I’m taking on this line of inquiry as part of PBL07’s investigation relate to the Open Learning topic.
The card I chose from the kanban is headed:
Intentional coffee breaks can foster very open discussions since there is no agenda.
e.g. like a maker space; Lego Serious Play
This was an annotation, or pull quote, related to this recommended blog post by Kiruthika Ragupathi, an academic developer at the National University of Singapore:
Being Open: Drawing parallels from the Coffee House model
https://kiruthikaragu.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/being-open
Video: Mike Myres et al., Coffee Talk, Saturday Night Live (SNL); 26mins.
My Investigation:
The Coffee House model is a synchronous learning approach. It involves – simply – creating intentional space/time for open, agenda-free discussion/making. There are different modalities that can be combined in different ways (not/talking; on/offline).
This is a form of openness that can manifest on or offline equally (or both).
To illustrate, I will split them into not/talking:
Talking
Conversation Café – classic Coffee House model. On and Offline.
Stitch n Bitch – knitting based chat. On and Offline.
Jukebox/Wired for Sound – each participant adds one track to a music playlist; it plays in the background. Bit like ByOB – Bring your own Beamer – to project a short video. On and Offline.
Agora – an agora with stalls – e.g. Critical Practice at Chelsea College of Art & Design, UAL, London. Offline.
Market/Fair – more or less the same as the agora e.g. Medieval Fair during the Annual Medieval Conference, Leeds University, England. Offline (unless in Minecraft, which has happened!)
Walkie Talkie – going for a walk while talking (either together or via VoIP / phone call). Different to sitting across from each other to talk. Also healthier. Offline but possibly augmented.
Lego Serious Play – working with Lego to develop ideas. Offline.
Down the Pub – Scots version of the Coffee House model, but with alcohol instead of coffee. Offline although became online only in lockdown. https://medium.com/@masaya.mori/features-and-tips-for-hosting-an-online-drinking-party-91557f9c6013
Pickpocket Almanac – a list of live events (on and offline) that a group attend. They will see each other at the events. The can also arrange to meet up additionally to discuss what they saw (somewhat like a book club). Online and offline.
Silent
#studywithme was a phenomenon during lockdown. Learners found study buddies and sat, quietly, working at their computers in sync while on VoIP. Creates the atmosphere of the library (rather than of the Coffee Shop). It can happen offline of course. Simply by creating a structured time in the day/week for this to happen is simple enough. Drop-in approach.
Writing Retreats; often for staff and PhD students. Blocks of time set aside to meet in one place and silently spend time writing. Mainly offline.
Silent Crits; not 100% silent. The person presenting their work/poster is not allowed to speak; everyone else can and does speak, giving feedback on what the silent presenter has done. Mainly offline but can be online too.
Advantages, or in what ways might this be ‘open’?
Many of the advantages are what Anecdotal Theory attempts to develop.
The advantages are also what Performative Pedagogy would tend to focus on.
Disadvantages, or in what ways might this be ‘closed’?
This is a Kinship model of learning; the emphasis on kinship can make structural inequalities greater. e.g. it leads to favouritism, generates gift-debt bond obligations, etc.
Lack of ‘reporting system’ can actually generate opacity rather than an open approach. i.e. such conversations happen without trackable (minuted) accountability. This is the nature of “cawfee tawk” of course (See: Mike Myres et al., Coffee Talk, Saturday Night Live). It can’t (shouldn’t) be minuted or recorded. But, since it’s not, its voices are not (democratically) accountable. If we equate openness with democratic accountability, then “cawfee tawk” is, potentially, undemocratic.
There’s an underlying assumption in the model that learning is foremost dialogual – this isn’t true!
Ableist assumptions underwrite the Coffee House model regarding interpersonal interaction. This doesn’t stop to take account of neurological disabilities, specifically deafness, ASD and ADHD, that make it really difficult to talk to more than one person / cope with noise.
We also (obviously) need to consider who can and can’t take part in something that is, essentially, synchronous (automatically excluded if we can’t make the time set).
Linguistic assumptions underwrite the Coffee House model; the dominant language used will enable those that speak that dominant language and disadvantage those who do not.
What else is at play here?
Putting the closed/disadvantages to one side, Coffee House models are underwritten by the need to create unstructured temporary autonomous zones (TAZ) within what otherwise might be a heavily timetabled curriculum. Timetabling an unstructured agenda-free TAZ might not need to happen curricula were more porous and less constrained by linear time. This is a chronopolitical issue – one that arises from the need to synchronise learning. If we remove the assumption that we must synchronise learning, do we remove the need for such structured TAZs?
The Coffee House model perhaps assumes that the curriculum is always constrained by the passing of linear time (in standardised blocks of 600 hours in the EHEA!). However, many curricula are forms of anti-curriculum – they are inherently unstructured (e.g. art, many PhDs). In such cases, the formal learning programme is The Coffee House model. The need for an alternate, more heavily structured becomes apparent in such cases (too much Coffee House model = too open-ended)?
