Milton N. Campos, University of Montreal

INTRODUCTION

This article describes an example of some difficulties that can occur in online communication: a nasty virtual clash in which subterfuges, lies, and dissimulation take over the learning process. The clash reveals how unregulated competition can sour a learning environment. The study suggests that the lack of adequate teaching strategies, proper training to address conflict in small groups, and built-in scaffolds for collaboration contributed to the clash. By analyzing this escalating networked misunderstanding, we aim to uncover some of the dangers of online communication, and suggest that effective group management strategies can avoid them.

Computer-mediated communication is changing educational practices by establishing global, regional and local communities of lifelong learners, and it is likely that it will shape new pedagogies and learning scenarios. However, most conferencing systems lack scaffolds to help instructors regulate networked activities in order to support intentional collaborative learning through effective group management strategies. Research shows that in-depth learning can be achieved by integrating technology with adequate metacognitive teaching strategies (for a brief review, see Bruer, 1994). In addition to that, effective mediation is critical for the building of a healthy learning environment.

Regulating online activity is a necessary condition for mediating conflict and avoiding clashes between learners, although it is not sufficient. Clashes are primarily caused by communication problems created by the participants' inability to deal with the representational contents shared in the written communication process. The inability to solve conflicts has both psychological and socio-cultural roots as they mix cooperative and competitive interests and can have a constructive or destructive outcome (Deutsh, 1994). In this study we try to show that structuring networked activities effectively might narrow the possibilities of personality and group clashes.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

We applied a socio-constructivist perspective to study the online learning conflict. The thesis is that to understand the construction of networked knowledge, it is necessary to understand the communication process, i.e., the representations that we build in the process of representing what the other is willing to say in the conferencing messages. The conflict indicates that something went wrong in the communication process, damaging the networked construction of knowledge.

Jean-Blaise Grize (1997) proposed a model of verbal communication that he calls the "situation of communication" in the context of the use of natural language. Natural language is the tool that we use to articulate conscious and sub-conscious cognitive, affective, and perceptual schemas (visual, auditory, tactile, etc.) that altogether shape our understanding of the surrounding world. It has both psychological and social dimensions, as expressed by the complementary and indivisible dichotomy of the concepts language and speaking (Saussure, 1987). In addition, natural language deals with both ill-defined knowledge and well-defined knowledge. In the ill-defined knowledge domain, referential as it is, meanings are permanently shared and changed in the search of consensus and mutual understanding. Conversely, well-defined knowledge is structural because it expresses procedures. However, both ill-defined and well-defined knowledge need natural language to be communicated (Grize, 1997). For example, for conveying a mathematical concept (well-defined knowledge), natural language is needed.

In Grize's model, the situation of communication is a process of "schematization" (foot note 2) of the notions used in natural language. The emitter and the receptor build "places" in which they exchange and share meanings. Those "places" are the spaces of language. Consistent with Johnson-Laird's view of the process of communication (1990), Grize's model contends that emitters and receptors alike produce mental images of each other. Emitters and receptors build and re-build meanings according to the representations that they have of each other in the very moment of the communicative exchange. Together they build configurations of meanings that are expressed through the natural logic of language. Because meanings are not universal, they are interpreted and re-interpreted, built and re-built according to an individual's finality and cultural pre-constructs. There is always a process of construction and re-construction of meanings in the communicative interaction (Campos, 1996) to achieve consensual understandings through shared social constructed representations (Moscovici, 1961; 1994; Farr, 1994).

The notion of configurations of meanings was introduced in response to the theoretical need for understanding the integrated complexity of the way people construct meanings. Configurations of meanings can be understood as open systems that are moulded according to the context through cognitive and perceptual schemas. These schemas are triggered by the living history of the individual or the affective schemas (Piaget, 1954; Campos, 1996; Varela, 1996). Thus, schemas are the actualisation of amalgamated psychological and social representations expressed through natural language and other symbolic systems (such as visual and audio mental images). Schemas are permanently built and re-built and they are close to the idea of a process in which the activated brain produces multiple sets of meanings, or "multiple drafts of narrative fragments" that permeate "the stream of consciousness" (Dennet, 1991, page 135). However, we add to Dennet's model the concept that the stream of consciousness cannot be considered exclusively as a cognitive result but a creative process as well (Varela, 1996) because it is intrinsically linked to the living history of the individual.

THE STUDY

To study the online clash, we identified configurations of meanings through meaning implications. Escalation of conflicts has been extensively studied although no simple formulas have been presented either to analyze or to solve them. In a review of the literature, Deutsh (1994) indicated that researchers are still far away from understanding how we can we prevent, abort, or deescalate conflicts, and it is more difficult to cure than to prevent affective schemas from negatively interfering with a group experience.

Although conferencing systems bring the possibility of structuring configurations of meanings through collaborative meaning moulding, studying conference transcripts is still a challenge. To study those configurations, we consider the online text as an object of knowledge because it is published and kept by the system (Popper, 1994; Bereiter, 1994; Bereiter, and Scardamalia, 1996). Texts, thus, have "a life", an objective existence whose different tracks (the configurations of meanings) can be traced.

Because of the very nature of the language and the multiplicity of meanings that words have, clashes can arise due to the different interpretations that texts can provide to readers. Our starting point is that it is practically impossible to find words with literal meanings (for a review of the literature, see Gibbs, 1994) because they are culturally, contextually, and historically dependent (Varela, 1996). Because the clash took place in a hypermedia environment, the meanings constructed during the conflict were also exacerbated by the mediated environment. For instance, hyperlinks can lead to other meaning paths that can provide further configurations of meanings. This study provides information about how conflicting interpretations can escalate misunderstandings and on how competition and collaboration interact. It also advises instructors and conference moderators on how to avoid online suffering.

