Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 26.4
Annotated snapshot of ManyScripts (names are deleted; arrows have been added to
indicate how the teacher compares answers)
night before the course. This stressful preparation work reduces the sustainability
(factor 14).
Both scripts illustrate factor 4 (integration) since they integrate individual, small
group and class-wide activities in a meaningful way. They are linear (factor 3) and
based on a workflow that provides continuity (factor 6): for instance, data from
individual answers (ArgueGraph, phase 1) are automatically processed to form con-
flicting pairs (phase 2); individual and pair answers (phase 3) are collected for
debriefing (Phase 4).
Drama (factor 7) is embedded in the SWISH model. However, smaller design
elements make the drama higher in ArgueGraph than in ConceptGrid. The con-
flict phase triggers a degree of engagement that goes beyond the “didactic contract”
(Brousseau, 1998): in many cases, we had to tell students “Stop arguing now with
you friend even if you have not convinced him, this is just a didactic game.” In
the ArgueGraph script, we also noticed the following phenomenon. When being
asked to choose between answers A and B, many students expressed their frustra-
tion not to be able to answer some mix of A and B. This frustration pushed them
to stand up literally during the debriefing session (phase 4) to defend themselves.
They seemed to feel a pressing need to explain that they answered B but actually
wanted to answer something slightly different. Their frustration raised their level of
participation. Once, we modified the interface of the environment and let the student
express subtle choices (e.g. to answer “in some cases” instead of “yes” or “no”), and
this completely destroyed the drama factor. Finally, we found that the energy gen-
erated by this design was very fragile. It depends upon the timing (factor 7) of the
