Since students have been in school they have been taught to seek an adult to work out problems. As they grow, they tend to observe adults and model their methods. If they see results (the results they are looking for) they will likely adopt a behavior and call it their own. This presents many problems as it does benefits. What works in the home is not necessarily democratic enough when in school. In fact, it may have no components for fairness or the golden rule.
The first taught lessons tend to be the lessons of listening. Teachers teach the littlest of students that they must “listen” to learn and understand what is being said and what is required. Active listening is the hallmark of many of the social sciences and is the bedrock to communication. If we don’t hear what others are saying, we likely will not answer the question or provide the desired results.
Technology has communication running at a very high speed. In order to absorb this communication many times it is “cropped” or winnowed to the chunks that were heard and then a reply is submitted based on the little that was netted from the exchange. Many times we answer well before the complete thought is relayed or developed. This lends itself to a corrupted message.
This speed also impedes our ability to transfer information. With the same effort to hear and respond, we tend to transfer at such a high rate that our words and ideas may not come together to form the desired message. We know what we want deep in the recesses of our minds, but that doesn’t mean it has been effectively communicated. When I talk to my brothers, we share many of the same ideas. In fact, we know each other so well, that we many times finish each other’s thoughts or sentences. This is not necessarily good. Sometimes we are not on the same page or in the same state of mind and it leads to problems.
So, taking a snap shot of our “learning how” to communicate as we advance through school, we find that we digress to the mode that seems to suit us best, whether it is of conventional or improvised methods. Everyone is subject to this circumstance and some are better at communicating than others; while some really cannot claim to communicate at all. It would seem that the more primitive our means of communication (physical vs. verbal), the more likely misunderstanding and disagreements result. Worse yet, when those who have not found favorable results in the exchange of ideas, wants and needs, are left to work out a potential problem, they are not likely to devote the time needed to reach an agreement, not realizing the time it may take to achieve the desired outcome.
That said, conferencing opens a door to the timing, questions, respectful exchange, equal time, open architecture and the listening required for a beneficial conversation with powerful results. The setting allows the time needed for the development of ideas, the exploration of feeling, affect and deeper needs that open the door for negotiation and problem solving. It may be the one of the few times a student sees a process that addresses everyone’s concern and accommodation. This is powerful and it is a healthy benefit of the conferencing process.