Conditional Reasoning: A Key to Assessing Computer- based
Knowledge-building Communication Processes
Milton Campos
(São Paulo State University, Brazil; Simon Fraser University,
Canada
campos@bauru.unesp.br; mncampos@sfu.ca)
Abstract: This article describes a methodological approach to
conditional reasoning in online asynchronous learning environments such
as Virtual-U VGroups, developed by SFU, BC, Canada, consistent with the
notion of meaning implication: If part of a meaning C is embedded in B
and a part of a meaning B is embedded in A, then A implies C in terms of
meaning [Piaget 91]. A new transcript analysis technique
was developed to assess the flows of conditional meaning implications and
to identify the occurrence of hypotheses and connections among them in
two human science graduate mixed-mode online courses offered in the summer/spring
session of 1997 by SFU. Flows of conditional meaning implications were
confronted with Virtual-U VGroups threads and results of the two courses
were compared. Findings suggest that Virtual-U VGroups is a knowledge-building
environment although the tree-like Virtual-U VGroups threads should be
transformed into neuronal-like threads. Findings also suggest that formulating
hypotheses together triggers a collaboratively problem-solving process
that scaffolds knowledge-building in asynchronous learning environments:
A pedagogical technique and an built-in tool for formulating hypotheses
together are proposed.
Key Words: knowledge-building, collaborative learning, transcript
analysis, conditional reasoning, meaning implication, Piagetian theory.
Category: K.3, K.3.1, K.3.2, K.3.m, J.4
1 Introduction
Conditional reasoning seems to be a key component of knowledge-building
communication processes established between learners in asynchronous learning
networks such as Virtual-U V-Groups. Virtual-U is one of the beacon technologies
developed by the Telelearning Network of Centres of Excellence. It was
created at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada, and is being
permanently implemented through the delivery of new versions.
With this approach, conditional reasoning is assessed by identifying
the flows of conditional meaning implications in online discourses. Different
from statements (which are written accounts of facts or beliefs recognized
as truths by the users), conditional sentences open the symbolic universes
of users' online discourse to the possible and the necessary. The possible
and the necessary are the raw material for creating novelties, formulating
hypotheses, thinking upon them, and problem solving. Conditional sentences
create online discourse situations in which the learners' collaboration
is promoted by challenging interpretations of facts and beliefs exposed
in statements and by looking for solutions for the problems posed by
the inconsistency and/or discordance of previously exposed facts and beliefs.
The flow of conditional meaning implications across online discourse,
assessed by transcribing users' dialogues, suggests that conditional reasoning
scaffolds the collaborative symbolic exchange of meanings. Conditional
reasoning also seems to be one of the most important scaffolds for knowledge-building
because it promotes the reorganization of the users' and groups' semiotic
configurations [Campos 96b].
2 Theoretical Foundations
Our methodological approach to computer-based knowledge-building communication
processes derives both from the Piagetian model of knowledge [Piaget
91] [Piaget 77a] [Piaget 76b]
[Piaget 76c] [Piaget 50] [Ramozzi-Chiarottino
97] [Ramozzi- Chiarottino 88] and Popper's conceptualization
of worlds 1, 2, and 3 [Popper 94].
According to the Piagetian model, inference results as the gist of the
process of cognition. Based on this model, we hypothesized that conditional
reasoning is at the core of learners' cognition processes. An appropriate
transcript analysis technique was thus developed in order to verify whether
conditionals were the link to reasoning. We considered the transcriptions
of computer mediated educational objects of knowledge, products of mental
processes [Popper 94].
2.1 Merging Piaget and Popper
In spite of the extraordinary contribution of Jean Piaget to science
and philosophy, his works did not directly address the problem of communication.
Communication is as central to understand the learning process as cognition.
Piaget's model of knowledge contributes to the understanding of the possibility
of knowledge acquisition but not to the understanding of knowledge itself.
The necessary organic constraints actualized by the various forms of inference
- deduction, causality, and meaning implication - [Ramozzi-Chiarottino
97] open the way to the possible in concrete action and also in representation.
Popper also did not directly address the problem of communication, but
his contribution to the understanding of the problem of objective and subjective
knowledge through his Three Worlds proposal allows the conceptualization
of objects of knowledge. According to Popper, World One is that of physical
objects and physical states; World Two is that of mental states, of mental
conscious experiences (related to the problem of the body-mind interaction);
and World Three is that of the products of the human mind, or theories
[Popper 94].
It could be argued that merging Piaget's and Popper's ideas is neither
easy nor straightforward. Indeed, Piaget and Popper dealt with different
subjects from different perspectives although both put biology at the center
of their works. The former was engaged with an ambitious proposition of
a scientific epistemology based on biology, in which virtual models from a radical interactionist viewpoint are
conceptualized to be verified through empirical research. The latter was
a critical rationalist [Kesselring 97]
mostly concerned
with the problem of truth and scientific knowledge. However, there is more
convergence than divergence between the thinkers.
The most remarkable difference seems to be Popper's late conversion
to Darwinism [Popper 87] and Piaget's insistent refusal
in accepting it completely. Piaget never explicitly accepted the realistic
viewpoint in the Genetic Epistemology [Kesselring 97].
Popper's acceptance of Mayr's idea of open behavioral programs shows that
he was aware that not all behaviors are programmed. Some of them are open,
i.e. when organisms - even driven by the necessary characteristic of genetic
constraints - have ways to deal with the possible posed by the challenges
of the external world.
Piaget also changed. His in media res initial understanding of
interaction (where exogenous and endogenous processes played equal roles
in adaptation in the search for equilibrium) was reformulated in the last
decades of his life to include the idea that some genetic processes were
completely pre-determined in terms of possibility, depending on the environment
to actualize them [Piaget 92].
We argue that working from the Piagetian virtual model of knowledge
by merging his and Popper's contributions to science and assessing the
actualization of the possibilities envisaged by evaluating concrete results
of produced knowledge is to advance communication theory to new perspectives.
2.2 Communication, ``Schematizations'', and Semiotic Configurations
The possibility of knowledge can only be achieved through and by communication.
Homo Sapiens, as a species, developed a specific way to interact
with the world. It is a symbolic interaction through language that inspired
Cassirer to call the human being a Homo Symbolicum instead of Homo
Rationale [Cassirer 94].
According to Piaget, this symbolic interaction is propitiated by a hypothetical
semiotic function that allows the constitution of a virtual world of representations
[Piaget 76a]. The semiotic function develops from
action and emerges when the child shows the capacity to speak, after having
achieved the permanence of the object [Piaget 77b].
Throughout her/his life, the child constructs the possibility of knowledge
through action, but mediated by language after the sensory-motor period.
The possibility of communication follows the same way: through actions
during the sensory-motor period and through natural language after its
achievement [Campos 96a]. Communication is a social
mechanism based upon organic constraints from which the human species became
able to evolve and upon which survival depends [Waddington
63].
