View source for Conversation theory

{{short description|Cybernetic and dialectic framework}}
{{educational research}}
{{Complex systems|Systems theory and cybernetics}}
'''Conversation theory''' is a [[cybernetic]] approach to the study of conversation, cognition and learning that may occur between two participants who are engaged in conversation with each other.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975a}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{harvard citation|Pask|1976}}</ref> It presents an experimental framework heavily utilizing [[Human–computer interaction|human-computer interactions]] and [[Theory of computation|computer theoretic models]] as a means to present a scientific theory explaining how conversational interactions lead to the emergence of knowledge between participants.<ref>{{harvard citation|Scott|2001|p=25}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation|Mayne|2001}}</ref> The theory was developed by [[Gordon Pask]], who credits Bernard Scott,<ref>{{harvard citation|Scott|2022}}</ref> Dionysius Kallikourdis, Robin McKinnon-Wood,<ref>{{harvard citation|Glanville|1996}}</ref> and others during its initial development and implementation as well as [[Paul Pangaro]] during subsequent years.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1984}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1976|p=xii}}</ref><ref group="Footnote">Other contributors include: Brian Lewis, Robin Bailey, David Ensor, Tony Newton, Valary Robinson, Robert Newton, Elizibeth Pask, V. Midora and N. Green.</ref>

== Overview ==
Conversation theory may be described as a [[Abstract structure|formal]] theory of conversational process,<ref>{{harvard citation|Scott|2011|p=134}}</ref> as well as a theoretical methodology concerned with [[concept]]-forming and concept-sharing between conversational participants.<ref>{{harvard citation|Manning|2023a|p=47}}</ref>  It may be viewed as a framework that may be used to examine learning and development through the means of conversational techniques by means of human-machine interactions; the results of which may then inform approaches to education, [[educational psychology]], and [[epistemology]].<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1976|p=ix}}</ref> While the framework is interpretable as a psychological framework with educational applications (specifically, as a general framework to think about teaching and learning),<ref>{{harvard citation|Koh|Doroudi|2023|p=110}}</ref> Pask's motivation in developing the theory has been interpreted by some who closely worked with him develop upon certain theoretical concerns regarding the nature of cybernetic inquiry.<ref>{{harvard citation|Scott|2007a}}</ref>

The theory has been noted to have been influenced by a variety of psychological, pedagogical and philosophical influences such as [[Lev Vygotsky]], [[R. D. Laing]] and [[George Herbert Mead|George H. Mead]].<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1976|p=19}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation|Scott|2021}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation|Tilak|Glassman|2022}}</ref> With some authors suggesting that the kind of human-machine learning interactions documented in conversation theory to be mirroring Vygotsky's descriptions of the [[zone of proximal development]],<ref>{{harvard citation|Tilak|Glassman|2022|pp=893–894}}</ref> and his descriptions of spontaneous and scientific concepts.<ref>{{harvard citation|Laurillard|2002|p=87}}</ref>

The theory prioritizes learning and teaching approaches related to education.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=9}}</ref> A central idea of the theory is that learning occurs through [[conversation]]s: For if participant ''A'' is to be conscious with participant ''B'' of a topic of inquiry, both participants must be able to converse with each other about that topic.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=6}}</ref> Because of this, participants engaging in a discussion about a subject matter make their knowledge claims explicit through the means of such conversational interactions.

The theory is concerned with a variety of "psychological, linguistic, epistemological, social or non-commitally mental events of which there is awareness".<ref name=":0">{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=1}}</ref> Awareness in this sense is not of a person-specific type, i.e., it is not necessarily localized in a single participant. Instead, the type of awareness examined in conversation theory is the kind of joint awareness that may be shared between entities.<ref name=":0" /> While there is an acknowledgment of its similarities to [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], the theory extends its analysis to examine cognitive processes.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|pp=1–2}}</ref> However, the concept of cognition is not viewed as merely being confined to an individual's brain or central nervous system.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=3}}</ref> Instead, cognition may occur at the level of a group of people (leading to the emergence of social awareness), or may characterize certain types of computing machines.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=2}}</ref>

Initial results from the theory lead to a distinction in the type of learning strategies participants used during the learning process; whereby students in general gravitated towards ''holistic'' or ''serialist'' learning strategies (with the optimal mixture producing a ''versatile'' learning strategy).<ref name=":4" />

