Diverse Spaces: Reflection and Dialogue Online.

Introduction

Everyone in education, it seems, is using the Internet. The Internet promises to liberate learners from the physical time-and-space boundaries of traditional schooling, giving students greater control over where, when, and what they learn. The Internet also has the potential to enhance the interaction between learners and teachers, providing a diverse network of spaces and places for rich dialogue and discourse.

At its best, the Internet empowers communities of learners to design and occupy their own interconnected workspaces. At its worst, many of the shortcomings of traditional instruction are simply made more pervasive online. Many current commercial courseware products intentionally centralize control and power in hands of the institution. The efficacy of such products is often judged in terms of administrative needs such as the degree of institutional control over the delivery of content and grades, the efficiency of "housing" courses on servers versus brick and mortar buildings, and the cost effectiveness of "once-designed, forever-implemented" curriculum (Carr, 1997). In short, the Internet landscape is currently being shaped to increase financial revenue for educational institutions by decreasing direct investment in students and teachers.

Grass-roots efforts are underway to examine different ways of implementing Internet learning (Weisser, 1997; McFarlane & Stevens, 1999). Rather than building on its capacity to control, these implementations instead build on its capacity to liberate by enhancing reflection and dialogue. The purpose of this paper is to describe how such an Internet-based online learning environment works in practice, and what lessons have been learned so far by its teachers and students.

Liberatory Pedagogy

Peter McLaren (1999) describes liberatory pedagogy as "... a collective, shared social enterprise in which the voices of all participants must be heard" (p. 51). Reflection and dialogue are critical tools of transformative, liberatory pedagogy (Best, 1990). Liberated learning comes about through reflective, self-transforming dialogue between the discourse of student experience, values and beliefs, and the discourse of the academic institution. Liberation, while personal, is a journey deeply embedded in the social context of community.

Xin Liu Gale's (1996) use of the term editing teacher is apt description for liberatory instructional leadership. Liberatory educators seek to bring about an environment in which student discourse, silenced in the traditional curriculum, is instead amplified and valued alongside academic discourse.

Engaged by dialogue and reflection, an emergent synthesis, or liberated discourse, is constructed by the student, building personal autonomy, power and creativity. The result is what Freire (1973) termed critical consciousness, characterized by empowerment and personal integration into the world.

Liberatory Discourse Relationships

Freire (1970) used the "banking" metaphor to describe traditional schooling. Xin Liu Gale (1996) describes the discourse interaction in a traditional classroom as a simple oppositional relationship between "non-responsive abnormal" (student) discourse, traditionally seen as incorrect and irrelevant, and "academic" (normal) discourse, seen as correct and authoritative (see Figure 1) (Gale, 1996). In Gale's model, traditional teaching is conceptualized as polemic: the simple replacement of student discourse with academic discourse. The replacement process is facilitated by the traditional power structure. Oppositional interaction patterns alienate students from normal discourse, leaving student discourse unempowered and untransformed.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Gale suggests that liberatory learning must involve a richer and more complex relationship between classroom discourses. She proposes that liberatory teachers act not as authoritative agents enforcing normal discourse and suppressing student discourse, but instead act as active mediators between normal discourse and "abnormal" (student) discourse. Key to the role of active mediation is the introduction by the teacher of what Gale terms "responsive abnormal" discourse into the community of learners. The edifying teacher's task is to facilitate student dialogue and reflection in a way such that non-responsive abnormal discourse, i.e., the student's owned culture and experience, actively interacts with both normal discourse, and the discourse of the community of learners.

Liberatory discourse relationships can be conceptualized as a network of interrelationships between teachers, students, and the "distant teachers" of theory (see Figure 2).

[Figure 2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The primary interaction, in accordance with Gale's model, is between student discourse and normal discourse, in which the student becomes both literate in, and critically conscious of, normal discourse. This primary interaction, facilitated by the teacher, is crucially supported by secondary interactions between community discourse and normal discourse, as well between individual student and community discourse. The teacher fills a complex, mediative role in the discourse relationship, voicing both normal and abnormal discourses, while intentionally providing the environment for secondary discourse interaction (see Figure 1).

