5.2.4 Perspectives task

The same topic was given to this team for the perspectives task as had been presented to the team described in Case One – namely, that “the land-use around Little Guilin does not encourage protection of its scenic beauty over the long-term”.  In their exchange of views, the eight adolescents sent photographs to each other as picture-messages, as evidence of their respective stands.  Given the fairly explicit link between the topic and the larger theme of environmental conservation, it was not surprising that the subject matter of the photographs which the students chose to capture and share, reflected this as well. 

In terms of the model of practical inquiry (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2001) which was developed to analyze the discourse modes generated by computer-mediated communication, 48 percent of the messaging exchange during the perspectives task for this team could be categorized as ‘exploration’ (for example, “There are some dustbins around the little guilin 2 prevent ppl littering 2 the area” at time index 1525), 42 percent as ‘integration’ (for example, “Most things like dustbins or rocks are done by children or teenagers or maybe young adults!  This shows that they do not treasure such nature surroundings” at time index 1600) and 10 percent as ‘resolution’ (for example, “Now the concensus.. The place may seem to be protecting the scenic beauty like dustbins n signs.. However more litter n vandalism are found which may be unpleasant.. So it does nt encourage the beauty” at time index 1611).  When compared with other studies (Garrison et al, 2001 and Fahy, 2002), these proportions are favouable and indicate that the Structured Academic Controversy format would seem to promote a greater degree of ‘integration’, as opposed to merely ‘exploration’.

In their explorations of the neighbourhood and subsequent sharing of their various points-of-view during the perspectives task, the team remarked upon the issue of pollution in the area.  This mirrors the stand taken by the group of students featured in Case One.  However, unlike that earlier group of students, this team did not mention the role of public education as a long-term solution to the problem of pollution.  Instead, they saw the evidence of littering and vandalism as indicative of a general apathy among residents, who were perceived to be ignoring the presence of the waste-bins and the signages which encouraged the public not to litter or fish.  This view was evident both in the tentative-consensus-building phase of the messaging exchange, as well as in the consensus which they decided upon for the presentation session (the relevant slides of which are reproduced in Figure 19).

These points were picked up again during the peer critique session, with two post-it notes in particular highlighting the slightly less sophisticated and generalised nature of this team’s logical reasoning.  On the first was written, “The sight of many trees and nature-based stuff do not always protect the scenic beauty.  If you do not agree, how do you explain the litter?”.  On the second was, “It’s an insult to say youngsters are not interested in nature when our CIP [Community Involvement Programme] is on cleaning beaches and mangrove swamps.”

A review, conducted by a disinterested peer (a geography teacher), of the PowerPoint files produced by the team for use in the presentation session, corroborated the view that the team could have done more to construct a more balanced and rigorous argument.  Comments from the peer review included “shows a superficial level of understanding of the topic”, “points mentioned were of some relevance to the argument, with only a few truly valid ones being made” and “depth of research was superficial”.

<- 5.2.3 Cognitive maps          -> 5.3 Summative discussion