=== Conversation ===
Following [[Hugh Dubberly (designer)|Hugh Dubberly]] and [[Paul Pangaro]],<ref>{{harvard citation|Dubberly|Pangaro|2009|p=8}}</ref> a conversation in the context of conversation theory involves an exchange between two participants whereby each participant is contextualized as a learning system whose internal states are changed through the course of the conversation.<ref name=":21" >{{harvard citation|Dubberly|Pangaro|2009|p=1}}</ref> What can be discussed through conversation, i.e., topics of discussion, are said to belong to a conversational domain.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=44}}</ref>

Conversation is distinguished from the mere exchange of information as seen in [[information theory]], by the fact that utterances are interpreted within the context of a given perspective of such a learning system.<ref name=":21" /> Each participant's meanings and perceptions change during the course of a conversation, and each participant can agree to commit to act in certain ways during the conversation.<ref>{{harvard citation|Dubberly|Pangaro|2009|pp=2–3}}</ref> In this way, conversation permits not only learning but also collaboration through participants coordinating themselves and designating their roles through the means of conversation.<ref>{{harvard citation|Dubberly|Pangaro|2009|pp=3–4}}</ref>

Since meanings are agreed during the course of a conversation, and since purported agreements can be illusory (whereby we think we have the same understanding of a given topic but in fact do not), an empirical approach to the study of conversation would require stable reference points during such conversational exchanges between peers so as to permit reproducible results. Using computer theoretical models of cognition, conversation theory can document these intervals of understanding that arise in the conversations between two participating individuals, such that the development of individual and collective understandings can be analyzed rigorously.<ref>{{harvard citation|Hayut|1995}}</ref>

In this way, Pask has been argued to have been an early pioneer in AI-based educational approaches: Having proposed that advances in computational media may enable conversational forms of interactions to take place between man and machine.<ref>{{harvard citation|Sharples|2023|p=2}}</ref>

=== Language ===
The types of languages that conversation theory utilizes in its approach are distinguishable based on a language's role in relation to an experiment in which a conversation is examined as the subject of inquiry; thus, it follows that conversations can be conducted at different levels depending on the role a language has in relation to an experiment.<ref name=":5">{{harvard citation|SUNY Cortland}}</ref> The types of languages are as follows: Natural languages used for general discussions outside the experiment; object languages which are the subject of inquiry during an experiment, and finally a metalanguage which is used to talk about the design, management, and results on an experiment.

A natural language <math>L^{+}</math> is treated as an unrestricted language used between a source (say a participant) and an interrogator or analyst (say an experimenter).<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=557}}</ref>
For this reason, it may be considered a language for general discussion in the context of conversation theory.
An object language <math>L</math> meanwhile, has some of the qualities of a natural language (which permits commands, questions, ostentation and predication),<ref name=":1">{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=558}}</ref> but is used in conversation theory specifically as the language studied during experiments.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=22}}</ref> Finally, the metalanguage <math>L^{*}</math> is an observational language used by an interrogator or analysis for describing the conversational system under observation, prescribing actions that are permitted within such a system, and posing parameters regarding what may be discussed during an experiment under observation.<ref name=":1" />

The object language <math>L</math> differs from most formal languages, by virtue of being "a command and question language[,] not an assertoric language like [a] predicate calculus".<ref name=":2">{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=171}}</ref> Moreover, <math>L</math> is a language primarily dealing with metaphors indicating [[Material inference|material]] analogies and not on the kind of propositions dealing with [[Bivalent logic|truth or falsity values]].<ref name=":2"/> Since conversation theory specifically focuses on learning and development within human subjects, the object language is separated into two distinct modes of conversing.

Conversation theory conceptualises learning as being the result of two integrated levels of control: The first level of control is designated by <math>Lev\;0</math> and designates a set of problem-solving procedures which attempt to attain goals or subgoals, whereas the second level of control is designated as <math>Lev\;1</math> and denotes various constructive processes that have been acquired by a student through maturation, imprinting and previous learning.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975a|p=133}}</ref>
The object language <math>L</math> then is demarcated in conversation theory based on these considerations, whereby it is split between <math>L^{0}</math> and <math>L^{1}</math> lines of inquiry such that an object language is the [[ordered pair]] of such discourse types <math>L= \langle L^{0}, L^{1}  \rangle</math>.
According to Bernard Scott, <math>L^{0}</math> discourse of an object language may be conceptualized as the level of how, i.e., discourse that is concerned with "how to “do” a topic: how to recognize it, construct it, maintain it and so on".<ref name=":7">{{harvard citation|Scott|2007b|p=1502}}</ref>
Meanwhile, <math>L^{1}</math> discourse may be conceptualized as the level of why, i.e., it is discourse "concerned with explaining or justifying what a topic means in terms of other topics".<ref name=":7" />

