MSF Dialogue
Last revised: 01/05/05
The School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship uses online dialogue structures with threaded messages to facilitate several purposes. These include participant learning, town meetings and other instructional support. It requires students to interactively engage each other online through the Internet. The following is meant as an initiation to dialogue to help contextualize participation. Mastering the process takes emersion in the process.
What Dialogue Is
The purpose of dialogue is to help students understand the relevance of concepts, students should test their understandings of every concept with group members and professors to prepare for comprehensive examinations. You can read the material but how much you have mastered the concepts and their relevance is the extent to which you can discuss and apply them.
Learning how to write in a thorough yet concise manner is a skill to gain. This means that the quality of each posted message must be excellent. Professors will comment in the dialogue to help guide individuals and groups toward this desired result.
The program uses Blackboard to mediate asynchronous threaded messages of interactive dialogue which Blackboard terms a "Discussion Board." The following references address the differences between "dialogue," "discussion" and "debate." When it is unclear which term is meant prefer dialogue, collaborative and gracious dialogue please.
Learning organizations (Peter Senge, n.d.)
Listening and dialogue (Isaacs, Hanig, Harinish, & Woolley, n.d.)
Blackboard is divided into courses. These courses contain groups of students and professors. Groups can have forums. Each forum might contain one or more threads of messages. A forum remains open for the period of time designated by the course syllabus or the professor from several days to several semesters. It is important to post messages according to the expectations that correspond to the specific forum.
The concept of a "forum" is used to frame posed questions for dialogue. Most people use the term forum loosely. In some venues these are called message boards. Others label them learning circles. Numerous terms have been tried, but "forum" appears to have stuck, as in "a forum for dialogue." The plural of forum is both forums and fora, and different individuals might use either.
Similarly, dialogue contributors use the term "post" freely as a verb for "publish," and as a noun for "message"—particularly an initial message "posting" on a topic. Thus, one could conceivably "post a post posting" which demonstrates the language of online collaboration has yet to mature. There is nothing to be gained by resisting these nuances of modern English. Such is life with a "living" language.
Mediating Internet messages collaboratively, however, has been done successfully for decades. The best thing to do is ignore these minor linguistic frustrations and forge ahead. "Taste and see that it is good." You are likely to learn a great deal, and improve the state of what is currently known and practiced in the process.
The following forum topics are examples of potential questions for dialogue. Respond to the questions by adding to the base of what is known, not by reiterating what has been written previously.
DATES |
TOPIC |
1/14-1/27 |
Organizational Metaphors |
1/28-2/10 |
Organizational Diagnosis |
2/11-3/3 |
The purpose and value of a literature review |
3/4-3/24 |
Social and Culture |
3/25-4/14 |
Power and Influence |
Note: Coursework is scheduled over a seven-day week to provide structure for students residing on six continents. The weekly schedule begins on Monday at 12:01 a.m. USA Eastern Time and ends on Sunday at 11:59 p.m. The program neither suggests nor encourages that students work seven days per week. Rather, in respect for the various traditions to honor a given day during the week, all seven days are included in the schedule so students may elect which days they will participate.
Dialogue exists for students to demonstrate their understandings, questions, and applications of known content. All of the following types of interaction are expected from each student at some point during each course. However, the list is not exhaustive. Whatever approach to dialogue assists understanding applications of the material is appropriate.
Answering all or part of the posed questions by citing concepts covered in assigned readings.
Example: Christian values held by top leaders often do not penetrate lower organization levels because, as Finkelstein & Hambrick (1996) point out, top leaders in larger companies spend most of their time interacting with a small group of people at the same level as themselves.
Asking specific questions about specific concepts in the readings or challenging statements in the material.
Example: I'm unclear why Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) stress the interaction of personality and situation. Myers and Briggs (1998) indicate that the individual's type alone can predict behavior.
Taking a position based on the concepts in the reading and extrapolating from it.
Example: If Selznick's (1996) Institutional Theory is correct then it will be difficult for organizations founded on Biblical values to succeed. However, Hatch (1997, p. 48) implies that the view of institutionalized vs. non-institutionalized organizations might be in their rationalization. It seems that "as we think so shall we be." This would place more emphasis on the leader and the constant presentation of the vision.