Natural language is the raw material of communication. It follows some
rules in its use but although these rules are made possible due to previous
organic necessary constraints, natural language is essentially contingent - dealing with
referents instead of objects - and is related to the culture of the social
groups in which it is exercised.
Jean-Blaise Grize's formulation of the verbal communication process
is a fundamental and extraordinary advance if compared to most theories
of social communication because it departs from Piaget's Genetic Epistemology
adding the
unveiling of the working scheme of the relative independence
of the symbolic dimension of the human species.
From Grize's scheme it can be argued that knowledge is built into the
process of communication and that it is from this process that natural
language emerges producing the possibility of formulating notions, and
from notions, concepts. We can talk, thus, of notional and conceptual knowledge.
Concepts are signs related to definitions (axioms), and are well defined
objects of models. Conceptual knowledge is structural and scientific. Notions
are signs related to referents (cultural). Notional knowledge is fluid
and consensual. Notional knowledge is broader than conceptual as the second
results from the first when a person is engaged in the construction of
closed structures of well-defined objects. Conceptual knowledge is not
possible at all without notional knowledge. Nevertheless, conceptual knowledge
is built from natural language and needs natural language to formulate
it [Grize 90].
Piaget always pointed to the fact that conceptualization is a process
[Piaget 74]. Grize's contribution makes it possible
to amend Piaget by saying that conceptualization is a process of notion
refinement. From notions, different levels of concepts can be constructed
- from the weakest (as the concept of democracy in social sciences), to
the strongest (as the concept of triangle in geometry).
Grize understands verbal communication as a ``schematization'', a process
of building and rebuilding of notions formulated through natural language.
The idea of having senders and receivers loses its meaning in a ``schematization''
as the notional virtual space of a sender always implies the building of
an image of the receiver in such a way that the built notion makes possible
the rebuilding of it by the receiver because messages can only be understood
as communicated if and only if interpreted according to the working play
of the representational symbolic schemes of both.
This ever-changing process of symbolic exchange is made possible by
the mechanism of communication. It occurs in virtual spaces - or symbolic
places - in which participants build their verbal representations [Grize
90]. Grize's conceptualization can be applied to other communication
dimensions of knowledge through the notion of semiotic configurations [Campos
96b].
Semiotic configurations are ever changing notional virtual spaces built
and rebuilt by participants engaged in a communication process in which
not only the verbal dimension of human representation is exercised but
also the perceptual dimension. Both verbal and perceptual dimensions are
coordinated synchronically by cognition and emotions which have in their
core, in turn, the unique human ability to infer from virtual symbolic
representations as opposed to most other animal species which are also
able to infer but only causally from their actions. Elsewhere, we verified
the role of semiotic configurations in the evolution of the communication relationship
between the child and television through a longitudinal study in which
Brazilian children of various ages were clinically observed over a period
of almost three years [Campos 96a] [Campos
96b].
Semiotic configurations allow us not only to analyze communication processes
mediated by television but also those mediated by press, radio, movies,
and computers. Although it is not possible to access mental processes directly
(and that is why Piaget developed the clinical observation technique),
we argue that the content of media products such as newspapers, magazines,
movies, television programming and
transcriptions of computer-based communication
are objects of knowledge as they are concrete results of the dynamic play
of intersections of various semiotic configurations.
These objects of knowledge are an empirical actualization of those mental
processes in which semiotic configurations are permanently built and rebuilt,
expanding and shrinking, according to the person's lifetime since it is
well-known that neuronal abilities increase or decrease depending on age.
Those objects of knowledge are products of the mind, are part of World
Three and being such, they are privileged data from which models can be
verified.
2.3 Conditional Reasoning and Meaning Implication
Conditional reasoning is one of the cornerstones of the inferential
process according to Piaget [Piaget 50]. The form
of hypothesis is the expression of the main characteristic of human thinking.
Hypotheses are ``If...then'' operations and generating them supposes
conditional reasoning, and thus inference.
According to logic, the statement ``if P then Q'' will only be false
in the case that the antecedent P is true and the consequent Q is false.
The fact that sometimes people reason according to the truth-functional
logic but that most of the time they do not has puzzled psychologists.
Several research programs were developed by scientists working either
from the neopiagetian or other theoretical perspectives. Indeed, the problem
seems to be so obscure that even so-called Piagetians have been struggling
against windmills that never stop turning. It is beyond the scope of this
article to make a review of the literature on conditional reasoning; however,
a number of remarks and indications of important positions are necessary.
Research on conditional reasoning is contradictory because studies fail
to make the distinction between notional and conceptual knowledge. It is
also contradictory because few scientists really understand that Piaget
proposed a model of knowledge in which not the actual is empirically established
but the virtual [Ramozzi-Chiarottino 97] by carefully
characterizing what is necessary and what is possible in the human experience,
well in accord with his openly-declared Kantian affiliation [Piaget
59] [Piattelli-Palmarini 80].
Furthermore, Piaget insisted that he was not a psychologist and
that his psychological research was a by-product of his epistemological
theory [Piaget 83]. From Piaget's theoretical viewpoint
it is therefore useless, for example, to test hundreds or even thousands
of formal operative subjects to find out whether most of them think according
to the rules of truth-functional logic. As Piaget talks about the possibility
of the human species at arriving a full logical thinking, only one subject
is enough to validate his theory.
Indeed, this lack of understanding produced a number of empirical studies
on conditional reasoning by psychologists that, although propitiating a
valid contribution to empiricist psychology, are not consistent at all
with Piaget's theory.
Furthermore, most of those studies work with the idea of entailment,
which is an attempt to mix form and content up in order understand the
role of meanings in human
reasoning. Unfortunately, this research produced
only contradictory and puzzling results as it is not possible at all to
explain cognitive necessity by necessary discourse systems.
Discourse systems are conceptual structures that may have various levels
of closure depending of the nature of the concepts (weak or strong). The
notion of meaning implication was formulated by Piaget precisely to solve
this paradoxical situation. Piaget defined meaning implication in several
ways:
- as a link between predicative meanings and not between propositions
[Piaget 76b];
- as the source of necessary relations considering that there
is meaning implication in its elementary form between two schemes x
and y when x implies y considering that the meaning
of y is part of or has something in common with that of x
[Piaget 77a]; l
- as a relation among meanings which is transitive and that has various
degrees, meanings being local, systemic or structural [Piaget
91].
Piaget's definitions, however, have led to a number of misunderstandings
[Lourenço 95] [Garcia 91]
[Piéraut-Le Bonniec 90] [Ricco
90]. From our viewpoint, meaning implication is the inferential building
and rebuilding of meanings as opposed to material implication. Hegenberg
came close to this understanding, but as he dealt with scientific knowledge,
conceptual meanings were subordinated to formal logical reasoning in his
explanation of what meaning implication really is [Hegenberg
91].