===Concepts===

A [[concept]] in conversation theory, is conceived of as the production, reproduction, and maintenance of a given topic relation <math>R_{i}</math> from other topic relations <math>R_{j}</math>, all belonging to a given conversational domain <math>R</math>.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=47}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=98}}</ref> This implies <math>R_{i}, R_{j} \in R</math>, where <math>i</math> and <math>j</math> are used to represent a number on a finite [[Indexed family|index]] of numbers. A concept must satisfy the twin condition that it must entail <math>R_{i} \vdash R_{j}</math> and be entailed <math>R_{j} \vdash R_{i}</math> by other topics.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|pp=98}}</ref>

A concept in the context of conversation theory is not a class, nor description of a class, nor a stored description: Instead, a concept is specifically used to reconstruct, reproduce or stabilize relations.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|pp=47–48}}</ref> Thus, if <math>R_{H}</math> is the head topic of discussion, then <math>CON(R_{H})\rightarrow R_{H}</math> implies that the concept of that relation produces, reproduces, and maintains that relation.<ref name=":9">{{harvard citation|Manning|2023b|pp=71}}</ref>

Now, a concept itself is considered to consist of the ordered pair containing a program and an interpretation:

<math>CON \triangleq \langle PROG, INTER \rangle</math>

Whereby a program attempts to derive a given topic relation, while an interpretation refers to the compilation of that program.<ref name=":9" /> In other words, given a specific topic relation, a program attempts to derive that relation through a series of other topic relations, which are compiled in such a way as to derive the initial topic relation.<ref name=":9" /> A concept as defined above is considered to be a <math>L</math>-procedure, which is embodied by an underlying [[Computer|processor]] called a <math>L</math>-processor.<ref name=":9" />

In this way, Pask envisages concepts as mental organisations that hold a hypothesis and seek to test that hypothesis in order to confirm or deny its validity.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|pp=244}}</ref> This notion of a concept has been noted as formally resembling a TOTE cycle discussed by [[George Armitage Miller|Miller]], [[Eugene Galanter|Galanter]] and [[Karl H. Pribram|Pribram]].<ref>{{harvard citation|Manning|2023a|pp=49–50}}</ref><ref group="Footnote">Pask believed Miller's model had been "carelessly applied to analogize the mind and computer programs without considering [the] possibility of recursive circularity between problem-solvers of varied competence iteratively supplementing each other's understandings" {{harvard citation|Tilak|2023|pp=31}}.</ref> The contents and structure that a concept might have at a given interaction of its continuous deformation can be represented through an entailment structure.

Such conceptual forms are said to be emergent through conversational interactions. They are encapsulated through entailment structures, which is a way by which we may visualize an organized and publicly available collection of resultant knowledge.<ref>{{harvard citation|Pask|1975b|p=76}}</ref> Entailment structures may afford certain advantages compared to certain [[semantic networks|semantic network]] structures, as they force semantic relations to be expressed as belonging to [[Coherentism|coherent structures]]. The entailment structure is composed of a series of nodes and arrows representing a series of topic relations and the derivations of such topic relations. For example:

[[File:Derivation1.png|center|228x228px]]

In the above illustration, let <math>TPQ \in  \{ R_{i} \}</math>, such that there are topic relations that are members of a set of topic relations. Each topic relation is represented by a node, and the entailment represented by the black arc. It follows that <math> \langle P, Q \rangle \vdash  T </math> in the case above, such that the topics ''P'' and ''Q'' entail the topic of ''T''.

[[File:Entailment mesh.png|center|261x261px]]

Assuming we use the same derivation process for all topics in above entailment structure, then we are let with the following product as illustrated above. This represents a minimal entailment mesh consisting of a triad of derivations: <math> \langle P, Q \rangle \vdash  T</math>, <math> \langle T, Q \rangle \vdash  P</math>, and <math> \langle P, T \rangle \vdash  Q</math>. The solid arc indicates that a given head topic relation is derived from subordinate topics, whereas the arcs with dotted lines represent how the head topic may be used to derive other topics. Finally:

[[File:Entailment mesh2.png|center]]

Represents two solid arcs permitting alternative derivations of the topic ''T''. This can be expressed as <math> \langle P, Q \rangle \lor \langle R, S \rangle \vdash T</math>, which reads either the set containing ''P'' and ''Q'', or the set containing ''R'' and ''S'' entail ''T''.  Lastly, a formal analogy is shown where two topics ''T'' and ''T''' belonging to two entailment meshes are demonstrated to have a one-to-one correspondence with each other. The diamond shape <math>R</math> below denotes analogy relation that can be claimed to exist between any three topics of each entailment mesh.

