In this study the collaboration that took place within the series of peer-group mentoring sessions is understood as professional conversations among colleagues, which according to literature enhances sharing and developing of expertise (Britt, Irwin & Richie, 2001;
Danielson, 2016; Gruenhagen, 2009: Shaw & Cole, 2011; Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006).
Such human interaction is in literature referred to either as conversation or dialogue.
6RPH VFKRODUV XVH WKH WHUPV LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ ZKHUHDV RWKHUV FRQVLGHU GL̆HUHQFHV between them. For example, Vella (2002) in her Dialogue Education Theory applies the term dialogue and positions it as the means to the end of learning rather than as an end in itself. Baker, Jensen and Kolb (2002) apply the term conversation, which is based on its etymology emphasizing “the communal, sensual, and emotional aspects of conversation” (p. 10) whereas the etymology of dialogue according to them often refers to debate and discussion.
7DNLQJWKHGHOLEHUDWLRQRIWHUPLQRORJ\IXUWKHU6HQQHWWDGGUHVVHVGL̆HUHQFHV between dialectic and dialogic conversations. In dialectic conversation “the verbal play RIRSSRVLWHVVKRXOGJUDGXDOO\EXLOGXSWRDV\QWKHVLV´S:KLOHXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDW individuals may not use same words in speaking about the same things, “the aim is to FRPHHYHQWXDOO\WRDFRPPRQXQGHUVWDQGLQJ´S,QGH¿QLQJGLDORJLFFRQYHUVDWLRQ 6HQQHWW VXJJHVWV WKDW VXFK FRQYHUVDWLRQ GRHV QRW UHVROYH LWVHOI E\ ¿QGLQJ D FRPPRQ ground, as “though no shared agreements may be reached, through the process of exchange people may become more aware of their own views and expand their understanding of RQHDQRWKHU´S'LDOHFWLFDQGGLDORJLFFRQYHUVDWLRQVWKHUHIRUHR̆HUWZRGL̆HUHQW ways of collaborating, “the one by a play of contraries leading to agreement, the other E\ERXQFLQJR̆YLHZVDQGH[SHULHQFHVLQDQRSHQHQGHGZD\´S6HQQHWWRQWKH RWKHUKDQGGRHVQRWVHHWKHGL̆HUHQFHEHWZHHQGLDOHFWLFDQGGLDORJLFFRQYHUVDWLRQDVD matter of either/or. Both include the forward movement from paying attention to what another person implies but does not say, and “misunderstandings can eventually clarify mutual understanding” (p. 39). The aims of this study point towards the ideals of dialogic FRQYHUVDWLRQVDVWKHIRFXVZDV¿UVWO\WRHQKDQFHOLVWHQLQJDQGUHVSHFWIXOQHVVWRZDUGV WKHYLHZVSUHVHQWHGE\RWKHUVDQGVHFRQGO\WRGHYHORSWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV¶H[SHUWLVHWKURXJK the project in which they could gain insights from others. Therefore, in this study, the professional conversations between the participants are described as dialogic.
This research adopts conversational learning in its framework (Baker, Jensen, &
Kolb, 2002). Conversational learning is “a process of interpreting and understanding KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH´ S DQG LV EDVHG RQ .ROE¶V H[SHULHQWLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\
.ROE GH¿QHV OHDUQLQJ DV ³WKH SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ NQRZOHGJH LV FUHDWHG WKURXJK WKH
transformation of experience” (p. 38). He conceptualises characteristics of experiential learning by presenting a model comprising of four phases illustrated as a cycle in which
³OHDUQHUV PRYH WKURXJK WKH F\FOH RI H[SHULHQFLQJ UHÀHFWLQJ DEVWUDFWLQJ DQG DFWLQJ as they construct meaning from their experiences in conversations” (Kolb, Baker, &
-HQVHQS.ROE¶VH[SHULHQWLDOOHDUQLQJWKHRU\KDVEHHQFULWLFLVHGIRUVHYHUDO RILWVDVSHFWV$FFRUGLQJWR-DUYLVLWLVSRVVLEOHWRFULWLFLVH.ROE¶V³H[LVWHQWLDOLVW assumptions”. (s. 6) The idea of learning being a singular process and that the outcome is always knowledge has been objected by for example Marton and Säljö (1984), who through their research of surface and deep learning suggest that there are more than one type of learning process and more than one type of knowledge. Thus, Kolb has DOVREHHQFULWLFLVHGRILQDGHTXDWHDGDSWDWLRQRI'HZH\¶VLGHDVVSHFL¿FDOO\KLVFRQFHSW of immediate, concrete experience has been regarded epistemologically problematic (Miettinen, 2000).