Quality will be measured by several factors. Students must demonstrate comprehension of the topical material. Writing must include appropriate material researched beyond the assigned readings. Students must demonstrate critical thinking in applying organizational concepts to separate personal opinion from reasoned conclusion. Messages must identify root causes to organizational leadership problems. That is, the rhetoric of criticism is not automatically supported by data not in evidence.
Keep in mind that course dialogue is designed as scholarly interaction among grouped peers. (Use non-evaluated forums for personal interaction). If you find yourself "just going through the motions" to meet the dialogue requirement, examine the reasons, and contact one of the professors to gain a fresh perspective.
Dialogue Styles
Course dialogue structure can occur in several styles. These include "point-counterpoint-response," "open-forum," "two-sided debate" and "5-post 200-word." Each is considered in turn below. These forum styles tend to embrace the most common ways scholarly dialogue has been enacted in the program to date, but there is nothing special about this list. If you determine an alternative might better serve the needs of a forum please propose the idea to the school.
5-10 Post
The focus of this style of dialogue is on developing a comprehensive utilization of Bloom's taxonomy of learning. Comment in the form of informative posts—questions, expansions and exchanges—over assumptions and conclusions. Not all concepts are as useful or easy to understand and apply as others, and not everyone will see things as you do. Thus, everyone can benefit from your contributions.
This type of dialogue limits contributions from five to 10 posts of less than 201 words each to help tighten your writing and to help your readers spend no more time than necessary considering your thoughts. You should post at least five times per forum. Each post counts, so be careful to use them wisely. Reply as a springboard to move deeper into the forum concepts and applications.
Keep in mind that these forums are not for posting assignments, but a professional dialogue among group members. It is important to interrogate and probe the contributions of other participants. Seek clarification and, when appropriate, challenge the point of another student, but do not be confrontational. If you understand and agree with the contribution of another then there is no need to respond to it.
Threaded dialogue substitutes for in-class verbal contributions. Equate this dialogue type with a four hour in-class discussion. Those who participate during the whole time will receive higher grades than those who exit soon after the discussion begins or those who enter at the end of the "class time" to add a few comments. In addition, no messages posted after the closing date will be considered in the grade for any reason. A group is free, however, to continue using a forum if you wish.
The professors will use a combination of objective and subjective measures to grade the dialogue. Since it represents in-class discussion, it is important to enter the dialogue early and engage with each other and the professors on an on-going basis. Fully support your statements. Remember that scholarship is interested in supported conclusions not personal opinions. Also, it is important to build on what others post. Thus, part of the evaluation will be a measure of how well you tie your post to that of other students. Measures include:
- Regularity - posts occur evenly distributed throughout the open forum period
- Frequency - five to ten posted messages within the open forum period
- Brevity - less than 201 words per message
- Application - apply organizational concepts and separate personal opinion from researched ideas
- Comprehension - demonstrate comprehension of the assigned material
- Research - include material beyond the assigned readings
- Identification - identify causes to organizational leadership issues
- Bloom's Taxonomy - how well the post covers all the categories of knowing, comprehending, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating
- Extension - move deeper into concepts and applications based upon what others contribute to the forum
- Inquiry - question, challenge and probe the contributions of others without being argumentative
Position-Reaction-Response
Opening declarations in new threads on a topic relevant to this forum style are called points. (As in, "You make a good point.") A useful critique of a point is called a counterpoint (sometimes a rejoinder or a peer review). A reply to a counterpoint message in the thread it called a response (sometimes a counter-rejoinder or a follow-up).
In this type of forum make your points sufficiently provocative to elicit counterpoints from others. You want what you write to impact people enough so they will consider and engage it actively with counterpoints. If what you write does not provoke reactions from others you will lack opportunities to further and refine your position. Additionally, reply to a counterpoint only if you are the author of the original point. Open the message you want to reply to so the flow of threaded messages is easy for everyone to understand.