Barriers to Liberatory Discourse

Elizabeth Ellsworth (1989), in an extensive self-study of student voice in the classroom, argued against the assumption that audible dialogue carried out in public settings has the capacity to liberate:

   As I understand it at the moment, what got said-and how-in our class was
   the product of highly complex strategizing for the visibility that speech
   gives without giving up the safety of silence. More than that, it was the
   highly complex negotiation of the politics of knowing and being known.
   Things were left unsaid, or they were encoded, on the basis of speaker's
   conscious and unconscious assessments of the risks and costs of disclosing
   their understandings of themselves and of others. (p. 105)

Class discussions are often judged by the number and quality of student voices heard during a session, implying that students who remain silent have failed, or more often, that education has failed them. By critically reflecting on her attempts at liberatory pedagogy, Ellsworth found that "student voice," deemed crucial to liberatory learning, is often defined in ways that are limited to traditional classroom settings, and are therefore themselves oppressive:

   "... the assumption present in the literature that silence in front of a
   teacher or professor implies `lost voice,' `voicelessness,' or lack of
   social identity from which to act as a social agent betrays deep and
   unacceptable race, gender, and class biases.... [Students] are not silenced
   in the sense implied by the literature on critical pedagogy. They are not
   talking in their authentic voices, or they are declining/refusing to talk
   at all.... What they/we say, to whom, in what context, depending on the
   energy we/they have for the struggle on a particular day, is the result of
   conscious and unconscious assessments of the power relations and safety of
   the situation (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 104, emphasis added).

Becoming an "edifying teacher" is a complex task, made even more so by choices afforded by Internet technology. The traditional classroom setting should be considered only one of a diverse set of possible venues in which dialogue and reflection is carried out. Electronic learning technology, implemented properly, provides a rich menu of possibilities for facilitating all three facets of the discourse interaction. Many of the familiar tools of

the Internet, such as e-mail, message boards, and live chat, placed under the control of students and teachers, become powerful supports for dialogue.

Liberatory Technology: Creating Diversity of Space

How can Internet tools be used effectively to promote liberatory discourse? Beginning in the spring of 1999, I implemented, as part of a teacher education course on learning theory, an Internet website. The website included communication tools such as electronic journals, electronic message boards (Idea Containers), and live chat to enhance dialogue and reflection (see Figure 3).

Interaction      Electronic      Idea
Space            Journal         Container

Time             Asynchronous    Asynchronous

Place            Chosen by       Chosen by
                 student         student

Interactive      Moderated/      Unmoderated
Function         Unmoderated     community
                 Self-           dialogue
                 reflection

Interaction      Live            Campus
Space            Chatroom        Classroom

Time             Synchronous     Synchronous

Place            Chosen by       Chosen by
                 student         institution

Interactive      Unmoderated     Moderated
Function         community       community
                 dialogue        dialogue

These tools comprised components of an in-house courseware package, whose components were made up primarily of "freeware" modules found on the Internet. Many commercial courseware packages (webCT, Webcourse-In-A-Box) support similar functions and could be adapted to similarly support a course. The courseware tools were used in an effort to support and enhance the secondary discourse interactions, i.e., dialogue between student discourse and community discourse, and community discourse and normal discourse (see Figure 4).

[Figure 4 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Electronic journal

Each student was assigned a password protected "learning journal" that provided us a space for one-to-one dialogue. Each student wrote 15 reflective essays, entering text into a web page that included the student's picture. I responded to each essay by posting questions and comments. These appeared along with the student's work. The students were encouraged to respond to my follow-ups, creating a reflective dialogue about the course.

Idea container

Each unit of instruction included an "Idea Container," where, in fashion similar to the learning journal, students were asked to post ideas, comments, and questions about the course. The Idea Containers were openly accessible to the entire class creating an alternative venue for class discussions.

Live chat

A live chat tool was used to carry out text-based synchronous (live) discussions where students logged on and held discussions in real time. Periodically I scheduled optional "live" meetings using this tool.

Campus classroom

The regular campus classroom was used in a variety of ways. In Summer 1999, regular class meetings were held with an on-campus cohort during an intensive three-week summer session, in which the Internet tools (except the live chat) were used to supplement class discussions.

Building Electronic Discourse Relationships: Emerging Patterns

Using the Internet to facilitate one-on-one dialogue with students has greatly increased the quality, quantity, and consistency of interaction. Individual learning relationships, strengthened electronically, have served to more meaningfully connect and empower the learning relationships of the community as a whole. My interaction with individuals has become much more meaningful and in-depth because the dialogue can be engaged in thoughtfully, when time and energy are available.

Asynchronous chat

The online discussion sites provided an alternative environment for class discussion, especially for students choosing not to speak in class. Students wrote of the "freeing" effect of the online sharing of ideas:

   I would never have spoken such blasphemous opinions in class (in part
   because I'm slow to speak and in part because I bruise easily), but since I
   had the time to formulate my thoughts, I was able to offer my opinion
   (wanted or not) to the class and was able to process other student
   responses (even the tough ones) and then address them without ever really
   feeling put on the spot. So, in general, I think internet discussion has a
   lot of potential for the classroom when it comes to democracy and welcoming
   dissident voices (Student e-mail communication, Summer 1999).