[[File:Analogy2.png|center]]

The relation of one topic ''T'' to another ''T''' by an analogy can also be seen as: Being based on an isomorphism <math>\Leftrightarrow</math>, a semantic distinction <math>/</math> between two individual universes on interpretation <math>\mathbb{U}</math>. Assuming an analogy holds for two topics in two distinct entailment meshes, then it should hold for all if the analogy is to be considered coherent and stable.

=== Cognitive Reflector ===
From conversation theory, Pask developed what he called a "Cognitive Reflector". This is a virtual machine for selecting and executing concepts or topics from an entailment mesh shared by at least a pair of participants. It features an external modelling facility on which agreement between, say, a teacher and pupil may be shown by reproducing public descriptions of behaviour.<ref name=":6" /> We see this in essay and report writing or the "practicals" of science teaching.

Lp was Pask's protolanguage which produced operators like '''Ap''' which concurrently executes the concept, '''Con''', of a Topic, '''T''', to produce a Description, '''D'''. Thus:

'''Ap(Con(T)) => D(T)''', where '''=>''' stands for '''produces'''.

A succinct account of these operators is presented in Pask<ref name=":8">{{harvard citation |Pask|1996}}</ref> Amongst many insights he points out that three indexes are required for concurrent execution, two for parallel and one to designate a serial process. He subsumes this complexity by designating participants A, B, etc.<ref name=":8" />
In Commentary toward the end of Pask, he states:

: The form not the content of the theories (conversation theory and interactions of actors theory) return to and is congruent with the forms of physical theories; such as wave particle duality (the set theoretic unfoldment part of conversation theory is a radiation and its reception is the interpretation by the recipient of the descriptions so exchanged, and vice versa). The particle aspect is the recompilation by the listener of what a speaker is saying. Theories of many universes, one at least for each participant A and one to participant B- are bridged by analogy. As before this is the ''[[truth value]] of any interaction; the metaphor for which is culture itself''.<ref name=":8" />

=== Learning strategies ===
In order to facilitate learning, Pask argued that subject matter should be represented in the form of structures which show what is to be learned.  These structures exist in a variety of different levels depending upon the extent of the relationships displayed.  The critical method of learning according to Conversation Theory is "teachback" in which one person teaches another what they have learned.<ref name=":5" />

Pask identified two different types of learning strategies:<ref name=":5" />
* Serialists – Progress through a structure in a sequential fashion
* Holists – Look for higher order relations

The ideal is the versatile learner who is neither vacuous holist "globe trotter" nor serialist who knows little of the context of his work.

In learning, the stage where one converges or evolves, many Cyberneticians describe the act of understanding as a closed-loop. Instead of simply “taking in” new information, one goes back to look at their understandings and pulls together information that was “triggered” and forms a new connection. This connection becomes tighter and one's understanding of a certain concept is solidified or “stable” (Pangaro, 2003). Furthermore, Gordon Pask emphasized that<ref>{{harvard citation |Pangaro|1993}}</ref> conflict is the basis for the notion of “calling for<nowiki>''</nowiki> additional information (Pangaro, 1992).

According to Entwistle, experiments which lead to the investigation of phenomenon later denoted by the term learning strategy came about through the implementation of a variety of learning tasks.<ref>{{harvard citation |Entwistle |1978}}</ref> Initially, this was done through utilising either CASTE, INTUITION, or the Clobbits pseudo-taxonomy.<ref name=":3">{{harvard citation|Entwistle|1978|p=258}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation |Pask|Scott|1972}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation |Robertson|1978}}</ref> However, given issues resulting from either the time-consuming nature or operating experiments or inexactness of experimental conditions, new tests were created in the form of the Spy Ring History test and the Smuggler's test. The former test involved a participant having to learn the history of a fictitious spy ring (in other words, the history of a fictitious espionage network); the participant, having to learn about the history of five spies in three countries over the period of five years. The comprehension learning component of the test involved learning the similarities and differences between a set of networks; whereas the operation learning aspect of the test involved learning the role each spy played and what sequence of actions that spy played over a given year.<ref name=":3" />