Competition is detrimental to organizations |
Reaction to Paul |
Response to Lydia |
Reaction to Paul |
Toward a stewardship theory of leadership |
Not only executives can enact stewardship |
The distinctiveness of agency theory |
Agents as stewards |
Students should expect to post five messages per forum of this type: one opening point of 150 to 200 words, two counterpoints of 100 to 200 words each and two responses of 100 to 150 words each. Be succinct, and not repetitive with what others have written. Brevity and originality improve dialogue. Use Bloom's cognitive and affective taxonomies to advance your conversation. Contribute evenly across the forum duration. Details of points, counterpoints, and responses are expanded below.
Position
Professional positions are critical appraisals of ideas and should be written that way. This allows presenters to communicate their understandings to others directly. When you write, evaluate what previous authors on the topic meant. Does your piece start with a succinct issue, problem or question? Do you resolve it? Is your foundation sound? Is it supported by what is published? Are you consistent? If you are, so what? If not, what is missing? What would improve your communication?
It is important to examine and probe the ideas of others. Ideas have consequences (Miller, 1993; Weaver, 1948). Ascribe value to challenging ideas as a means to clarification when appropriate, but do not challenge as an end to itself. As in all professional dialogue, if you understand and agree with an idea then there is no need to make a declaration about it.
Reaction
Students are to post their original work and to constructively critique the work of their peers in return. Write with the purpose of having others critically engage your writing. A Biblical worldview helps direct humanity forward intentionally.
Poor criticism of your peers' contributions harms both them and the community of professionals by prophetically biasing a possible great result—to something significantly less. Troubling your colleagues through honest dialogue is good. It can improve their life. Accept any tears from related troubles as waters that might heal you (John 5:1-8, NIV). Nothing compares to the help of a friend who is wounded in the same struggle you are.
For some blatant proof-texting consider:
Proverbs 27:6 (NIV) - Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
Zechariah 13:6 (NIV) - If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'
It is to people who won't engage that professionals need caution:
Psalm 38:11 (NIV) - My friends and companions avoid me because of my wounds; my neighbors stay far away.
Original replies to messages are useful critiques of each other's posted work. Redundant (repetitive) ones are not. Give due consideration to polite professionals norms. The focus of a reaction (peer review) is to increase group understanding through pointing out content flaws, unconvincing logic or failed communication.
Professionals both give and receive critiques expectantly. A rule of thumb is to critique two contributions by others for each one you submit to any forum. The more an individual politely engages the process of critiquing ideas with others the more likely others will engage that individual in return.
Response
Responses are a form of rebuttal. Some peer reviews warrant feedback by the author of the original position. (Note: the author of the original position and not someone else.) This could be appropriate if the reaction is unpersuasive or unclear. As well, learn not to respond on behalf of competent others: Do not take up an offense for them.
In other instances, an appropriate response to criticism involves communicating a better message at another time. Do not believe your writing is beyond improvement. If people score a victory with their criticism, accept it graciously. Use constructive criticisms of your writing as opportunities to improve relationships with the members of your professional community. Likely these are the few people who best understand your frustrations.
Guidelines and advice for Writers' Village university workshops (R. J. Hembree)
Open Forum
Use of this style of dialogue depends upon the contributor's understandings of the readings and personal experiences to contribute well. Open forum can be used easily to address more personal and applied questions when relating theory to practice. Because of this, the open forum style of dialogue can be misleading initially to participants. Do not confuse kindness for weakness.
There are no length requirements for an open forum dialogue. However, significant contributions are required by each group member throughout the time the forum is open. Writing in an open forum style allows for thoughtful iteration of back-and-forth conversations which can lead to comprehensive understandings of the topical area. Participants need to assume responsibility for professional, appropriate and timely contributions.
The ability to discuss leadership topics and their relevance to organizations through a Biblical worldview in a Christ-like manner is an important concern of open dialogue. It targets central issues of the different levels of analysis. Open forum provides opportunities for emotion and self-reflection to become equally relevant to theory and practice. The professors will provide questions to guide the dialogue or assign students to do so.
Students are to post messages to current forums according to the specific instructions of each course. Word lengths exclude reference lists at the bottom of messages. This structure is designed to help order your thinking.
Each forum topic will remain open for a set time period to balance workloads and encourage concise writing with the minimum time commitment. Student dialogue contributions submitted within the posted period for the respective forum will be considered for grading. Instructors will not assess early or late interaction. Students will be assessed higher if they participate throughout the allotted time of a forum according to the current guidelines than if they engage in a less evenly distributed manner. Think of dialogue as in-class participation toward your doctoral contributions.
