APA Newsletters

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2

Newsletter on Teaching in Philosophy

Articles

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

An Experimental High School Web Dialogue

James R. Davis
Boston University Academy

Hugh Taft-Morales
Edmund Burke High School

1. Introduction

Unlike most college philosophy students, high school philosophers rarely have a chance to engage in Socratic dialogue with anyone outside their own classroom. They have few schoolmates familiar with traditional academic vocabulary or engaged in the philosophic quest. Already labeled as antiquated and unconnected with contemporary society, academic philosophy must counter this false image and present itself as vibrant, international, and current. One way to do this is to engage students in philosophical discussions on the Internet. As philosophy teachers in high school, the authors realize how familiar our students are with virtual discussions via e-mail and chat rooms. But we are concerned about the lack of academic guidance evident in many of these discussions. Search for "metaphysics" on the web and you will turn up more sites for the sale of crystals than references to Plato or Hegel. So, with little technical know-how, we launched an experimental dialogue between two groups of students, each in a different philosophy class, separated by hundreds of miles.

In this paper, the authors will provide an overview of our web dialogue and then discuss its benefits and problems. Whereas there are many other ways to stimulate philosophical dialogue among students, a web dialogue serves as a useful pedagogical tool that can not only supplement traditional discussion techniques within an individual class, but also can allow philosophy students to engage other students outside of their own classroom and even outside of their own school. Furthermore, web discussions energized our students, who are often excited by the inclusion of the Internet in their classes. The authors conclude this paper with some proposals for future implementation of web dialogues.

2. How it Worked

Thanks to the APA web page on Pre-College Instruction (www.udel.edu/apa/) and the help of technology coordinator Chris Clement, it was easier than we expected. A mystery to us, the technology used was, in his words, "quite simple, actually." The webmaster set up a web page with a discussion text and an e-mail link listed at the bottom of the page. Students could write a passage and submit it through the e-mail link, but, before being posted by the webmaster, their essay could also be edited by the instructor. Students could then read the postings and reply. The site was created and maintained with a software package called Microsoft FrontPage 98 and hosted on a Windows NT 4.0 Server running the Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0.

Two different introductory philosophy classes at two high schools over 300 miles apart were involved. The first class, hereafter called class A, had just finished the ethics portion of the course and had begun studying metaphysics. Three students volunteered to engage in the web dialogue from class A. The second class, or class B, consisted of five students and had just started studying ethics. Class B also had to work within institutionally imposed homework restrictions; since the class was an elective, the instructor could assign no more than an hour of homework per week. It was therefore more practical to pick a topic already covered by A and part of B's present curriculum. This would minimize the homework for class B, while allowing the volunteers from class A to return to a familiar topic without weekly classroom reinforcement or guidance. We therefore agreed on discussing moral relativism.

In order to focus the discussion, the instructors chose two specific articles, Ruth Benedict's "A Defense of Moral Relativism," and W. T. Stace's article from The Concept of Morals as found in James Gould's text, Classic Philosophical Questions, under the title "Ethics are Not Relative." Students read or reread both articles and considered three focus questions: (1) what are Ruth Benedict's basic reasons for accepting normative moral relativism; (2) what are the best arguments offered by Stace to critique normative moral relativism; and, (3) what are some of the best counter-arguments a relativist could offer in response to the best arguments offered by Stace? These three focus questions would serve as the jumping off point of the discussion.

After reading the articles, the web dialogue followed four steps. First, each student of class B wrote his or her own answers to the three focus questions. The students then came together, presented their individual answers to their peers, and combined the best insights into a group response. This procedure encouraged students to make convincing argument for the inclusion or exclusion of any particular point. Second, the students submitted their joint essay to the instructor, who made minor editorial changes and submitted the essay to Chris Clement, who posted the paper on the APA web site. Third, class B electronically accessed this posting and used it, and whatever new material they had learned in the interim, to compose a response, thereby starting the process all over again. New focus questions were not written for each posted response; rather the responses alone served as material for the future discussions and postings. In this way, a series of three essays from each class were posted, with each new submission starting with the latest response posted at the APA site. The actual debate has been archived at the APA web site. The address to see the entire web dialogue is http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/governance/committees/pre-college/discussion1.html.

3. Benefits of the Discussion

The most obvious benefit of this project was that it energized the students. They launched into the discussions about the latest response instantly, without the need for the teacher to prod or encourage. The instructor's role was much more that of a coach, directing and suggesting how to best represent their thinking. It also encouraged students to think in terms of possible objections to their own positions, getting them to think, as in a chess game, "a few steps ahead" of the current discussion.