The notion of meaning implication challenges some established ideas
about constructivism and the role of meanings in the human experience because
it is the source of necessity. Being the source means that
meaning implication is crucial for the constitution of the various possible
levels of necessity found in conceptual structures, but it is not
necessary itself. Its constitution is essentially contingent. We argue
that natural conditional reasoning is normally driven by meaning implications
since daily life experience is notional.
Something quite apart is formal conditional reasoning. In this case,
material implications apply. Material implications can only be found in
products of knowledge such as logic or other conceptual constructions in
the strongest sense as those in the weakest sense usually do not fill up
all requirements of necessity and sufficiency.
Because models are necessary structures and scientific theories are
conceptual models of whatever empirical reality or possibility of empirical
reality (as in the case of Piaget), necessity can then be found in its
higher level after a process of refinement of concepts, built from meaning
implications among notions. Hypotheses can be built in both cases, in any
manner whatsoever, as they can be constructed by using notions as well
as concepts.
Piaget unfortunately died precisely when the idea of meaning implication
was being developed. Furthermore, Piaget, himself, plays a part in this
huge misunderstanding because although pointing out that he considered
that a logic of meanings would be a natural and necessary extension of
his operatory logic, he was mainly concerned with cognitive aspects of
development and not with communication at all.
The kingdom of natural language and contingency was not something that
particularly attracted Piaget as his works reveal. This task was later
developed by his closest collaborator on logic, Jean-Blaise Grize, in the
Centre des Recherches Semiologiques at the University of Nêuchatel,
in Switzerland.
It is instructive to remember that Piaget stated clearly that his last
research on meaning implications was developed ``at the level of actions
rather than of statements'' [see Piaget 91] (page
121). In other words, in his last research Piaget did not take into account
the building and rebuilding of meanings in the production of sense, but
its role in cognitive development.
It is not surprising to find that most of the research by ``Piagetian''
or neopiagetian psychologists was done by applying results from research
on actions but taking logical statements as their focus. Thus, these conclusions
were inconsistent with Piaget's virtual model of knowledge.
Most studies on conditional reasoning are inconsistent with the late
development of the Piagetian theory and ignore Grize's contemporary contribution
to it. Some studies indicate that entailment is more important than familiarity
with content in conditional reasoning [Lourenço
95] [Ward, Byrnes and Overton 90]. Others indicate
the opposite by arguing that either context, familiarity and concrete content
[Thompson 94] [Markovits and Vachon
90] [Markovits 86] or training [Overton,
Byrnes and O'Brien 85] [O'Brien and Overton 82]
[O'Brien and Overton 80] increase conditional reasoning
performances. Scholnick, in a study about three ``faces'' of If-Then
(propositional, semantic and presuppositional), included Piaget's theory
in the propositional ``face'' [Scholnick 90], something done also by Keating
[Keating 90], and totally ignoring the late developments
of the theory.
The contradictory findings and erroneous analysis can be solved by applying
the distinction between material implication, which is a formal
necessary operation
among conceptual objects, and meaning implication, which is a
notional contingent relation among cultural referents. Appending Grize's
double contribution to the communication and Piagetian theories seems to
be unavoidable.
3 Research
3.1 Objectives
We hypothesized that the inferential process of the mind in online asynchronous
learning environments such as Virtual-U VGroups could be identified by
following the flow of conditional meaning implications throughout the courses.
We say ``conditional'' meaning implication because meaning implications
can also link other logical forms such as ``and'' (conjunctive), ``either...or''
(disjunctive), can be negative or affirmative, and can also be founded
in pure word plays such as those found in literature and poetry (being
metaphorical, poetic, and the like).
We also hypothesized that the flow of conditional meaning implications
would scaffold knowledge-building as an intentional learning process [Scardamalia
and Bereiter 94] [Bereiter and Scardamalia 93]
since it is consistent with the notions of idea generation, linking and
structuring [Harasim 93] [Harasim
90].
To achieve these goals we studied two Virtual-U online courses offered
in the summer session of 1997 by Simon Fraser University, Vancouver-Burnaby,
BC.
3.2 Courses Studied
VGroups online transcriptions of two mixed-mode Simon Fraser University
human sciences graduate courses were studied. Mixed-mode are courses that
are taught both online and face-to-face. The first was a Communication
course. The second was an English course.
3.2.1 General Information on the Communication Course
The course was offered in the winter/spring session of 1997. Seven people
were involved in the course: the instructor responsible for it, another
instructor who was invited to participate and five graduate students from
different departments (Communication, Computer Science, and Education).
One of the students - a researcher - participated only partially.
The course was designed to have 12 conferencing spaces. Ten conferencing
spaces were supposed to take place in consecutive defined periods while
the others would be open for participation during the whole course. Participants
wrote 389 messages.
3.2.2 General Information on the English Course
The course was offered in the winter/spring session of 1997. Six people
were involved in the course: the instructor responsible for it, a researcher
invited to participate in order to help deal with the software and four
graduate students.
The course had 6 conferencing spaces, designed to take place throughout
the whole course. Participants wrote 149 messages.
3.3 Procedure
The first step consisted of sorting out all messages of all conferences
of both courses by date and renumbering them accordingly. Virtual-U VGroups
software does not have this feature; it only sorts out and numbers messages
by date per conference, and not per course. Besides sorting them by date
per conference, Virtual-U VGroups also sorts out messages by reverse-date,
by author and by thread per conference.
The second step consisted of identifying conditional sentences in the
messages by looking for words usually related to conditional reasoning
such as ``if'', ``might'', ``would'', ``could'', ``found'', ``whether'',
``maybe'', ``perhaps'', etc. Conditional sentences or groups of sentences
organized as arguments were considered by analyzing their contextual meaning
in order to establish if the occurrence of the
conditional words really
indicated that conditional reasoning was under way. All conditional sentences
or group of sentences were marked in all messages of both courses studied.
We considered the messages the units of analysis.
A number of messages with different subjects were subdivided accordingly.
In other words, if in a given message (X) the user built a number of conditional
sentences or arguments, three for example, and all of them dealt with different
subjects, i.e. A, B and C, then they would be grouped in three different
subdivisions according to the contextual meaning, such as X-A, X-B, and
X-C.
Furthermore, the character of each conditional sentence or group of
sentences organized as arguments was identified using the following description:
necessary and sufficient; necessary and not sufficient, and just possible.
It must be clearly stated here that we did not attribute necessity
and sufficiency from the viewpoint of formal logic. Our instrumental definitions
for those notions are as follows:
- necessary and sufficient - what cannot be otherwise and whose conclusions
are definitely contained in the premises;
- necessary and not sufficient - what cannot be otherwise but whose premises
do not fully support the conclusion, opening way to doubt and possibilities;
- possible - what can be otherwise.
The third step consisted of establishing what the core meaning of a
given conditional sentence or group of sentences organized in arguments
was, by choosing either a key word or key sentence depending on each case.
Then, the building and rebuilding of meanings from one message to the others
were followed chronologically. The route followed by meanings that were
built and rebuilt in the messages along the courses was called flow of
conditional meaning implications or ``meaning implication thread''.
