# Moderation

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/moderation/7179
**Category:** CSG2004
**Created:** [March 19, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/moderation/7179 "2004-03-19T20:48:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/moderation/7179/1 "2004-03-19T20:48:10Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (2004.03.19.1540)]

I would like to propose a unique way of 'moderating CSGnet.

Let each person who begins a new thread become the 'moderator' for that  
thread. Each person has different 'standards' and as such each  
'conversation' would take the 'personality' of the people engaged. If  
you don't like the people involved or the topic stay out of the thread.  
Let each person decide what is and is not 'acceptable'.

I would also suggest that each read this piece by Peter Small and that  
CSGnet try for a 'collaborative' rather than a 'cooperative' learning  
experience.

> From Peter Small to me:

The starting premise is a proposition put by John Dewey over eighty  
years ago: "Education is not an affair of 'telling' and being told,  
but an active and constructive process". In explaining that the  
acquisition of knowledge is more than simply the transference of  
information from one head to another, Dr. Panitz makes a critically  
important distinction between cooperative and collaborative learning.  
He defines cooperation and collaboration as follows:

Cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the  
accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people  
working together in groups.

Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle  
where individuals are responsible for their actions, including  
learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers.

At first sight, these definitions would seem to be saying much these  
same thing, or, at the most, to involve a considerable amount of  
overlap. Dr. Panitz's insight shows them to describe two totally  
different mind sets. Just as the box like shape in figure 6.1 can  
exist in two perspectives, there is a paradigm shift involved here  
where it is easy for the conscious mind to get stuck in one of them  
and to be totally oblivious of the other.

The old paradigm for teaching and learning was that the knowledgeable  
should teach the unknowledgeable: those with knowledge should pass  
this knowledge on to receptive students who accepted and absorbed the  
knowledge in a passive way. More modern educators are dropping this  
approach in deference to much research that has shown knowledge isn't  
learned parrot fashion, but, involves individual processing by the  
students -; who construct their own internal ordering of any  
knowledge or information they receive.

This newer wisdom says that knowledge learned by students isn't  
simply put into some kind of neural database to be withdrawn on  
demand, but, is used to build cognitive structures that can apply the  
knowledge in novel situations. In this way, knowledge is thought of  
as building blocks that not only create new cognitive structures but  
also modifies and extends existing ones.

In this paradigm, the teaching is not simple a matter of transferring  
information but assisting students in the dynamic process of creating  
internal mental models. As each student will have individual  
abilities, capabilities, brain structures and prior knowledge, no two  
individual cognitive structures will be identical, so, no student can  
make identical use of any information or knowledge they receive.

Given that learning is very much an individual process it is  
incumbent upon each individual student to test out their own mental  
structures to ensure that the mental models they are building for  
themselves are viable and will lead to rational predictions and  
decision making. For this purpose, the modern educators will  
encourage students to interact and communicate with each other, so  
that they can use each other to test, modify or reinforce the  
cognitive structures they are building, during the learning process.

With the teacher also becoming involved in this interaction the  
knowledge of the teacher will gradually propagate throughout the  
group, in some cases by direct transference of knowledge and  
information , but, also indirectly as students learn from each other.

This paradigm then, sees learning as a combination of a personal and  
social activity where teachers have to be able to build positive  
relationships with students and create the conditions within which  
students can establish caring and committed relationships with each  
other.

Cooperative learning environments

Based upon the understanding that learning is a dynamic process, many  
educators create cooperative, team based organizational structures  
within which they can transfer their knowledge to students. The  
emphasis is on social interaction, group structure and methods by  
which group members combine and unite in the processes of creation,  
analysis and application. Fundamental to this approach is that there  
should be group managers or team leaders, with the teacher  
instigating and directing the activities.

Cooperative encouragement is based upon interpersonal factors and a  
joint aspiration to achieve a significant goal. It is assumed that  
cooperative efforts are powered by motivations to receive recognition  
or rewards. Focus is on relational concepts, dealing with what  
happens among individuals rather than what happens within them. The  
approach concentrates upon the organizing of social interaction and  
relationships, usually involving prescribed behaviour at each step.  
Significantly, the concept of the structure is divorced from the  
actual activity, such that the same organisational structures can be  
applied to any task.

These organisational structures are then put into practice, by  
assigning groups of students to work as teams on various projects,  
allowing them to practice and refine their team-working skills. In  
this way, team member strengths can be fully utilised and weaknesses  
compensated for, as team members learn to complement each others  
skills and knowledge to create a combined unit that can achieve much  
more than the sum of its parts.

Cooperative learning methods concentrate on social skills; developing  
self-esteem, responsibility, and respect for others. It is concerned  
with social status and the management of conflict and the division of  
tasks into various roles. Leadership and management are defined and  
formalised.