Another benefit was that it allowed students to investigate a specific issue for an extended period of time and allowed them to make connections with classroom topics that did not have immediate and obvious application to the current discussion. For example, students became more attuned to what made up a solid argument. They would make analogies to the arguments being made in the present reading or by students in discussion from the weak and strong arguments used in the web dialogue. In essence, the web dialogue provided a storehouse of shared examples of critical thinking that students frequently referred to throughout the rest of the course. Additionally, the dialogue became more a part of the life of the class and was more supportive of the course's teaching goals. Since ethical relativism would be the Internet topic throughout the term, the on-line discussion guided and focused subsequent readings on moral philosophy that were not directly responding to either Benedict or Stace. For example, when reading Kant, students wanted to discuss the plausibility of basing morality on rationality in light of Benedict's claim that morality could no longer be deduced from a conception of human nature. The on-line discussion therefore not only encouraged students to make their own connections between various readings, but also allowed them to contribute actively and eagerly to the overall focus of the unit on moral philosophy.

In the case of class B, the on-line discussion also had benefits within the classroom. The virtual discussion added coherence to classroom discussion because the overarching, on-going theme of relativism provided an intellectual focus for all other discussions. Whether they were concerned with consequences versus duty, the relationship between morality and the good life, or the possibility of ethics in a godless universe, students often held in the back of their minds how the current topic would help them in the next on-line response. Far from detracting from the current topic, students tended to ask more insightful questions. The on-line discussion vividly illustrated for them the interconnection of the various readings without the instructor having to persuade them that such connections really existed. Students also began to make connections with other classes, especially their English class, which was reading Macbeth at the time. They tended to treat moral philosophy as a living issue, instead of an ossified intellectual problem.

In the case of class A, where only some of the students participated in the Internet discussions, the web dialogue still benefited even the bystanders. First, all students, whether participating or not, could access the web page, read the discussions, and bring up objections and comments at the beginning of class. Second, as already noted above, the web dialogue provided even non-participants with a storehouse of critical thinking examples that they could discuss and apply in class as they struggled with new philosophical positions and arguments.

Although we encountered technical and practical problems implementing our web dialogue, we were nevertheless encouraged by the energy and enthusiasm it instilled in our students, so much so that we look forward to another on-line discussion this fall. Before discussing our approach to a second web dialogue however, we must first explain more fully some of these problems.

4. Problems with This First Attempt

Some obvious problems presented themselves even before we started the dialogue. First, since the two classes were not covering the same material at the same time, it was more difficult to focus the students, especially those in class A. Also, this group, without the benefit of much class time, found it more difficult to meet since they had to find time outside of class. Related to this problem is that of arranging a more consistent, and longer, series of postings. Practical limitations ended the discussion after a total of six responses. The discussion therefore ended abruptly without the benefit of concluding remarks from either side.

Another problem was finding the ideal size of the work group. Class A, working with two to three students per response, had a good dynamic. Class B, having five students crafting one response, had a more difficult time. Because this group met only twice a week, time constrained the students' efforts to cooperate on a response. With five students writing one response, it was difficult to get all of them together outside of class. The instructor tried two methods in order to eliminate the need for students meeting on their own time. First, he had them jointly write the essay in class, but this approach consumed far too much class time and bored all concerned. Second, he allowed students to write individual essays as homework and then, using e-mail, the instructor and students worked together to cut and paste representative points from each essay. Although this method was more expedient, students nevertheless felt the process to be too impersonal and a few felt somewhat alienated from the process.

Finally, the most interesting problem we confronted was that the dialogue turned more into a sophistical debate rather than into a philosophical inquiry. We had some hope that students from different schools would actually work together to examine these articles and pick out the best elements of Staces and Benedict's arguments. Perhaps we could even develop a consensus concerning relativism. Instead, students offered their argument, and anticipated and received an "attack" on their position. Class B sometimes deliberately used ad hominem and other informal fallacies in an attempt to provoke class A. Such abusive techniques were usually edited out before posting. At times they wrote more like sophists, who are interested in winning an argument, than philosophers, who are interested in finding the "truth." While the debate format has its strengths, this degenerative, combative model did not necessarily support our project's goal of offering our students a community of inquiry via the Internet.1

We believe this confrontational and occasionally sophistical mode of dialogue occurred for a number of reasons. First, choosing two articles that opposed each other presented the students with a black-and-white debate model. Being so familiar with this model, students assumed we were looking for them to mimic this polarization. Second, the students felt that they were talking to a "faceless enemy" devoid of the human characteristics that nurture collegial relationships and networks. There was no direct one-on-one discussion between students, which can be one of the strengths of Internet conversations. Since teachers acted as filters for student comments, there was less of the spontaneity that adds a more human touch to other Internet discussions. Third, Internet bulletin boards can encourage "flaming," which are malicious postings consisting mostly of ad hominem arguments. In the case of class B, the students, who were around fourteen years old, occasionally had to be reminded that the point was genuine inquiry and strongly encouraged to edit out provoking and combative remarks. Undoubtedly the impersonal nature of Internet communication encourages such attitudes among less serious philosophy students.2