The fourth step consisted of comparing meaning implication threads and
Virtual-U VGroups threads. VGroups threads are built by users by replying
to messages using a ``reply'' bottom in the desktop. The feature consists
of creating a kind of tree where branches are built by connecting replied
messages to the ones that originated them. When a user writes a message
but does not reply to anybody, a new original tree is created. Then, other
users can continue it, creating a thread, by appending replies to the original
message and to those that follow it.
The fifth step consisted of identifying hypotheses across the conferences
of the courses studied and verifying whether they were built collaboratively
or not, through text analysis.
3.4 Results
3.4.1 The Communication Course
From the 389 messages posted during the course, 261 presented conditional
reasoning. The frequency of messages indicating the occurrence of conditional
reasoning was 67.1% of the total number of messages [Tab.1].
Very few messages presenting necessary reasoning - sufficient or not
- occurred in the Communication course. Most messages presented possible
conditional reasoning [Tab.2].
MESSAGES NUMBER FREQUENCY
With conditional reasoning 261 67.1
Without conditional 128 32.9
reasoning
TOTAL 389 100
Table 1: Occurrence of conditional reasoning in the messages
(Communication course)
MESSAGES WITH NUMBER FREQUENCY
Necessary and sufficient arguments 7 2.7
Necessary and not sufficient 8 3.1
arguments
Possible arguments 246 94.2
TOTAL 261 100
Table 2: Occurrence of messages with necessity, sufficiency
and possibility in conditional reasoning (Communication course)
MESSAGES WITH MEANING NUMBER FREQUENCY
IMPLICATIONS
Total coincidence between meaning 112 39.2
implication and V-U VGroups threads
Partial coincidence between meaning 76 26.6
implication and V-U VGroups threads
Connection with V-U VGroups threads only 26 9.1
Connection with meaning implication 55 19.2
threads only
No connection with both V-U 17 5.9
VGroups and meaning implication threads
TOTAL 286 100
Table 3: Occurrence of messages and sub-messages with meaning
implications and their connections with V-U VGroups and meaning implication
threads (Communication course)
MESSAGES WITH MEANING NUMBER FREQUENCY
IMPLICATIONS
Connected to meaning implication threads 212 74.1
occurring in the same conference
Connected to meaning implication threads 27 9.5
linking different conferences
Connected to meaning implication threads 2 0.7
linking class statements with a given
conference
Disconnected to meaning implication threads 45 15.7
TOTAL 286 100
Table 4: Messages and sub-messages with meaning implications
and their connections with meaning implications threads in the conferences
(Communication course)
Some of the 261 messages with more than one conditional reasoning sentences
presenting different subjects were subdivided into sub-messages. The result
of this operation was 286 messages and sub-messages with conditional meaning
implications. We compared the flow of conditional meaning implications
to Virtual-U VGroups threads.
Results indicate that most of those 286 messages and sub-messages were
part of conditional meaning implication threads that coincided totally
or partially with VGroups threads. In the first case, origin and destination
of messages were exactly the same in meaning implication and VGroups threads.
In the second case, origin of messages pertaining to a meaning implication
thread was different, although the destination was the same [Tab.3].
The remaining messages occurred when conditional meaning implications
were not linked to any other in a given meaning implication thread but
were the destination of a specific VGroups thread connection; when conditional
meaning implications were part of a meaning implication thread but were
not part of a VGroups thread; and when
conditional meaning implications were not part of both meaning implication
and VGroups threads [Tab.3].
The flow of meaning implications occurred mainly within the same conference.
But a number of messages with meaning implications was responsible for
linking different conferences. Few messages produced in conferences connected
to flows built from class statements occurred. There was also the occurrence
of a significant number of messages isolated in different conferences,
disconnected to flows [Tab.4].
3.4.1.1 Hypotheses
Users formulated hypotheses in approximately one third of the 286 messages
and sub-messages with conditional meaning implications.
Most of the formulated hypotheses occurred in messages and sub-messages
that were part of conditional meaning implication threads that coincided
totally or partially with the VGroups threads.
Few hypotheses were found when conditional meaning implications were
part of a meaning implication thread but not part of a VGroups thread.
No hypotheses were found when conditional meaning implications were
not part of a meaning implication thread but were part of a VGroups thread;
and when messages were not part of both meaning implication and VGroups
threads [Tab.5].
HYPOTHESES NUMBER FREQUENCY FREQUENCY
IN THE
COURSE
In messages in which there is total 67 70.5 23.4
coincidence between meaning
implication and V-U VGroups
threads
In messages in which there is partial 24 25.3 8.4
coincidence between meaning
implication and V-U VGroups
threads
In messages in which there is 4 4.2 1.4
connection with meaning implication
threads only
In messages in which there is: 0 0 66.8
* connection with V-U VGroups
threads only
* no connection with both V-U
VGroups and meaning implication
threads
TOTAL 95 100 100
Table 5: Occurrence of hypotheses (Communication course)
3.4.2 The English Course
The English course had 149 messages. From those messages, 129 presented
conditional reasoning. The frequency of messages indicating the occurrence
of conditional reasoning was 86.6% of the total number of messages [Tab.6].
Very few messages presenting necessary reasoning - sufficient or not
- occurred in the English course. Most messages presented possible conditional
reasoning [Tab.7].
A number of the 129 messages with more than one conditional reasoning
sentence dealing with different subjects was subdivided. The result of
this operation was 180 messages and sub-messages with conditional meaning
implications. We compared the flow of conditional meaning implications
to Virtual-U VGroups threads.
Results indicate that most of the messages and sub-messages with conditional
meaning implications were part of meaning implication threads and had no
connection to VGroups threads [Tab.8].
Few messages and sub-messages were part of conditional meaning implication
threads that coincided totally or partially with Virtual-U VGroups threads;
and when conditional meaning implications were not part of a meaning implication
thread but were part of a VGroups thread [Tab.8].
An important number of messages that was not part of either meaning
implication or VGroups threads also occurred in the English course [Tab.8].
