|
1st
message - Message number 4 was published with the following question:
Apply the three elements method that determines the function of a character
to try to explain why we observe phalange reduction. The professor's question
requested memory retrieval of the method (presented in a face-to-face
lecture) to guide reasoning upon a specific unsolved evolutionary dilemma.
2nd
message - Message number 7 was written by student A without making use
of the threaded feature. He/she opened a new tree (nobody continued it
later). The student retrieved correctly the method, and built an argument
with three meaning implications, one related to the other. The first two
were the premises. They led to a third premise and a general conclusion.
They were all chained to each other, and linked to the question posed
in Message number 4. Student A defended the idea that reduction of phalanges
occurred either due to locomotion of mammals during long periods or due
to increase of speed. The professor considered the quality of argumentation
reasonable (mark: ½).
3rd
message - Message number 8 was written by student B without making use
of the threaded feature. It was explicitly built upon message number 7.
Student B seems to agree with the three elements method presented by student
A, but, in fact, she/he changes two elements and contests the third. By
doing this, student B contests the whole argumentation of Student A. Student
B reasons that, on the contrary, the reduction of phalanges allowed mobility,
and that bigger mammals had the tendency to have fewer and not more phalanges.
The refutation was marked "1" by the professor.
4th
message - Message number 20 was written by student C without making use
of the threaded feature. It was explicitly built upon message 7 by Student
A and message 8 by student B. Student C agrees with the method presented
by student A, and tries to refute student's B argument. The argument gets
a negative written comment from the professor. The professor writes that
Student C is just repeating what he/she said in her/his lecture: reduction
of the number of phalanges would be due to an evolutionary agreement between
solidity and flexibility. Student's C refutation is inconsistent because
(1) some conclusions just confirm Student's B hypothesis (that C tries
to dismantle) concerning the reduced number of phalanges in mammals like
the cow, and (2) C asserted that it would be logical that human beings
should have more phalanges than cows because of the use of hands. The
professor writes another negative comment concerning this statement because
the number of phalanges is stable across species, and marks ¼ for
the contribution.
5th
message - Message number 37 was written by student B without making use
of the threaded feature. It contests assumptions of message number 20.
The answer starts with an attempt to build upon the plausibility of Student's
C hypothesis. Nonetheless, the hypothesis is contested. Student B adds
that to discuss the number of phalanges the number of fingers and toes
should also be discussed. In what we consider evidence of conceptual change,
Student B says that C was induced by his/her own error because she/he
had followed his/her line of thought: B's previous contribution (message
number 8), marked "1" by the professor, had an aside pointing
out exactly this error, considered by her/him misinterpretation of the
evidence. Student B suggests the need of an inter-species observation,
inter-fingers / inter-toes observation, and comparison between hands and
feet. The professor marked ½.
6th
Message - Message number 47, written by student D, is a threaded answer
to message 37. Student D clarifies student B's doubt about the similarity
of the number of phalanges of hands and feet by pointing out their different
use. D argued that the reduction could be found in all mammals, although
there were exceptions in the organization (cows and horses among others).
This organization would correspond to an evolutionary agreement that would
bring efficacy to the use of hands by mammals. Because mammals are young
in evolutionary terms, timing was not enough for those characters to develop,
reasons student D. The professor marked "1".
2.4 Summarizing
results
The meaning implication
analysis shows that hypotheses were built upon not-plausible hypotheses
formulated in previous messages in both messages marked "1".
The plausibility indicates high order reasoning because the students who
wrote those messages were able to come up with hypotheses to solve the
ill-defined problems that were pertinent to the topic. They considered
(1) the premises (evolutionary facts guiding reasoning) and (2) the possible
conclusions (inventory of reasons to explain the facts: the features of
the mammals). In addition, message number four indicates a process of
conceptual change in which student B realized that her/his own previous
message was based upon a misinterpretation of the evidence (highlighted
by the professor in a comment) and he/she decided to re-build his/her
own argument. Student B accommodated her/his own learning by changing
the previous conceptualization of the problem. The fact that his/her last
message was marked ½ does not change the fact that conceptual change
occurred. The analysis clearly indicates that knowledge building was achieved
through collaboration.
2.5 Implications
2.5.1 Course
Design
The study suggests that the teaching strategy, the Socratic maieutic,
might be strongly related to the results. The importance of interrogation
in educational processes is common sense. For Socrates, interrogation
was a teaching method (Mondolfo, 1972) through which problems about the
empirical world could be responded to inductively (Jaeger, 1987). The
professor posed questions to the students; they reflected upon the answers
provided, and explanatory arguments were built and communicated both in
the hypermedia conferences and in face-to-face encounters. Questions were
challenging, and are still to be answered by evolutionary biology. This
aspect seemed specifically attractive for the students because, as novices,
they were given opportunities to exercise their own sense of how to apply
background knowledge to scientific dilemmas, to solve actual, ill-defined
scientific problems, and to provide a contribution to the discipline.
The success of the strategy suggests that maieutic questioning is an appropriate
teaching method for exploring scientific dilemmas.
2.5.2 Conferencing
systems design
An attentive analysis of the chain of thoughts shows that the agreement
of built-in threads and meanings does not emerge by itself in hypermedia
conversation. Our analysis of the way the students linked their chain
of thoughts shows clearly that the threading feature is neither necessary
nor sufficient for knowledge building through collaboration. This finding
is consistent with previous studies (Campos, 1998) and is a strong indicator
that hypermedia conferencing systems still need further development and
increased flexibility. Their underlying formal structure should be adapted
to the way we use natural language to mold our symbol systems and assimilate
the ideas of others, and thereby construct knowledge. The architecture
of conferencing systems can be enhanced if it were created to mirror more
closely the functioning of our neural systems. A reply-to-many feature
could be a first step to allow more interaction (Campos, 1998). An interactive
helping tool might be another important feature to guide participants
in the use of threads. An example of such a tool is a set of pop-up menus
that respond to each action of the user with questions about what he or
she wants to do in the conferencing system. The possible answers would
be represented as a number of links among which the user might choose
one, leading to a place in the system in which the user could satisfy
his or her needs.
3 Conclusion
The meaning implication
analysis shows how conditional reasoning governed the inferences students
made upon the contribution of their peers. In addition, the way the students
built their chain of thoughts shows clearly that the threading feature,
as it is today, is neither necessary nor sufficient for meaning linking.
Furthermore, the study suggests that the Socratic maieutic, as a teaching
strategy, might be strongly related to the results.
Thus, we suggest that
when students are free to take charge of their own learning processes
without any of the award systems found in pedagogical behaviorism, collaborative
knowledge building is achieved. The fact that the professor did not participate
at all in the discussion is additional indication of the inner learning
possibilities of hypermedia conferencing. In addition, it seems that the
mixed-mode opportunities enriched students' social interaction and learning
(Laferrière, Breuleux, & Campos, 1999). The teaching and the
learning processes of this mixed-mode course seem to show that when proper
teaching strategies are present, knowledge building and collaboration
are achieved (Campos, & Harasim, 1999).
|
|
External
links to the maker of Virtual-U software: 