[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fixed ideas and polarization

> news.  Is the nature of the discussion to be based on the news items
> (stories) (as planned), or on the nature of argumentation (as occurred)?    (01)

Both, imho. I think there are things to be learnt by 'going meta' on both
E.g. I actually learnt a lot from trying to figure out what the stance of a
certain argumentative individual was.    (02)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Fixed ideas and polarization    (03)

> At 03:14 PM 9/12/02 -0700, Gary Johnson, in a discussion with Peter Jones
> wrote:
> ><massive snippage/>
> >What I do propose, however, is that we study the nature of the problems
> >whose solution we hope to facilitate, and to use that analysis to affect the
> >nature of the tools we build. In this case, that we look toward augmenting
> >individual capability as a necessary precondition to augmenting group
> >capability.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
> I've been reading from the book _Electronic Collaborators: learner-Centered
> Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse_ edited by Curtis
> Jay Bonk and Kira S. King.  On page 58, a chapter on critical thinking
> authored by Thomas M. Duffy, Bill Dueber, and Chandra L. Hawley, the
> discussion begins to focus on points that I think to be appropriate to
> Gary's comment above, augmenting individual capability.
> I'll quote snippets from those points here, and note that they lend some
> level of support to the notions of "augmented story telling" that I have
> been exploring of late.  These authors speak to the need for two different
> spaces, one for story telling, where people just want to get heard, and one
> for argumentation, issue-based discussion.
> "The foundation of group work, we propose, is conversation: We talk to each
> other to explore issues and seek common ground. Conversation is the general
> discussion between team members in which there is assessment of the group
> knowledge base and perspectives relevant to the problem. It is primarily
> "me"-centered, featuring a lot of "Here is what I think" types of comments
> made in response to an issue presented."
> "Educators have typically eschewed this type of conversation among
> students. Students are criticized for talking past each other and for not
> systematically analyzing the issue. ...we want to argue that this sort of
> exploratory posturing is a necessary part of the collaborative
> problem-solving process."
> "In contrast to conversation, issue-based discussion is focussed on moving
> to the development of the recommended solution or plan. Unlike the temporal
> flow of a conversation, the issue-based discussion is organized around
> important issues."
> "For all the reasons already discussed, we believe that a system to support
> critical thinking and inquiry must support both the conversation and the
> issue-based discussion. Furthermore, we think that there is a need to link
> the two types of discussion so participants can review the context from
> which the issues arose and move back and forth between the issue discussion
> and the conversation."
> Leaving the quotes, I would argue that email lists such as this and the
> unrev list, are, and seem to behave as though they are best suited for
> conversation. These lists bring out the best in those of us who are
> logical, and in those of us who have firm, rigid ideas of truth, and in
> those who aren't sure which way to go.  I think Peter and I proved that you
> cannot start an IBIS discussion here. People who join this list want to be
> heard, not herded.
> So, consider it Park's conjecture that if we are going to help the
> individual do better, we must provide the individual with those tools which
> facilitate opportunities to do better (whatever that may mean).
> I think that purple numbers in emails (say, automatically appended when
> they are posted and before distribution) which are URLs to some "home page"
> where an IBIS discussion can occur, make sense.  That, of course, is the
> nature of the NexistWiki experiment, but it could just as easily be done by
> way of enhancements to email technology.
> I might add that the real work lies, I think, in the study of the problems
> to be solved. I think that the nature of that beast needs to be examined,
> and soon. I'll cite the example going on over at unrev where a simple post
> of some news on one subject brought out strong opinions on the subject
> which eventually mutated into personal attacks on those who post the
> news.  Is the nature of the discussion to be based on the news items
> (stories) (as planned), or on the nature of argumentation (as occurred)?
> My 0.009 EUROs for the day.
> Cheers
> Jack
>    (04)