MESSAGES NUMBER FREQUENCY
With conditional reasoning 129 86.6
Without conditional 20 13.4
reasoning
TOTAL 149 100
Table 6: Occurrence of conditional reasoning in the messages
(English course)
MESSAGES WITH NUMBER FREQUENCY
Necessary and sufficient arguments 2 1.6
Necessary and not sufficient 4 3.1
arguments
Possible arguments 123 95.3
TOTAL 129 100
Table 7: Occurrence of messages with necessity, sufficiency
and possibility in conditional reasoning (English course)
MESSAGES WITH MEANING NUMBER FREQUENCY
IMPLICATIONS
Total coincidence between meaning 11 6.1
implication and V-U VGroups threads
Partial coincidence between meaning 2 2.1
implication and V-U VGroups threads
Connection with V-U VGroups threads only 3 1.7
Connection with meaning implication 115 63.8
threads only
No connection with both V-U VGroups and 49 27.2
meaning implication threads
TOTAL 180 100
Table 8: Occurrence of messages and sub-messages with meaning
implications and their connections with V-U VGroups and meaning implication
threads (English course)
MESSAGES WITH MEANING NUMBER FREQUENCY
IMPLICATIONS
Connected to meaning implication threads 92 51.1
occurring in the same conference
Connected to meaning implication threads 34 18.9
linking different conferences
Connected to meaning implication threads 4 2.2
linking class statements with a given
conference
Disconnected to meaning implication threads 50 27.8
TOTAL 180 100
Table 9: Messages and sub-messages with meaning implications
and their connections with meaning implications threads in the conferences
(English course)
Approximately half of the messages with meaning implications occurred
within the same conference but a significant number of them could also
be found either isolated or linking different conferences. Very few messages
occurred in specific conferences having class statements or texts as their
origin [Tab.9].
3.4.2.1 Hypotheses
The English course was very poor in hypotheses formulation. Few hypotheses
were found and most of them when conditional meaning implications were
part of a meaning implication thread but were not part of a VGroups thread
[Tab.10].
The remaining hypotheses were identified among the messages and sub-messages
that were part of conditional meaning implication threads that coincided
with VGroups threads [Tab.10].
No hypotheses were found in messages and sub-messages when conditional
meaning implications were not part of a meaning implication thread but
were part of a VGroups thread; when conditional meaning implication threads
coincided partially with VGroups threads; and when messages were not part
of either meaning implication or VGroups threads [Tab.10].
HYPOTHESES NUMBER FREQUENCY FREQUENCY
IN THE
COURSE
In messages in which there is 11 84.6 6.1
connection with meaning
implication threads only
In messages in which there is
total coincidence between meaning
implication and V-U VGroups threads 2 15.4 0.1
In messages in which there is:
* connection with V-U VGroups
threads only
* partial coincidence between
meaning implication and V-U
VGroups threads
* no connection with both V-U
VGroups and meaning 0 0 93,8
implication threads
TOTAL 13 100 100
Table 10: Occurrence of hypotheses (English course)
3.5 Discussion
Assessing knowledge-building in traditional face-to-face education requires
that we have access to the students' notes and their written papers. It
is also necessary to interview both students and instructors. Assessing
knowledge-building in online learning environments is somewhat different
because it is an intentional learning process [Scardamalia
and Bereiter 94] [Bereiter and Scardamalia 93].
Intentional learning processes are those in which learners take charge
of their own knowledge- building process challenging the cultural idea
of the primacy of instructors over students on the account that both have
a lot to learn from each other. As users produce texts that are kept by
the system, these objects of knowledge [Popper 94]
[Bereiter 94] allow us to assess the process of knowledge-building directly.
Although other ways of assessing knowledge-building cannot be dismissed,
we argue that the resulting objects of knowledge provided by online learning
environments are sufficient as long as all material produced is saved.
In the case of mixed-mode courses, a number of discussions, papers,
and notes cannot be assessed. This fact interferes in the evaluation of
knowledge-building processes. Even through interviews it is not possible
to reconstruct the course. This applies to both courses in this study.
But, despite this contingency, analysis of the data collected by identifying
the flow of conditional meaning implications suggests that Virtual-U VGroups
conferencing system supports knowledge-building by its design, although
new features should be added to make it a friendlier learning environment.
In order to introduce the discussion, we should establish some similarities
as well as differences between the courses studied. The first similarity
between the courses is the occurrence of conditional sentences. The high percentage of conditional
meaning implications encountered in both courses [Tab.1] [Tab.6] is a clear
indication that reasoning depends on ``If...then'' operations, even
when the subject of discussion is related to human and social sciences.
It also suggests that knowledge-building processes in online learning environments
are supported by those operations.
The higher percentage of conditional meaning implications encountered
in the English course can be explained by its design. Students were asked
to produce analytical and exploratory papers, usually long. Additionally,
interaction among the students was low because it seems they were not fully
aware of the possibilities of the VGroups threading feature.
In the Communication course, the exchange of ideas was encouraged, the
use of the VGroups threading feature was generalized. Because of this a
significant number of short messages with statements are responsible for
the lower percentage as compared to the English course.
As both Communication and English are human sciences courses, they were
likely to deal more with notions than with concepts. As concepts must be
built upon very well- defined objects of knowledge within closed structures
(models) to be considered as such, it is likely that their occurrence is
higher in exact and biological sciences than in human and social sciences.
Indeed, building concepts from social and human sciences' notions requires
mastery in difficult reasoning rules such as those of Aristotelian syllogistic.
This fact explains another similarity: why the number of messages with
necessary conditional reasoning found in both courses was so low. The occurrence
of necessary messages was quite similar: 5.8% in the Communication course
[Tab.2] and 4.7% in the English course [Tab.7].
Occurrence of messages with necessity and sufficiency, and necessity
and absence of sufficiency was also similar and always related to
actions such as ``if I press icon x in the screen, then y will follow''.
The first was responsible for 2.7% in the Communication course [Tab.2]
and 1.6% in the English course [Tab.7]. The second, 3.1% for both courses
[Tab.2] [Tab.7]. There was a lack of advanced conceptual necessary reasoning
in both courses.
The result is that the percentage of conditional meaning implications
dealing with possibilities was high: 94.2% in the Communication course
[Tab.2] and 95.3% in the English course [Tab.7]. This suggests that both
courses had more exploratory discussions than arguments leading to strong
conclusions.
In spite of these similarities, strong differences were found related
to the use of the threading feature. The Communication course was highly
interactive (the use of the threading feature possibilities was intense)
with all users actively replying to messages produced by their peers, while
the English course was very low in terms of use of that feature. Users
concentrated more on their own text production, although contributions
of their peers were taken into account.
Messages with meaning implication threads coinciding with VGroups threads
totaled 39.2% in the Communication course [Tab.3] and 6.1% in the English
course [Tab.8]; those with different origin and the same destination totaled
26.6% [Tab.3]
and 1.2% [Tab.8]; and those only connected with the meaning
implication threads totaled 19.2% [Tab.3] and 63.8% [Tab.8] respectively.
It does not mean, however, that interaction did not occur as the appearance
of the meaning implication threads indicate: 85% of all messages with conditional
meaning implications were connected with meaning implication threads in
the Communication course [Tab.3] and 71.1% in the English course [Tab.8].
The remaining 15% of the Communication course [Tab.3] was related to those
messages only connected to VGroups threads and with no connection at all
with either thread. In the English course, the remaining 28.9% [Tab.8]
was related to those messages only connected to VGroups threads and with
no connection at all with either thread.
We argue that knowledge-building occurred in both courses but in different
ways. In the case of the Communication course, the building of knowledge,
as meaning implication threads indicate, coincided totally or partially
(85%) with the VGroups threading feature.