The critique of experiential learning theory suggests that understanding learning taking a form of a singular cyclical process is problematic. Conversational learning approach suggests several simultaneous cycles for understanding learning within professional conversations. It can be described as “a process whereby learners construct meaning and transform experiences into knowledge through conversations” (Kolb, Baker, & Jensen, 2002, p. 51) and “as a process of reaching interpersonal understanding ZKHUHDOOSDUWLFLSDQWV¶FRQWULEXWLRQVDUHHTXDOO\YDOXHG´S$SSO\LQJFRQYHUVDWLRQDO OHDUQLQJLQWKLVSDUWLFXODUVWXG\VHHPVWREHSHUWLQHQWDV.ROE¶VLGHDVDUHVXFFHVVIXOO\
explored and further developed within adult learning by for example Jarvis (1987; 1995).
In conversational learning, “as participants engage in conversation by embracing the GL̆HUHQFHVDFURVVWKHVHGLDOHFWLFVWKHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHGLDOHFWLFVRSHQDFRQYHUVDWLRQDO VSDFH´%DNHUHWDOS:LWKLQWKLVFRQYHUVDWLRQDOVSDFHRSSRVLQJLGHDVFDQEH explored, resolved, or embraced through conversations. The authors suggest that such conversation is a “meaning-making process whereby understanding is achieved through interplay of opposites and contradictions” (p. 54). Even if the fundamental aim of this study was not to bring forth and investigate opposing ideas or contradictions as such, the process of creation of a conversational space enabled the emergence of various ideas which presented valuable insights to the phenomenon studied. Thus, a conversational learning space can be created as a physical space, a temporal space, or an emotional space (Baker et al., 2002). In this research the conversational space created included all of these forms as the physical space was created by bringing the participants together both face-to-face and on-line. The temporal dimension was created by organizing the sessions regularly few months apart and also by creating enough time for in-depth conversations.
The participants also emphasised the importance of emotional space by describing how essential a secure environment is for receptive and accepting listening of others.
Kolb, Baker and Jensen (2002) build the theoretical framework of conversational OHDUQLQJ RQ ¿YH SURFHVV GLDOHFWLFV DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQWHQWLRQ and convention, 3) epistemological discourse and ontological discourse, 4) individuality DQG UHODWLRQDOLW\ DQG VWDWXV DQG VROLGDULW\ 7KHVH GLDOHFWLFV DGGUHVV WKH GL̆HUHQW aspects of learning within conversations and provide means of discussing the processes of learning through conversations described by the participants in the data. Therefore, WKHVH¿YHGLDOHFWLFVZHUHXVHGDVDIUDPHIRUWKHDQDO\VLVRIGDWDFRQFHUQLQJWKHUHVXOWV of collaboration.
7KH¿UVWGLDOHFWLFapprehension and comprehension, meaning the dialectic between concrete knowing and abstract knowing, is a state in which reality is comprehended through these inseparable means of knowing. Apprehension is “an immediate, feeling-oriented, tacit, subjective process” while comprehension is “a linguistic, conceptual, interpretative process”. Learning is based on “the complex interrelationships of these two knowing processes” (Kolb et al., 2002, p. 55). Along with the notions of Kolb (2002), Kolb, Baker and Jensen consider perceptual processes an essential part of conversational OHDUQLQJ ³'L̆HUHQW FRQYHUVDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV WKDW WDNH SODFH LQ YDULHG FRQWH[WV HQKDQFHRUUHVWULFWGL̆HUHQWVHQVHVDQGKHQFHD̆HFWZKDWLVKHDUGDQGSHUFHLYHGLQWKH conversation” (Kolb et al., 2002, p. 56).
The second dialectic emphasises intention and extentionUHÀHFWLRQDQGDFWLRQ,Q his experiential learning theory Kolb states that perception of experience alone is not VẊFLHQWH[SODQDWLRQIRUOHDUQLQJDQGVXJJHVWVWKDWVRPHWKLQJPXVWEHGRQHZLWKLWLQ order for it to transform into learning. Similarly, “transformation cannot alone represent learning, for there must be something to be transformed, some state or experience that is being acted upon” (Kolb, 1984, p. 42). Conversational learning considers learning to EHDVLPXOWDQHRXVSURFHVVRI³LQFRUSRUDWLQJLGHDVDQGH[SHULHQFHWR¿QGPHDQLQJDQG expressing that meaning in thought, speech and action” (Kolb et al., 2002, p. 57).
