the goals for the dialogue should be
clearly stated. With this we do not mean that the goals
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYIMarch-April2004
cannot evolve throughout the process o f dialogue.
However, if the goals cannot be stated clearly or are
personal i n nature ("I want to prove him or her
wrong"), then perhaps the responses are not worth the
time or effort, as they will not constructively build the
field. Goals are essential as a means of keeping people
and ideas focused. Having clear goals for every
dialogue can assist the participants in collaboratively
building better solutions while maintaining focus on the
bigger picture instead of the smaller, more personal
one.
Thirdly, a framework of explicitly stated assumptions
and clear definitions would be called for. One of the
biggest problems in dialogue is the use of terms that are
not clearly understood by the audience or participants.
In regard to the Clark and Kozma debate, Schrock
(1994, p. 49) states, "his [Clark's] assertions do rely on
definitions and his definitions imply assumptions that
may be worth examining i n great detail." The main
problem with assumptions is that they are often implicit
and even the author i s not aware of them, making it
that much more difficult for the audience to understand
the perspectives or conclusions. Cunningham warns
that "research that compares instructional methods
andlor media starts with the assumption that this
comparison w i l l yield information as to which one of
the methodslmedia i s best ...Research of this sort i s
grounded i n a number of assumptions that are seldom
tested or even articulated" (1986, p. 4). Still, one of the
values of a good dialogue is that it can assist in making
the implicit explicit. It should be noted here that no one
i s making a judgment about the rightness or wrongness
of assumptions, merely arguing that they need to be
clear to the "public."
Contingent to that i s the prolific number of
definitions utilized in current research. Many terms
have not been fully operationalized or made explicit to
the audience. Some fuzzy terms are also used
interchangeably, adding to the confusion. "Part of what
makes the [Clark and Kozma] debate difficult is that,
while the participants often use the same words, the
words do not appear to have identical meanings"
(Schrock, 1994, p. 49). In addition, Schrock (1994,
p. 49) states, "the debate i s not simple. It has emotional
and political elements and some nasty definitional
ambiguities." Researchers should be encouraged to
define their terms, constraints, and the framework of
their analyses so that others will be able to understand
the logic behind the interpretation. It must be noted
that the more explicit the definitions, the easier it will
be for the practitioner to utilize the theory. Seels (1997)
observed that the use of definitions could facilitate
theory generation by improving communication within
and outside the field. In addition, definitions create
identity, which contributes to the maturity of the field.
It is also vital that language used by theorists, including
explicit examples, be universally accessible, allowing
57
others to freely join the conversation and assist in
creating a feedback loop between researchers and
practitioners.
Finally, i f the collaborative process of shared
communication were placed in a public space where
each voice could be heard, then dialogues would be
made richer and more accessible to practitioners as
well as researchers. The notion of "shared space" in a
dialogue (Boone, 2001) does not mean that those
involved in the dialogue have to be sitting in the same
room. They could be in an electronically wired space,
or shared print space, or at a conference, talking
together face-to-face. The important point i s that
everyone is together. From this perspective, the print
medium i s one of the most available methods of
disseminating and bringing information to the public in
a shared space. Journals should be encouraged to
publish entire dialogues, not merely one side or
unrelated articles. It should be noted that there are
journals, such as Educational Technology, that occasionally devote an entire issue to a particular theme in
order to present a more complete picture of recent
topics. Those publications should be commended for
their efforts. Currently, most dialogues must be
carefully researched in order for a reader to follow the
discourse. The publication of debates or dialogues in
the field should not be exceptional, but part of a
discipline featured in a "shared space."
Convention planners should also consider designing
conferences and sessions that welcome both theorist
and practitioners alike. Joint participation would invite
a robust and diverse dialogue, weaving together both
the practical and theoretical perspectives. Teleconferencing could also be utilized to bring people together
i n a common space, even though their physical
presences would be dispersed. Talking together and
sharing electronically i s a powerful and practical
alternative to moving people from place to place.
Ultimately, the more frequently practitioners and
researchers can be together, discussing theories,
perspectives, and best practices, the richer the
educational technology field w i l l become, to
everyone's mutual benefit.
Conclusion
Changing patterns of communication may not be an
easy task, but it i s a necessary one in our technologically advancing society. As the new age unfolds, it will
not be enough for us to cling to old ways and habits.
W e must work together to create new methods of
communicating and collaborating, and then support
others i n learning and growing. As the field of
educational technology continues to evolve, let us
practice the same collaboration that we preach in the
effort to make it a habit and, then, let us embrace our
future.
References and Suggested Readings
Banathy, 6. (2003,March-April). Dialogue: The method of
choice in collective communication. Educational Technology, 43(2),1 1-1 7.
Boone, M. (2001).Opening dialogue with the whole
organization. Knowledge Management Review, 4(4),26-
29.
Burbules, N., & Rice, S. ( 1 991).Dialogue across differences:
Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review,
61(4),39341 6.
Clark, R. (1983).Reconsidering research on learning from
media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4),445459.
Clark, R. ( 1 991, Feb.). When researchers swim upstream:
Reflections on an unpopular argument about learning from
media. Educational Technology, 3 l(2), 34-40.
Clark, R. (1994).Media will never influence learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(2),21-29.
Corvi, R. ( 1 996).Introduction to the thoughts of Karl Popper.
London: Routledge.
Cunningham, D. (1986).Good guys and bad guys.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal,
34(1),3-7.
Fierke, K., & Nicholson, M. (2001).Divided by a common
language: Formal and constructivist approaches to games.
Global Society, 15(1),7-25.
Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of
Educational Research, 6 1(2),1 79-2 1 1 .
Kozma, R. (1994).
Will media influence learning? Reframing
the debate. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 42(2),7-1 9.
Phelps, 1. (n.d.). Dialogue and debate. Conflict Resolution
Network Website; http://www.crnhq.org/govt2.htmI
Popper, K. ( 1 962). Conjectures and refutations: Growth of
scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Roth, P. (1994).Constructive conversation in the abortion
debate: Use of the dialogue process. Working Paper for
the Public Conversations Project; http://www.colorado.
edu/conflict/fulI~text~search/AIICRCDocs/94-9.htm
Schrock, S. ( 1 994).The media-influence debate: Read the fine
print but don't lose sight of th'e big picture. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2),49-53.
Seels, B. (1997,]an.-Feb.), Theory development in educational/instructional technology. Educational Technology,
37(1),3-5.
Stewart, A. (n.d.). Is "debate" or "conversation" the most
useful form of public discourse? The Co-Intelligence
Institute; Co-Intelligence Institute Website; http://www.cointelligence.org/P-converse1 .html
Stokes, G. (1 998).Popper: Philosophy, politics, and scientific
method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Suter, K. (n.d.). Dialogue and debate; Conflict Resolution
Network Website; http://www.crnhq.org/govt2.html
Tannen, D. ( 1 998). The argument culture: Moving from
debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.
Tennyson, R. (1994).The big wrench vs. integrated
approaches: The great media debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(3),1 5-28.
Webster's New World Dictionary. (1 982).New York: Simon
and Schuster.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYIMarch-April2004