Although most users of the English course did not use the VGroups threading
feature, the flow of meanings could be followed by meaning implication
threads (71.1%) throughout the messages indicating knowledge-building.
As message texts are objects of knowledge, the fact that even though most
of the time the English course users posted their messages without replying
to others, this does not necessarily mean that they were not interacting.
Indeed, the analysis of the English course texts indicate that 77.2% of
their messages were intended to reach all course participants while 22.8%
were directed to specific users.
If compared with the Communication course, with 62.6% of the messages
directed to all participants and the remaining 37.4% directed to specific
users, we can conclude that independently of VGroups threading feature
knowledge was built, although less collaboratively. Most of the messages
of the Communication course were directed to all users, and text analysis
indicates that students had difficulties in deciding to which message they
had to respond, as the content of their messages would deal with ideas
produced by more than one user. In the case of the English course, users
did not have this problem as they were not using the threading feature.
An interesting finding is related to the relative inconsistency of Virtual-U
VGroups threading feature as an optimal knowledge-building supportive structure.
Although most of the messages with conditional meaning implication occurred
within conferences (74.1% in the Communication course [Tab.4] and 51.1%
in the English course [Tab.9]), a significant number of them were connected
by meaning with other conferences (9.5% in the Communication course [Tab.4]
and 18.9% in the English course [Tab.9]). Isolated messages correspond
to 15.7% in the Communication course [Tab.4] and 27.8% in the English course
[Tab.9], and other cases respond to 0.7% [Tab.4] and 2.2% respectively
[Tab.9].
Making the connection of threads of different conferences possible would
make Virtual-U VGroups a more consistent knowledge-building learning environment.
3.5.1 Hypothesis Formulation
The transcription and analysis of users' dialogues suggest that conditional
reasoning scaffolds a collaborative problem-solving process through the
generation of hypotheses when the flow of meaning implications coincides
totally or partially with the Virtual-U VGroups threading feature.
Data comparing both the Communication course and the English course
also suggest that although knowledge is built independently of this total
or partial coincidence, a more consistent intentional learning only takes
place with conscious use of Virtual-U VGroups threading feature.
Most of hypotheses built in the Communication course occurred when there
was total or partial coincidence of the meaning implication thread and
the Virtual-U VGroups thread [Tab.5]. In the English course almost all
hypotheses were found where conditional meaning implications were part
of a meaning implication thread. The use of Virtual-U VGroups threads is
practically nonexistent. Very few hypotheses were formulated where there
was total coincidence of the meaning implication thread and a Virtual-U
VGroups thread [Tab.10].
Although data seems contradictory, text analysis of both courses suggests
that hypothesis formulation is better supported by using the Virtual-U
VGroups threading feature than not using it. Exploring problems, reasoning
about necessity and possibility, posing questions to be answered, formulating
hypotheses and problem solving are tasks that fit reasonably well into
the Virtual-U VGroups threading feature.
The possibility of replying to previous messages and building threads
supports those tasks because it organizes online discussions. When this
feature is not used, discussions tend to be less collaborative as users
explore more personal ideas, even when they are intended for others.
It is striking to note that data suggests that collaboration fosters
hypothesis formulation. The number of hypotheses built by users was 730%
higher in the Communication course than in the English course even considering
that there were 159% more messages and sub-messages in the first. Occurrence
of hypotheses was 4.6 times higher in the Communication course than in
the English course.
3.6 Conclusions
The transcript analysis of the Communication and the English courses
indicates that Virtual-U VGroups is a knowledge-building environment. We
studied the process of knowledge-building by following the flow of conditional
meaning implications in the courses' discourse.
Although the building of knowledge was promoted by conditional reasoning
enhancing idea generation, linking, and structuring [Harasim
93] [Harasim 90], we argue that using the Virtual-U
VGroups threading feature is more appropriate than not using it. The reason
is that the high percentage of total or partial coincidence of meaning
implication threads and Virtual-U VGroups threads in the Communication
course indicates that it is possible to build structures to scaffold and
to drive collaborative knowledge-building.
Courses that do not use the threading feature properly, as the English
course, tend to be traditional, since collaboration is not fostered and
participation tend to be more the dyadic student-instructor model than
the circular student-instructor-student model.
Although we consider Virtual-U VGroups a knowledge-building environment
from its design, it should be improved by taking into account Harasim's
concerns that new models, assessment techniques, pedagogical methods and
tools for online learning are needed to adapt education to computer technologies
[Harasim 93] [Harasim 90] [Harasim,
Hiltz, Teles and Turoff 94].
Our analysis indicates that knowledge-building cannot be constrained
by conference ``boxes'' and that the natural course of the mind is to carry
out meanings from one conference to another. The threading feature should
also sort all messages of all conferences by date, author, and thread in
a similar way to what it already does with single conferences.
Another necessary improvement to make the threading feature more mind-like
is to restructure it in such a way that, instead of building knowledge
through a tree, the user could do so in a neuronal-like way. The analysis
of the conditional meaning implication threads indicates that in most cases
they do not fully coincide with those of Virtual-U VGroups threads because
users do not always respond to one single message. For example, users cannot
at the same time respond to a message posted in a given conference thread
and to another one that is connected to a different thread in the same
conference. They are also not allowed to respond to a message of a different
conference thread without abandoning the original conference, etc.
An ideal threading feature would be one that allows replies to more
than one message, independent of their threads and conferences. A neuronal-like
threading feature would be a better scaffold for knowledge-building. It
is probable that in a feature like this more conditional meaning implication
threads would coincide with Virtual-U VGroups threads.
3.6.1 Hypotheses
Data comparing both the Communication course and the English course
suggests that Virtual-U VGroups threading feature scaffolds knowledge-building
by supporting collaborative formulations of hypotheses. But improvements
should be made. We argue that a pedagogical technique for formulating hypotheses
together combined with a new feature for the identification of conditional reasoning could
serve as a powerful tool for knowledge-building in asynchronous learning
environments.
Applying such a technique to educational environments would promote
the constitution of pedagogical methods and tools for online learning.
These methods and tools should able to support new ways for learners to
assess their objects of knowledge and evaluate them in terms of the new
objects to be built, helping to adapt education to computer technologies
[Harasim 93] [Harasim 90] [Harasim,
Hiltz, Teles and Turoff 94] as learning is the construction of a set
of objects of knowledge [Pea 94].
The pedagogical technique consists of the intentional identification
by the user of conditional arguments in the messages of their counterparts,
the understanding of their contextual meaning, the discussion of their
necessity or possibility. When the
hypothesis is necessary and sufficient,
it must be accepted, and discussion should continue on a new basis. But
when it is necessary and not sufficient, or just possible, a problem-solving
process is triggered and should be implemented by encouraging discussion
on the basis of discussing hypotheses.
After this initial phase, the technique supposes the exploration of
all possibilities by rebuilding a hypothesis already stated and/or formulating
new hypotheses that would be more relevant from the user's viewpoint. This
exercise of an in-depth conditional discussion triggers the construction
of a chain of creative hypothetical arguments throughout the discourse,
avoiding excess of statements and false problems that could, eventually,
produce a less exploratory course.