Limitations of the cooperative learning environment

Dr. Panitz refers to the writings of Ken Bruffee in observing that  
cooperative learning is most appropriate when dealing with foundation  
knowledge: defined as the fundamental areas of knowledge that all  
agree upon. With cooperative learning, people are encouraged to come  
together in groups, where they interact with each other in order to  
accomplish a specific common goal or develop an end product.

But, Dr. Panitz also draws attention to Ken Bruffee's concern with  
nonfoundational knowledge. This is the knowledge that deals with  
uncertain knowledge and questions which have dubious or ambiguous  
answers. This knowledge does not come from agreed and accepted  
principles but through reasoning and judgment.

In teaching nonfoundational knowledge, it is necessary for students  
to be taught how to question and doubt facts and information. Even  
the teacher's authority, knowledge and judgment mustn't be taken for  
granted. This removes the teacher from the centre of the educational  
process and sees them as just another participant in a process of  
enquiry: as much of a student as the students themselves.

Removing the authority, the leader or centre of focus of a group  
completely changes the nature of the group itself. The rules which  
define the all important structure of a cooperative learning  
environment no longer apply. Who is to be the determinant of what is  
right and what is wrong? Whom should respect whom? Whose opinion is  
most valid in a situation where opinions differ? What common ground  
can the group members focus on to achieve the group adhesion?

Clearly, the uncertainties and ambiguities, the lack of a central  
authority, the dearth of fundamental agreed principles will be  
devastating within a structured cooperative environment. This is the  
problem that Dr. Panitz sees being tackled more appropriately using a  
strategy of collaboration rather than cooperation.

Collaborative learning

To deal with non foundational knowledge -; where there are no  
certainties of fact or opinion -; there cannot be a leader or central  
authority, so, there has to be a transition from a closely  
controlled, teacher-centered system to a student-centered system, where  
the teacher and students share authority and control of learning.

This collaborative learning shifts the responsibility for learning  
away from the teacher and on to the student. The student is seen as  
being responsible for the results of his or her own learning,  
knowledge construction and organisation. Learning is seen as a  
process of interdependence where solutions and answers are possible  
only through accessing the opinions and knowledge of others.

Students are seen as each having a boundary of individual knowledge  
and opinion. They have to negotiate at that boundary with others, who  
also have boundaries. Groups are not formed through conventions,  
rules and protocols, but, by a melding of these boundaries to produce  
a common boundary that brings people into association.

In this way, each student draws from a distributed pool of knowledge,  
taking from it their own needs to build their individual cognitive  
models that they can use to make their own unique judgments and  
decisions. There is no compulsion for these models to be identical or  
even similar, there is simply the restraint that they must be  
compatible or complementary with others in the group.

The role of the teacher in this situation is simply to provide the  
right atmosphere and ambience for students to interact in a way where  
information, ideas, knowledge and opinions are freely exchanged and  
the students are able to test out their cognitive models on each  
other.

The essence of this process is that nobody tries to convince or  
influence others. Disagreements occur where there is a conflict of  
opinion, but, the pressure is not on trying to change the thoughts of  
others: disagreement is a signal for self reflection and a  
reappraisal of one's own knowledge base and methods of reasoning.  
This is in sharp contrast to the cooperative learning process, where  
uniformity of thought and thinking processes is important and the  
pressure is for people to be brought into common alignment.

This way of learning requires a radical paradigm shift because it is  
counter intuitive. Instinctive reactions to a differing of opinions  
would see a struggle for the proponents to convince each other of the  
error of their ways. With collaboration there is a respect for  
differing opinions and they are regarded as something to learn from  
and associate with rather than to change.

Disagreement and intellectual conflict in a collaborative learning  
situation are thus seen as desirable features of a group learning  
exercise. It forces individuals to consider new information and to be  
able to apply their cognitive understanding to new settings. It  
brings exposure to different points of view to allow students a more  
objective examination of an environment and offers the opportunity to  
see perspectives other than their own.

Collaborative learning on the Internet

It is only a short step to transfer the collaborative learning  
environment of the college classroom to the Internet. In a virtual  
world where communication is by email the classroom environment can  
be simulated as a list serve. As the teacher in a collaborative  
learning environment is not distinguishable from the students, there  
is no need for any controlling authority. In fact, any of the  
students can become a teacher and any teacher can become a student.

This is exactly the environment that is created in Internet e-mail  
discussion forums and special interest groups. These have formed  
spontaneously as self-organising groups that function specifically  
for the purpose of the subscribers to collaborate in learning. There  
is no controlling organisation. There is no pressure for everyone to  
have the same knowledge or express the same opinions. Each person in  
the group is responsible for building their own cognitive models and  
extracting their own knowledge from each other.

It is highly significant that the teaching strategies advocated by  
experienced educators have come up with exactly the kind of learning  
environment that has evolved naturally on the Internet.

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Marc