Minimize the number of words you use. People read electronic media about 25 percent slower than paper. The result is that 79 percent of people scan online content. Put one idea per paragraph, and state that idea in the first sentence (Nielson, 1997).
Do not attach files to course dialogues unless specifically directed to do so for a forum. Attachments complicate the rapid exchange of ideas. If what you want to convey requires an attachment it might be too exhaustive. Save that for a different time and place.
All sources cited in a dialogue message apart from other participants must be listed in references at the end of the message. All references listed at the end of a message must be cited in the message. Credit your peers by name in the body of messages without formal citations. Dialogue is a conversation between people who are learning together.
Because Regent attempts to comport itself with a Biblical worldview, students are discouraged from seeking understanding through "devil's advocacy." Christian theology maintains the devil requires no advocate, that his advocacy is slanderous (Elwell, 1996), accusatory (Revelation 12:9, NIV) and deceptive (2 Corinthians 11:14, NIV); that he masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14, NIV); and that he is condemned (John 16:11, NIV). As such, consider devil's advocacy antithetical to Christ's advocacy.
Do not use the scholarly forums for offside conversations, prayer concerns, life issues, contextualizing events or process matters. Mediate these in a "student lounge" forum, email or other channel. If you have a concern then ask it as early in the dialogue process as possible.
Develop skill at posing complete thoughts succinctly. It is inappropriate to publish an idea across multiple messages. The word limits are purposeful. Speakers receive limited amounts of much time to address their audiences. Editors anticipate good writers will adhere to author's guidelines. This is a competency to groom.
In addition to learning about the forum topics, note how others respond to the messages. Observe the extent to which posted thoughts succeed or fail at increasing understanding. Examine your own posted messages to determine how to compose increasingly clear, succinct messages. Your writing and presentation should improve as your appreciation of how others perceive your contributions increases.
Timeliness is important. For example, an innovative idea that was enacted by someone else four days earlier is likely a good opportunity lost to you in the current forum. Rare instances of similar replies submitted within several minutes of each other are not significant matters, however.
Many people draft their messages in a word processor to use composition tools like online dictionaries, thesauri, spell check and possibly a grammar checker to identify use of passive voice. Then they save a personal copy of the message to their computer. Finally, they paste their work into Blackboard. This can help overcome certain potential technical constraints.
When people log into Blackboard the system keeps track of how much time elapses since their last page was displayed as a means to identify inactive users. Composing a message to post in Blackboard does not require changing pages and therefore does not update Blackboard's timing data. So, if someone composes in Blackboard beyond the allotted time limit the system will automatically log them off without notice—and their composition could be lost. It is a good thing that the Blackboard server logs off inactive users so that others can have improved access. It is not good to lose your work unwittingly. Saving personal work regularly is a responsible self-leadership habit to maintain.
Timeouts can also relate to a participant's Internet Service Provider (ISP). Some ISPs monitor interactions between a user's computer and the Internet to allocate available "space" (bandwidth) to active users. Such issues have nothing to do with Blackboard or Regent University. There are several options available if this negatively impacts you. You might configure your email program to check for new messages every few minutes, stream Internet radio or run a program made specifically to keep your ISP connection "alive" (connected). Contact your service provider if this matter effects you.
Beyond that, follow sage advice: Leaders read a lot. Reading will help your writing. Read critically. Discover how one author communicates more effectively than another. The links below include other insights on writing scholarly dialogue well.
How to write good (LaughWeb, 1997)
Guide to grammar and style (Jack Lynch)
Grammar links (NIU English Department)
Conciseness: Methods of eliminating wordiness (Purdue University Online Writing Lab)
Elwell, W. A., (Ed.). (1996). Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Retrieved April 6, 2002 from http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi
Miller, D. (1993, August). Worldview & development: Breaking the web of lies. Retrieved April 6, 2002
Nielson, J. (1997, October 1). How users read on the web. Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, 1997 , October 1. Retrieved April 6, 2002
Weaver R. M. (1948). Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226876802.