In other words, the proposed pedagogical technique can be summarized
as an intentional exercise of formulating hypotheses together by in-depth
collaborative analysis of the arguments.
To support the pedagogical technique of formulating hypotheses together,
a feature could be added such as a search-like tool that would automatically
highlight questions and sentences where conditional reasoning might be
under way. Questions would be identified by the sign ``?''. Possible conditional
sentences would be identified by recognizing relevant words depending on
language, such as ``if'', ``then'', ``might'', ``would'' (and others) for
English, ``peut-être'', ``si'', ``alors'' and verbal conjugations
that indicate conditional (and other words) for French, ``mischien'', ``als'',
``zou'', ``dan'' (and others) for Dutch and so forth. Then, tips would
help users to navigate in the waters of conditional reasoning, guiding
the learner to recognize necessity, sufficiency, and possibility.
We argue that a feature driving users to explore hypotheses together
will lead them to in-depth discussion, divergent thinking, and organized
conflict. Recent research suggests that students perform better when conflict
is maximized and that when knowledge-building activity is also increased,
conceptual change is more likely [Chan, Burtis and Bereiter
97].
Our findings suggest that when online group users build knowledge upon
each other's hypotheses, a problem-solving process is triggered. This suggestion
is consistent with
previous research [Van Joolingen and De Jong 91].
Although Wouter van Joolingen and Ton de Jong did not work with an asynchronous
learning environment such as Virtual-U VGroups, but with computer simulations
in environments that made exploratory learning possible, their research
suggests that formulating hypotheses supports a learning process.
A collaborative hypothesis formulation tool is consistent with Harasim's
analysis that the formulation of arguments comes necessarily from interaction,
and that it advances collaborative knowledge-building [Harasim
90]. It would encourage educators and learners to become actively engaged
in a constructive, consistent, and in-depth collective effort to re-signify
and restructure their object of study by producing relevant objects of
knowledge [Popper 94] [Bereiter 94] leading them to
notional and, perhaps, to conceptual change as well.
4 Conclusions
Asynchronous learning environments are computer-based conferencing systems
customized for online education. In these environments, users do not need
to work with their peers at the same time because posting can be done anytime
and anywhere as long as there are available computers linked to the Internet
and the World Wide Web.
Although educational roles people play have been institutionally defined
by the historical and cultural constraints of the Western civilization,
asynchronous learning environments challenge them by its unique technological
nature. This is a surprising - and perhaps unexpected - contribution of
technology to education.
This contribution of technology makes possible a revolutionary new pedagogic
scenario in which collaboration is brought to the center of the educational
interaction as asynchronous learning environments might, by the development
of built-in pedagogical tools and techniques, replace the old-fashioned
and power-based idea that education requires instructors ``to teach'' and
students ``to be taught''. The idea of transmitting knowledge to students
considered passive recipients of knowledge is cognitively inconsistent
as education should be understood as an active dialectic process of symbolic
interaction [Campos 96b] [Campos
95].
Learners engaged in an interactive knowledge-building process become
subjects of their own learning destiny. Barriers between students and instructors
collapse and their roles change as instructors become facilitators in a
process of inquiry and problem-solving.
As asynchronous learning environments suppose intentional learning [Scardamalia
and Bereiter 94] [Bereiter and Scardamalia 93],
a creative knowledge-building process through collaborative learning is
triggered. Studying ways to assess and evaluate these creative learning
processes are central in modern research on computer- based education.
Consistent with the experts' demands of advancing educational research
on computer technologies [Harasim 90] [Harasim,
Hiltz, Teles and Turoff 94] we developed a transcript analysis technique
to assess computer-based knowledge-building communication processes and
evaluated their objective results in terms of learning. We also suggested
the idea of a hypotheses generation pedagogical technique and built-in
tool.
Both pedagogical technique, tool, and transcript analysis technique
were conceptualized from the Piagetian model of knowledge and Popper's
Three Worlds proposal. We considered transcripts produced by users in asynchronous
learning environments as concrete results of knowledge-building communication
processes.
Results suggest that our analysis was able to unveil, at least partially,
those conditional reasoning processes of building and rebuilding of notions
and concepts by learning minds collaborating in an asynchronous learning
environment. Although results from the study of two mixed-mode online courses
cannot be generalized, we argue that the results were an exploratory verification
of the model we worked with.
New studies from other courses are necessary. They must include not
only various disciplines from all fields of human knowledge, but also different
kinds of courses including those completely online, and also courses developed
in different countries to
assess cultural constraints in learning networks.
Flows of meaning implication will possibly vary strongly according to the
cultures in which the users are immersed.
References
[Bereiter and Scardamalia 93] Bereiter, C. &
Scardamalia, M.: ``Surpassing Ourselves. An Inquiry Into The Nature and
Implications of Expertise''; Open Court, Chicago (1993).
[Campos 95] Campos, M.N.: ``The Interaction Between
Viewers and Journalistic TV Discourse: a Piagetian Approach to Mass Communication'';
Symposium of the Jean Piaget Society, 25, Berkeley (1995).
[Campos 96a] Campos, M.N.: ``The Evolution of The
Communication Relationship Between The Child and Television''; The Growing
Mind - Centennial of Jean Piaget's Birth, Geneva (1996).
[Campos 96b] Campos, M.N.: ``Plan of an Explanatory
Communication Model''; Unpublished Thesis, São Paulo, Institute
of Psychology, University of São Paulo, (1996).
[Cassirer 94] Cassirer, E.: ``Ensaio Sobre o Homem:
Introdução a uma Filosofia da Cultura Humana''; Martins Fontes,
São Paulo (1994).
[Chan, Burtis and Bereiter 97] Chan, C., Burtis,
J. & Bereiter, C.: ``Knowledge-Building as a Mediator of Conflict in
Conceptual Change''; Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1 (1997), 1-40.
[Garcia 91] Garcia, R.: ``Conclusions'' In: Piaget,
J. & Garcia, R. ``Toward a Logic of Meanings''; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale (1991).
[Grize 90] Grize, J.-B.: ``Logique et langage'';
Ophrys, Paris (1991).
[Harasim 90] Harasim, L.: ``Online Education: an
Environment for Collaboration and Intellectual Amplification''. In: Harasim,
L. (Ed.) ``Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment''; Praeger,
New York (1990).
[Harasim 93] Harasim, L.: ``Collaborating in Cyberspace:
Using Computer Conferences as a Group Learning Environment''; Interactive
Learning Environments, 3, 2 (1993), 119-130.
[Harasim, Hiltz, Teles and Turoff 94] Harasim, L,
Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M.: ``Learning Networks: a Field Guide'';
MIT Press, Cambridge (1994).