While Entwistle noted difficulties regarding the length of such tests for groups of students who were engaged in the Spy Ring History test, the results of the test did seem to correspond with the type of learning strategies discussed.<ref>{{harvard citation|Entwistle|1978|p=261}}</ref> However, it has been noted that while Pask and associates work on learning styles has been influential in both the development of conceptual tools and methodology, the Spy Ring History test and Smuggler's test may have been biased towards STEM students than humanities in its implementation, with Entwistle arguing that the "rote learning of formulae and definitions, together with a positive reaction to solving puzzles and problems of a logical nature, are characteristics more commonly found in science than arts student".<ref>{{harvard citation|Entwistle|1978|p=264}}</ref><ref>{{harvard citation |LSRC|2004}}</ref>

==Applications==

One potential application of conversation theory that has been studied and developed is as an alternative approach to common types of [[search engine]] [[Information retrieval]] algorithms.<ref name=":10">{{harvard citation |Pangaro |2008}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{harvard citation |Tilak|Kadir|Wen|Pangaro|Glassman|2023|pp=134}}</ref> Unlike [[PageRank]]-like algorithms, which determine the priority of a search result based on how many [[hyperlink]]s on the web link to them, conversation theory has been used to apply a discursive approach to web search requests.<ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11" />

''ThoughtShuffler'' is an attempt to build a search engine utilizing design principles from conversation theory:<ref>{{harvard citation |Tilak|Kadir|Wen|Pangaro|Glassman|2023|pp=138–139}}</ref>  In this approach, terms that are input into a search request yield search results relating to other terms that derive or help provide context to the meaning of the first in a way that mimics derivations of topics in an entailment structure.<ref name=":10" /> For example, given the input of a search term, a neighbourhood of corresponding terms that comprise the meaning of the first term may be suggested for the user to explore. In doing this, the search engine interface highlights snippets of webpages corresponding to a neighbourhood terms that help provide meaning to the first.<ref name=":10" />

The aim of this design, is to provide just enough information for a user to become curious about a topic in order to induce the intention to explore other subtopics related to the main term input into the search engine.<ref>{{harvard citation |Tilak|Kadir|Wen|Pangaro|Glassman|2023|pp=139}}</ref>

== Gallery ==
<gallery>
File:Deriv.png|Nick Green's original illustration of a derivation process.
File:Cycl.png|Nick Green's original illustration of an entailment mesh.
File:Disjunctive.png|Nick Green's original illustraction of a disjunctive set of derivations.
File:Analogy.png|Nick Green's original illustration of an analogy relation made between two topics.
</gallery>

== See also ==
* [[Conversational constraints theory]]
* {{slink|Analogy#Cybernetics}}
* {{slink|Gordon Pask#Interactions of Actors Theory}}
* [[Integrative learning]]
* [[Text and conversation theory]]

== Footnotes ==
{{refbegin|20em}}
<references group="Footnote" responsive="0" />
{{refend}}