5. Prospects for Improvement in a Second Project

Both instructors found the experiment successful: web dialogues stimulate in-class discussions and increase student enthusiasm for the material. Although we have nowhere advocated web dialogues as a substitution for traditional in-class discussions, we nevertheless have shown that web dialogues can profitably supplement more traditional techniques.

Given some tinkering with the process, we are confident that a web dialogue will enhance our teaching. Despite some time restrictions to class B, we would recommend include a longer time period for the discussion to evolve. We believe that a trade-off between the number of topic covered and engaging in a longer debate is justified in light of the benefits we observed in the students' ability to engage in quality philosophical discourse. We would also recommend a more definite schedule of replies. This would allow for more responses that might be shorter in length and more focused in content. Another change to explore is to allow a component of the discussion to be one-on-one, perhaps as a lead-up to group work on a response. If each student had a partner at the other school with whom he or she could chat informally about the issues raised in the latest response, the value of spontaneous and informal Internet dialogue would be put to better use. Imagine, late at night, two students chatting about the Allegory of the Cave by the glow of their computer screens. It has the flavor of the café, without the smoke or the dangers of the street. Another related idea might be the linking "philosophy clubs" at different schools. This would give students the opportunity for serious philosophical inquiry without strict moderation from instructors. The classroom curriculum moves so quickly that perhaps a more leisurely electronic dialogue would better fit the natural pace of philosophical reflection.

While the one-on-one or philosophy club option might de-emphasize the confrontational flavor of the dialogue, a final change that might address this problem is to make the issue of confrontation explicit and ask the students to address it. If the purpose of the project is to help create a virtual community of philosophical thinkers working together, then we might ask the students themselves to suggest the best ways to accomplish this goal. Many of our students are ahead of their teachers regarding access and use of the Internet. Why not assume those students can address substantive process issues? A more cooperative teaching relationship might allow us all, teachers and students, to roam the virtual Agora as true Socratic teachers.3

Footnotes

1. The authors, of course, wanted students to argue critically for their viewpoint, since we believe that this is one the principal values of a philosophical education. Unfortunately, the specter of "making the lesser argument the stronger" became more prevalent as the dialogue wore on. In essence, we wanted students to argue with being argumentative for the sake of it.

2. The instructors discussed whether gender might have played a part in the confrontational style that evolved, and we wondered how gender influenced the use of technology. Both instructors, and seven of the eight students involved, were male. Although our evidence is purely anecdotal and we recognize the need for continued rigorous studies, the authors' classroom experience has shown them that boys more often embrace this confrontational model than girls and that boys are more comfortable with the impersonal flavor of some Internet interaction. Even if, however, some students prefer to be more aggressive and sophistical, perhaps web dialogues and other Internet resources could help encourage a number of kinds of students, who sometimes are closed out of the classroom. For example, some writers on technology and gender point out that sometimes adolescent females, who are less likely to speak out in classroom discussions, are more likely to interact on a computer. Body language, subtle intimidation, and social judgments that may deter shy students from participating are all less a part of electronic dialogue. Some researchers have also found that the increased communication that the Internet allows appeals to girls even more than boys. If so, the real issue is not the technology, but the use to which it is put.

Cf. Cornelia Brunner and Dorothy Bennett distinguish between "technology as hardware and database," which appeals generally to males, and "technology as a means to communication," which appeals more to females. See "Technology and Gender: Differences in Masculine and Feminine Views," The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 81, 592 (1997), 46-51.

Additionally, one of us presented a seminar at the American Association of Philosophy Teachers' 11th International Biennial Workshop-Conference on Teaching Philosophy, which discussed the uses of e-mail in large lecture-room classes. The presenter noted that female students far more often sent E-mail containing questions and comments to the instructor than male students. As these students became more comfortable on-line, they became more confident in classroom discussions because E-mail provides a safer forum for airing their views, out of the sight of their classmates. The presenter has had similar experiences in smaller classes.

3. An additional article dealing with establishing philosophical dialogue using the web is Lawrence Hinman, "The Virtual Seminar Room," Teaching Philosophy 19, 4 (1996), 319-328.

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

APA Newsletters

Spring 2001 Volume 00, Number 2

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2