[Hegenberg 91] Hegenberg, L.: ``A Lógica
e a Teoria de Jean Piaget: Implicação Significante'';. Psicologia-USP,
2, 1-2 (1991), 25-32.
[Keating 90] Keating, D. P.: Structuralism, Deconstruction,
Reconstruction: The Limits of Reasoning''. In: Overton, W. (Ed.) ``Reasoning,
Necessity and Logic: Developmental Perspectives''; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale (1990), 45-65.
[Kesselring 97] Kesselring, T.: ``Jean Piaget: Entre
Ciência e Filosofia''. In: Freitag, B (Ed.) ``Piaget: 100 Anos'';
Cortez, São Paulo (1997), 17-45.
[Lourenço 95] Lourenço, O.: ``Piaget's
Logic of Meanings and Conditional Reasoning in Adolescents and Adults'';
Archives de Psychologie, 63 (1995), 187-203.
[Markovits 86] Markovits, H.: ``Familiarity Effects
in Conditional Reasoning''; Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 6 (1986),
492-494.
[Markovits and Vachon 90] Markovits, H. & Vachon,
R.: ``Conditional Reasoning, Representation and Level of Abstraction'';
Developmental Psychology, 26, 6 (1990), 942-951.
[O'Brien and Overton 82] O'Brien, D. P. & Overton,
W. F.: ``Conditional Reasoning and the Competence-performance Issue: A
Developmental Analysis of a Training Task''; Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 34 (1982), 274-290.
[O'Brien and Overton 80] O'Brien, D. P. & Overton,
W. F.: ``Conditional Reasoning Following Contradictory Evidence: A Developmental
Analysis''; Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30 (1980), 44-61.
[Overton, Byrnes and O'Brien 85] Overton, W. F.,
Byrnes, J. P. & O'Brien, D. P.: ``Developmental and Individual Differences
in Conditional Reasoning: The Role of Contradiction Training and Cognitive
Style''; Developmental Psychology, 21, 4 (1985), 692- 701.
[Pea 94] Pea, R. D.: ``Seeing What We Build Together:
Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications'';
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3 (1994), 285-299.
[Piaget 92] Piaget, J.: ``Biologie et Connaissance.
Essai sur les Relations Entre les Régulations Organiques et les
Processus Cognitifs''; Delachaux et Niestlé, Nêuchatel-Paris
(1992).
[Piaget 91] Piaget, J.: ``Introduction''. In: Piaget,
J. & Garcia, R. ``Toward a Logic of Meanings''; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale (1991).
[Piaget 83] Piaget, J.: ``Sabedoria e Ilusões
da Filosofia'' (Os Pensadores); Abril, São Paulo (1983).
[Piaget 77a] Piaget, J.: ``Essai sur la Nécessité'';
Archives de Psychologie, 45, 175 (1977), 235- 261.
[Piaget 77b] Piaget, J.: ``La Construction du Réel
Chez l'Enfant''; Delachaux et Niestlé, Nêuchatel-Paris (1977).
[Piaget 76a] Piaget, J.: ``La Formation du Symbole
Chez l'Enfant''; Delachaux et Niestlé, Nêuchatel-Paris (1976).
[Piaget 76b] Piaget, J.: ``Le Possible, l'Impossible
et le Nécessaire''; Archives de Psychologie, 44, 172 (1976), 281-299.
[Piaget 76c] Piaget, J.: ``Ensaio de Lógica
Operatória''; Globo/EDUSP, São Paulo (1976).
[Piaget 74] Piaget, J.: ``Conclusions''. In: Piaget,
J et alli. ``Réussir et Comprendre''; PUF, Paris (1974).
[Piaget 59] Piaget, J.: ``Les Modèles Abstraits
Sont-ils Opposés aux Interprétations Psycho- physiologiques
dans l'Explication en Psychologie? Esquisse d'une Autobiographie Intellectuelle'';
Bulletin de Psychologie, 169, XIII 1-2 (1959), 7-14.
[Piaget 50] Piaget, J.: ``Introduction a l'Épistemologie
Génétique''; Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1949-1950).
[Piéraut-Le Bonniec 90] Piéraut-Le
Bonniec, G.: ``The Logic of Meaning and Meaningful Implication''. In: Overton,
W. (Ed.) ``Reasoning, Necessity and Logic: Developmental Perspectives;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1990), 67-85.
[Piattelli-Palmarini 80] Piattelli-Palmarini, M.
(Ed.): ``Language and Learning : The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky''; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1980).
[Popper 94] Popper, K.: ``Knowledge and the Body-Mind
Problem. In Defense of Interaction''; Routledge, London (1994).
[Popper 87] Popper, K.: ``Natural Selection and
the Emergence of Mind''. In: Radnitzky, G. and Bartley, W.W.: ``Evolutionary
Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge''; Open Court,
La Salle (1987), 139-153.
[Scardamalia and Bereiter 94] Scardamalia, M. &
Bereiter, C.: ``Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities'';
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3 (1994), 265- 283.
[Ramozzi-Chiarottino 97] Ramozzi-Chiarottino, Z.:
``Organismo, Lógica e Sociedade no Modelo Piagetiano do Conhecimento''.
In: Freitag, B (Ed.) ``Piaget: 100 Anos''; Cortez, São Paulo (1997),
111-122.
[Ramozzi-Chiarottino 88] Ramozzi-Chiarottino, Z.:
``Psicologia e Epistemologia Genética de Jean Piaget''; Editora
Pedagógica Universitária, São Paulo (1988).
[Ricco 90] Ricco, R. B.: ``Necessity and The Logic
of Entailment''. In: Overton, W. (Ed.) ``Reasoning, Necessity and Logic:
Developmental Perspectives''; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1990),
45-65.
[Scardamalia & Bereiter 94] Scardamalia. M.
& Bereiter. C.: ``Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities'';
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3 (1994), 265- 283.
[Thompson 94] Thompson. V. A.: ``Interpretational
Factors in Conditional Reasoning''; Memory & Cognition, 22, 6 (1994),
724-758.
[Van Joolingen and De Jong 91] Van Joolingen, W.
R. & Jong, T.: ``Supporting Hypothesis Generation by Learners Exploring
an Interactive Computer Simulation''; Instructional Science, 20 (1991),
389-404.
[Waddington 63] Waddington, C. H.: ``El animal ético'';
Editorial Universitaria, Buenos Aires (1963).
[Ward, Byrnes and Overton 90] Ward, S. L., Byrnes,
J. P. & Overton, W. F.: ``Organization of Knowledge and Conditional
Reasoning''. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 4 (1990), 832-837.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. Jean-Blaise Grize and Dr. Zelia Ramozzi-Chiarottino
for their helpful theoretical comments, Dr. Linda Harasim and the members
of Virtual-U research team - specially Chris Groeneboer - for their encouragement
and support, and Dr. Patricia Carlson for her useful remarks. As I am not
a native English speaker, I also wish to thank Elizabeth Tosetti and Isabella
Laterman for the revision of the text.
|