== References ==
{{reflist|20em}}

===Citation Sources===
{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes }}
*{{Cite journal |last1=Dubberly |first1=Hugh |last2=Pangaro |first2=Paul |date=2009 |title=What is conversation? Can we design for effective conversation? |url=http://www.dubberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ddo_article_whatisconversation.pdf |journal=ACM Interactions |volume=XVI |issue=4 |via=Dubberly Design Office}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Entwistle |first=N. J. |date=1978 |title=Knowledge structures and styles of learning: a summary of Pask's recent research |url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03012.x |journal=British Journal of Educational Psychology |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=255–265 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03012.x |via=British Psychological Society}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Glanville |first=Ranulph |date=1996 |title=Robin McKinnon-Wood and Gordon Pask: a Lifelong Conversation |journal=Cybernetics & Human Knowing |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=56–62}}
*{{cite web|website=thehope.com |title=Appendix "A": Conversation Theory developed by the cybernetician Gordon Pask |last=Hayut |first=Yitzhak I |url=http://thehope.org/convtheo.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000523132501/http://thehope.org/convtheo.htm |date=1995 |archive-date = 2000-05-23}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Koh |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Doroudi |first2=Shayan |year=2023 |title=Learning, teaching, and assessment with generative artificial intelligence: towards a plateau of productivity |journal=Learning: Research and Practice |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=109–166 |doi=10.1080/23735082.2023.2264086|doi-access=free }}
*{{Cite book |last=Laurillard |first=Diana |title=Rethinking University Teaching |publisher=RouteledgeFalmer |year=2002 |isbn=9780415256797 |edition=1st |location=London |language=English}}
*{{Cite web |author=LSRC |date=2004 |title=Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review |url=https://www.leerbeleving.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/learning-styles.pdf |website=leerbeleving |page=91}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Mayne |first=Alan |date=2001 |title=Learning and teaching machines and conversation theory: Some contemporary implications and ideas for research |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000005699/full/pdf?title=learning-and-teaching-machines-and-conversation-theory-some-contemporary-implications-and-ideas-for-research |journal=Kybernetes |volume=30 |issue=5/6 |pages=762–767 |doi=10.1108/EUM0000000005699 |via=Emerald Insight}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Manning |first=Thomas |date=2023a |title=What is conversation theory? |journal=Cybernetics & Human Knowing |volume=30 |issue=1–2 |pages=47–65 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Manning |first=Thomas |date=2023b |title=Paskian algebra: A discursive approuch to conversational multi-agent systems |journal=Cybernetics & Human Knowing |volume=30 |issue=1–2 |pages=67–81 |author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Pangaro |first=Paul |date=1993 |title=Pask as Dramaturg |url=https://www.pangaro.com/published/Pask-as-Dramaturg.html |journal=Systems Research |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=135–142 |doi=10.1002/sres.3850100317 }}
*{{cite book |last = Pangaro |first = Paul |editor-last1 = Luppicini | editor-first1 = Rocci |date = 2008 |chapter = Instructions for Design and Designs for Conversation |title = Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Applications |publisher =  IGI Global |author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite journal |last1=Pask |first1=Gordon |last2=Scott |first2=B. C. E. |date=1972 |title=Learning strategies and individual competence |journal=International Journal of Man-Machine Studies |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=217–253|doi=10.1016/S0020-7373(72)80004-X}}
*{{Cite book |last=Pask |first=Gordon |title=The cybernetics of human learning and performance: A guide to theory and practice |publisher=Hutchinson Educational |year=1975a |location=London, England |language=English|author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Pask |first=Gordon |title=Conversation, cognition and learning: A cybernetic theory and methodology |publisher=Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company |year=1975b |location=Amsterdam, Netherlands |author-mask=3}}
*{{Cite book |last=Pask |first=Gordon |title=Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology |publisher=Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company |year=1976 |location=Amsterdam, Netherlands |author-mask=3}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Pask |first=Gordon |date=1984 |title=Review of Conversation Theory and a protologic (or protolanguage), Lp |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30219866 |journal=Educational Communication and Technology |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–40 |doi=10.1007/BF02768767 |jstor=30219866 |s2cid=142103971 |via=JSTORE |author-mask=3}}
*{{cite journal |last=Pask |first=Gordon |date= 1996 |title= Heinz von Foerster's Self-Organisation, the Progenitor of Conversation and Interaction Theories |journal= Systems Research |volume= 13
|issue= 3 |pages= 349–362 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<349::AID-SRES103>3.0.CO;2-G 
|author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Robertson |first=I. T. |date=1978 |title=Relationships between learning strategy, attention deployment and personality |journal=British Journal of Educational Psychology |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=86–91 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb02374.x |pmid=646945 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Bernard |date=2001 |title=Conversation theory: A constructivist, dialogical approach to educational technology |journal=Cybernetics & Human Knowing |volume=8 |issue=4 |via= ingentaconnect |url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/chk/2001/00000008/00000004/103?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf}}
*{{Cite book |last=Scott |first=Bernard |title=Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic: An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician |publisher=edition echoraum |year=2007a |isbn=978-3-901941-15-3 |veditors=Glanville, Ranulph, Müller, Karl H |location=Vienna, Austria |pages=31–51 |language=English |chapter=The Cybernetics of Gordon Pask |author-mask=3}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Bernard |date=2007b |title=Cybernetic principles for learning design |journal=Kybernetes |volume=36.9/10 |author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Scott |first=Bernard |title=Explorations in Second-Order Cybernetics: Reflection on Cybernetics, Psychology and Education |publisher=edition echoraum |year=2011 |isbn=9783901941269 |edition=1st |location=Vienna |language=English|author-mask=3 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Scott |first=Bernard |title=Cybernetics for the Social Sciences |publisher=Brill |year=2021 |isbn=9789004464346 |location=Amsterdam, Netherlands |author-mask=3}}
*{{Cite web |last=Scott |first=Bernard |date=2022 |title=A life in cybernetics |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/life-cybernetics |access-date=19 March 2022 |website=The British Psychological Society |author-mask=3}}
*{{cite arXiv |last = Sharples |first = Mike |date = 2023 |title = Towards social generative AI for education: theory, practices and ethics |class = cs.CY |eprint= 2306.10063}}
*{{cite web|author=SUNY Cortland|website=web.cortland.edu |title=Conversation Theory – Gordon Pask|url=http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Pask.htm}}
*{{Cite journal |last1=Tilak |first1=Shantanu |last2=Glassman |first2=Michael |date=2022 |title=Gordon Pask's second-order cybernetics and Lev Vygotsky's cultural historical theory: Understanding the role of the Internet in developing human thinking |journal=Theory and Psychology|volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=888–914 |doi=10.1177/09593543221123281 |s2cid=252344151 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Tilak |first=Shantanu |date=2023 |title=Cybernetics, Education, and Psychology: Discovering Potentials (Yet) Unearthed|journal=Cybernetics & Human Knowing |volume=30 |issue=1–2 |pages=23–44 |author-mask=3}}
*{{cite journal |last1 = Tilak |first1 = Shantanu |last2 = Kadir |first2 = Latif |last3 = Wen |first3 = Ziye |last4 = Pangaro |first4 = Paul | last5 = Glassman |first5 = Michael | date = 2023 |title = Designing Sociohistorically Sensitive Information Search: Experimental Analyses of Essay Written Using ThoughtShuffler and Google     |journal = Cybernetics and Human Knowing |publisher =  Imprint Academic |volume = 30 |issue = 1–2 |pages=133–151 |author-mask=3}}

