When we teach something to someone — we are in fact learning what the other person is teaching us. And so teaching is learning. This is the simple equivalence that the value of our interactions can establish. What we are talking about and why we are talking about it doesn’t matter as much as how we are talking about it? The ‘how’ becomes the defining factor here as it directs the flow of all the actions performed. Only one thing matters more than this definition of ‘how’ and that is the time that is available to plan for it.

The time that you assign for projects and the approach you adopt in structuring this time to perform steps to complete the project differentiates your practice from anybody else’s.

This time and our approach to it becomes the story of what we are known for. And this story represents what we have been able to learn about the time we live in and from the people that we interact with. Every conversation that we are a part of involves some amount of both learning and teaching on our part. The quality of the concluding discussion that we have will depend on the kind of learning and teaching that we can perform. When it is our turn to listen, we are learning what our partner in conversation wants to converse about. When it is our turn to speak, we are attempting to teach our partner in dialogue what it is that we want to talk about and whether there is any possibility of commonality in each of our interests.

Because conversations involve such an exchange, all teaching and learning experiences basically ought to be healthy conversations. At Storyflock, when we design new e-learning experiences from this desire of wanting to engage in interactions.

The word conversation is already describing a particular quality of engagement. An engagement that is open, triggered by curiosity and prepared to participate in an exchange. A commitment in which both participants are equally motivated to draw insight