Kolb et al. (2002) describe conversational learning having two interconnected temporal dimensions, linear and cyclical time, of which discursive process follows linear time and recursive the cyclical time. They have named this dialectic epistemological discourse and ontological recourse, doing and being. The epistemological discourse is a discursive process happening in linear time and consisting of individuals ideas, experiences, and concepts generated in conversations in the past (precourse), present (discourse) and future (postcourse). On the other hand, ontological is a recursive process that emphasises going back to previous ideas and experiences to question the new DVVXPSWLRQVFUHDWLQJDF\FOHLQWLPH³/HDUQHUV¶DELOLWLHVWRVLPXOWDQHRXVO\HQJDJHLQ these two temporal dimensions will largely determine the depth and quality of learning generated in conversations” (Kolb et al., 2002, p. 58).
The fourth dialectic is individuality and relationality, inside out and outside in. It describes “the tensions between individuality, where a person takes in life experiences as an individual process, and relationality, where life is an experience of connection with others” (Kolb et al., 2002, p. 60). Finally, status and solidarity, ranking and linking, as WKH¿IWKGLDOHFWLFDGGUHVVHVWKHZD\LQGLYLGXDOVHQJDJHLQFRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKHDFKRWKHU VWDWXV UHIHUULQJ WR ³RQH¶V SRVLWLRQLQJ RU UDQNLQJ LQ WKH JURXS ZKLOH VROLGDULW\ UHIHUV to the extent to which one is linked interpersonally with others” (Kolb et al. 2002, p.
62). The underlying notion of this proposes that some measure of both are necessary to sustain conversation.
In literature professional conversation is considered a powerful transformative process by many scholars. Danielson (2016) suggests that professional conversations DUHPRUHWKDQMXVWDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRR̆HUVXSSRUWWRDWHDFKHUHQJDJLQJLQDFKDOOHQJLQJ work. It creates a setting for an “important opportunity to push at the margins, to promote an examination of underlying principles of learning and teaching” (Danielson, 2016, p.
3URIHVVLRQDO FRQYHUVDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ GLVFXVVHG DV H̆HFWLYH ZD\V RI FRQVWUXFWLQJ knowledge also among teachers (Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006). Shaw and Cole (2011) report a professional development initiative through professional conversations, which was found worthwhile for community building, professional development, and pedagogical practice. Britt et al. (2001) propose professional conversations to be PRVWXVHIXOIRUWHDFKHUVZLWKVẊFLHQWNQRZOHGJHRIWKHFRQWHQWDVWKH\³ZHUHDEOHWR focus on pedagogy and to draw connections between aspects of the mathematics they WDXJKWZLWKRXWUHFRXUVHWRDVSHFLDOLVW¶VDGYLFH´S,QWKHLUVWXG\WKHSURIHVVLRQDO conversations “were a place where teachers felt safe to talk about what did not go well, something that rarely was analysed in their schools” (p. 50).
Danielson (2016) suggests that the value of professional conversations extends beyond the particular setting of one session, and that conversations have value both in the moment and over time. By “participating in thoughtful conversations about practice, teachers acquire valuable habits of mind that enable them to pursue such thinking on WKHLURZQZLWKRXWWKHVFD̆ROGLQJSURYLGHGE\WKHSDUWLFXODUFRQYHUVDWLRQ´S$OVR Gruenhagen (2009) presents results that support this temporal value, that learning in collaborative professional conversations can be applied to other contexts.
Conversational learning approach resonates with many features of this study. As a SHGDJRJLFDO¿HOGZLWKOLPLWHGDPRXQWRIUHVHDUFKDQGOLWHUDWXUHWKHHPSKDVLVRQWKH distinction between and accessibility of explicit, content-based and information-based knowledge, and tacit knowledge developed through individual observation, trial and error, and practice, seems pertinent. Baker et al. (2002) propose that explicit knowledge is not accessible without its tacit dimensions. The interplay of these two dimensions of
knowledge “manifest themselves in conversational learning as individuals come together in a joint meaning-making process” (p. 4). Out of the various forms of conversation, this research employed a more private approach, in which “the participants have opportunities to explore sensitive, intimate, confusing, and important topics about RQHVHOIRWKHUVDQGWKHZRUOG´SZKLFKLVFRQVLGHUHGDVDEULGJHXQLWLQJGL̆HUHQFHV and promoting mutual understanding.