{{refend}}

== Further reading ==
* Ranulph Glanville and Karl H. Muller (eds.), ''Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic- An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician'' edition echoraum 2007 {{ISBN|978-3-901941-15-3}}
* Aleksej Heinze, Chris Procter, [http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/3duf6u8jtgdqpn9fkp6j/contributions/6/5/8/0/6580506370347k73.pdf "Use of conversation theory to underpin blended learning"]{{dead link|date=August 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, in: ''International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies'' (2007) – Vol. 1, No.1/2 pp.&nbsp;108 – 120
* W. R. Klemm, [https://web.archive.org/web/20090704110709/http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/wklemm/Files/ConversationTheory.pdf ''Software Issues for Applying Conversation Theory For Effective Collaboration Via the Internet''], Manuscript 2002.
* Gordon Pask, ''Conversation, cognition and learning''. New York: Elsevier, 1975.
* Gordon Pask, ''The Cybernetics of Human Learning and Performance'', Hutchinson. 1975
* Gordon Pask, ''Conversation Theory, Applications in Education and Epistemology'', Elsevier, 1976.
* Gordon Pask, ''Heinz von Foerster's Self-Organisation, the Progenitor of Conversation and Interaction Theories'', 1996.
* Scott, B. (ed. and commentary) (2011). "Gordon Pask: ''The Cybernetics of Self-Organisation, Learning and Evolution Papers 1960-1972''" pp 648 [http://www.echoraum.at/edition/wisdomechoraum16.htm Edition Echoraum] (2011).

== External links ==
*[http://www.pangaro.com/pask/ PDFs of Pask's books and key papers at pangaro.com]
* [http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Pask.htm Conversation Theory – Gordon Pask] overview from web.cortland.edu.
* [http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyb-and-con.html Cybernetics And Conversation] by [[Paul Pangaro]], 1994–2000.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150722062441/http://www.ncl.ac.uk/kite/assets/downloads/conversation1.htm Conversation Theory: Reasoning about significance and mutuality] by Mike Martin and John Dobson,
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20000523132501/http://thehope.org/convtheo.htm Conversation Theory developed by the cybernetician Gordon Pask] by Yitzhak I. Hayut-Man ea, 1995.

{{Clear}}
{{Cybernetics}}
{{Education}}
{{Systems}}

[[Category:Cybernetics| ]]
[[Category:Educational research| ]]
[[Category:Educational psychology]]
[[Category:Oral communication]]
[[Category:Science and technology studies]]