6.4 Perspectives task For the perspectives task, the topic given was that “the land-use in this area reflects poor planning and not enough investment in meeting the true needs of residents”. In their exchange of views, the eight adolescents sent photographs to each other as picture-messages, as evidence of their respective stands. Given that the topic had deliberately been left open to interpretation, it was difficult to predict what kinds of evidence the students would use to support their respective points-of-view. As things turned out, the themes which the students deemed relevant to the discussion were first the intensity of land-use (as exemplified by the extent of multistorey buildings and multi-use areas), and the accessibility of functions to residents (not only spatially but temporally). Of special interest is that one particular photograph was used four times by three different pairs of students during the perspectives task as illustrative of differing points of view. Figure 29 was first used at time index 1447 by Siti and Hashwin as evidence of easy access for residents to retail functions; then at time index 1452 by Samuel and Leonard and at time index 1456 by Melody and Violet for similar reasons; and finally at time index 1502 by Samuel and Leonard again, but this time as evidence that the retail functions are dominated by the larger franchises. Again, this is a timely reminder to all instructional designers that photographs and other sources of information are open to multiple interpretations depending on what the learners themselves bring to the table. 
In terms of the model of practical inquiry (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2001) which was developed to analyse the discourse modes generated by computer-mediated communication, 51 percent of the messaging exchange during the perspectives task for this team could be categorised as ‘exploration’ (for example, “Ds is a multistory crprk.It serves s a facility 4 residnts 2 park dier vehicles wn nt in use..” at time index 1425), 38 percent as ‘integration’ (for example, “There shud be a temporary walk path for residen s for their safety. Tis show poor planning as it doesn’t take into consideration of the residents safety” at time index 1501) and 11 percent as ‘resolution’ (for example, “To a certain extent, there are some parts that are poorly plan for eg the construction area and the state land filed which can be use for the benefit of the residents. Nevertheless jurong east is well-planned and th land is wisely use for eg the supermarket and mrt and bus interchange.” at time index 1518). 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’.
As for the ‘resolution’ phase, the tentative consensus that the team arrived at was that to a moderate extent the needs of the residents have been met in Jurong East. Room for improvement would mainly be in the form of developing the as yet vacant pieces of land (without causing too much noise- and air-pollution) and catering yet further to the needs of pedestrians. Of the three case studies presented, this team of eight had the highest proportion of messages exchanged under the ‘resolution’ phase. This meant that during the peer critique session, it was clear to their classmates that there was a sense of closure to their discussion. Therefore, the comments on the post-it notes were all complimentary, typical comments being “very good” and “well done”.
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 had put a good degree of thought and effort into their overall argument. Comments from the peer review included “shows a good level of understanding of the topic”, “points mentioned were of good relevance to the argument, with valid ones being made” and “some effort shown in depth of research”.
<- 6.3 Cognitive maps -> 6.5 Summative discussion | 
