RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Fixed ideas and polarization
Jack,
I readily accept the idea that both conversational and issue based
collaboration is needed.
There has been a lot of work done on the use of stories to capture and
convey knowledge.
In the development of systems (software, social, etc.) stories about the
problem space provide something akin to "use cases" They are anecdotal
rather than formal, but a proper story can provide context in which to
appreciate the challenges and benefits that the evolving system is to
address.
What is needed in terms of augmentation is a way of getting at the history
in the form of the stories when it comes time to work on the issues. Since
we no longer spend years teaching the stories to all involved, we come back
to the sorts of tools we are discussing.
When it comes time to do issues based work, I need something better than
"remember the story Jack told us about the researchers who said we need both
conversational and issue based collaboration" and hope that it communicates
enough information to be worthwhile. I need to be able to retrieve the
relevant stories, study them together and in combinations, see what sorts of
benefits and issues they describe, and then reference them as rationale for
the requirements, constraints, features, etc that become the basis of the
issue-based discussion.
Very good points (01)
Thanks, (02)
Garold (Gary) L. Johnson (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Park
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. (04)
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. (05)
"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." (06)
"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." (07)
"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." (08)
"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." (09)
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. (010)
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). (011)
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. (012)
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)? (013)
My 0.009 EUROs for the day.
Cheers
Jack (014)