I originally envisioned the role of the idea container as an asynchronous substitute for, or extension of, in-class dialogue. In practice, the idea containers served a different, more valuable function. Idea container dialogue, rather than resembling a face-to-face conversation, instead resembled "parallel play," in which students were able to read, reflect on, and respond to, the ideas of others in a safe environment, often at home. Parallel play, which takes place at each students own pace and place, can be a more deep and powerful way of reflecting on the community discourse than in-class discussions alone.

Live chat

The live chat tool was used in the Spring 1999 EDU 530 course as an electronic substitute for regular class meetings. As was the case with electronic journaling and the "idea container," it was obvious immediately that electronic live chat politically reconfigures the interaction. For example, my customary role as the center of attention in the classroom was lost. The influence I enjoy in the traditional setting, that of a six-foot-six 300 pound white man with a Ph.D., vanished. My words, typed in text on the screen, carried no more weight, centrality, or apparent credibility than anyone else's. Any effort to "steer" or "guide" the dialogue, as I am accustomed to in the face-to-face setting, could be, and was often, ignored.

After a period of adjustment, I found the "leveling" of the interactive table powerful. I noticed that not only had I abdicated my own power, but students who generally, for various reasons, dominate dialogue in the traditional setting were also unable to do so electronically. This opened the door for voices usually less audible to be heard.

Discussion

   Space may sound like a vague, poetic metaphor until we realize it describes
   the experiences of everyday life. We know what it means to be in a green
   and open field; we know what it means to be on a crowded rush-hour bus. On
   the crowded bus we lack the space to breathe and think and be ourselves.
   But in an open field, we open up too; ideas and feelings open up too, our
   knowledge comes out of hiding (Palmer, 1994, p. 70).

This work to provide electronic space for reflection and dialogue did not cure the ills of traditional classrooms by attempting to create a utopian, electronic space. Rather, using electronic tools helped create and support a rich diversity of spaces, in which each learner can find a niche within which to carry out his or her own struggle.

Furthering the idea of diverse space, Ellsworth (1989) writes: "Because all voices within the classroom are not and cannot carry equal legitimacy, safety, and power in dialogue at this historic moment, there are times when the inequalities must be named and addressed by constructing alternative ground rules for communication" (p. 108). The possibility of diverse space for liberatory learning allows us to give up the dishonest project of creating weak egalitarianism within the singular, traditional classroom. Instead, we foster strong egalitarianism in which the complexity of dialogue, rather then being constrained to occupy a singular classroom space, can be given a plurality of spaces to grow and develop.

Working to create a niche in electronic space was a straggle for students and teachers alike. The electronic spaces grow learning communities whose learning relationships are very different from those found in a traditional classroom. The power of diverse electronic space lies not in the political neutrality, but in its political diversity. Rather than a shortcoming, I find these differences a source of power. By creating, naming, and understanding the limitations of their own workspaces, students are empowered in ways which cannot possibly be provided in spaces created by teachers and the institution.

Ongoing Questions

When we create more spaces for students to do meaningful work, we also place more demands on ourselves. During Summer 1999 I found myself responding to approximately 400 reflective papers per week, along with an average of 30 e-mail messages per day. This work is very rewarding, but mentally and physically taxing. How realistic is it for one teacher to successfully foster liberatory learning for 50 or more students? An important task at this time of technological change may be to redefine what is meant by "fostering learning" in the context of diverse and often teacher-less learning spaces.

Some students find electronic space itself difficult and alienating, for reasons stemming from unequal access, lack of technological fluency, and the cultural and gender-based metaphors on which the medium itself is based. Can all students be introduced to electronic communication so that none are left out? If the answer is "no," we must be careful not to ask too much of the Internet, lest we fall into the trap of reproducing the confines of traditional schooling online.

References

Best, L. (1990). Freire's liberatory learning: a new pedagogy reflecting traditional beliefs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 050).

Carr, K. (1998). Reflective judgment and cognitive interaction in an electronically distributed learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In Luke, C. & Gore, J. (Eds.), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: The Seabury Press.

--. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: The Seabury Press.

Gale, X.L. (1996). Teachers, discourses, and authority in the post-modern composition classroom. Albany: State University of New York Press.

McFarlane, T. & Stevens, E. (1999). Using a web-based workshop to encourage critical reflection in post-secondary educators. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson, WY, October 14, 1999.

McLaren, P. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: reflecting upon Paulo Freire's politics of education. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 49-55.

Palmer, P. (1983). To know as we are known. San Francisco: Harper.

Weisser, C. (1997). Edifying teachers in the networked classroom. Paper presented at The Annual Joint Meetings of The Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association, San Antonio, Texas, March 26-29, 1997. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED # 408 631).

Kevin Carr, George Fox University, OR

Kevin Carr is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education. His interests include distance education, science education, and teacher training. E-mail: <[e-mail]>.