Procedure

First, we applied the meaning implication transcript analysis to identify the configurations of meanings that were central to the communication process of the group. Then, we re-constructed the history of the conflict escalation. Previous research suggests that the inferential process of meaning moulding in online asynchronous learning environments can be identified using this technique (Campos, 1998a; for a more detailed explanation of the procedure, see Campos, 2000). The technique enabled us to follow the flow of meaning implications, i.e. the building of configurations of meanings through the structures of natural language. The procedure consisted of identifying the flows of meaning implications in the conference transcripts of a university course (the selected texts can be found in the Appendix), and the messages in which they occurred (see Campos, 1998a). We identified meaning implications by:

• Localizing conditional words in the body of discourse, and
• Relating the found conditional phrases with previous conditional phrases according to the definition of meaning implication: a backtracking process.

Second, we complemented the study of the online clash by looking at other logical operators that could inform us about competitive language behaviour. We identified the competitive behaviour by studying, in the meaning implication threads, the use of:

• Affirmations in the imperative form, or with an imperative intention, and
• Negations.

We also studied the role of imperative affirmations and negations in the threads of meaning implication in which they occurred. We verified that the use of these forms were instrumental for triggering conflict.

The Online Clash

Introduction

After studying the whole written text of the course, identifying all flows of meaning implications, and comparing the flows to the threads of discussion, we isolated four flows of meaning implications in which the online discomfort was built. These threads can be understood as relatively independent configurations of meanings. The online discomfort started at the very beginning of the course and continued to be fed by a number of comments made in those four configurations of meanings. Later, in the middle of the course, these four flows of meaning implications merged into a single one, that continued until the end. Statements related to the online learning clash were distributed in 21.9 percent of all course messages.

These different threads, distributed along one fifth of the course messages, were inextricably connected. The meanings traveled across their fluid boundaries. The delimitation of a configuration of meanings is somewhat arbitrary: it is both objective and subjective. It is objective in the sense that the conditional words found in the body of the discourse can be considered structural "tags" that serve as the rings of the meaning chain. It is also subjective because the researcher interprets the data according to his/her own understanding to decide which main meanings related to the chain are the most important for the analysis (Grize, & Pieraut-Le Boniec; 1991). Nonetheless, the conditional structure of the configurations allows a reasonable level of reliability. In this study we identified five main configurations of meanings, and separated them for the sake of clarity.

Before presenting our analysis of the online clash, it is important to state that:

• Instructors' interventions were very limited because the course design supposed an active role of students in guiding the discussions: they were assigned conferences to moderate,
• Participants were actively engaged in the course: they produced a meaningful average number of messages, and discussions had good quality,
• Participants built relevant ill-defined knowledge across the course: meaning implication flows show that they engaged in intentional learning efforts,
• The flows of meaning implications related to the conflict were intimately connected to the development of the knowledge-building effort,
• Although the instructors set up many conferences to organize discussions, the flows of meaning implication related to the clash crossed them all, and
• Participants held different nationalities, languages, and cultural standards.

%%%%%%

The conflict escalation

Four flows of meaning implications (or configurations of meanings) were built simultaneously, giving birth to a fifth later on. They started in three different conferences and then spread out to other four conferences. There were, thus, seven conferences opened in the conferencing system. The core meanings of those first four configurations of meanings were:

• Imperative: One participant patronized, exercised power through the adopted role of "best student". The "patronizing meaning implication thread" has ten messages across four conferences. It involved directly three participants.

• Technical/ethical: The participants discussed technical problems, faced difficulties with the software, and suggested ways to deal with those problems and difficulties, leading to the discussion of an online Ethics. The "technical/ethical meaning implication thread" has eleven messages across four conferences. It involves directly three participants. The thread develops approximately at the same time as the previous meaning implication thread, but ends later. There is a connection between these two threads in the message in which "A" says that "B" missed the first assignment deadline (see Appendix).
• Debating: The participants debated topics of the course. The "debating meaning implication thread" has twenty messages across four conferences. It involves directly three participants. The thread starts after the other presented threads already had began, and it ends later. Many messages of this thread are also part of the "imperative" and "technical/ethical" meaning implication threads.
• Emotional: The participants felt excluded and ignored, had difficulties in finding ways to write to all participants, and discussed group cohesion. The "emotional meaning implication thread" has twelve messages across four conferences. It involves directly four participants. The thread starts at the very beginning of the course, and ends later. A few messages of this thread are also part of the "imperative", the "technical/ethical", and the "debating" meaning implication threads.

The four previous flows merged into a fifth configuration of meanings. Its main meaning was:

• Confrontation: The participants positioned themselves and revealed their feelings by one another. The "confrontation meaning implication thread" is an articulate and rather complex play of hidden and open attacks. It mixes up elements created along the previously presented threads. It is important to remember that the instructional strategy adopted transferred responsibility of course delivery to the students. Each one had a turn in leading a seminar. The "confrontation thread" has forty messages. The clash, interestingly, happens in a single conference, and involves directly five participants with a final one line comment written by the invited instructor. The instructor responsible for the course did not attempt to resolve the conflict. Two students moderated this conference: The second part by "A", and the first part by "B". This information is relevant for understanding the development of the clash (see Appendix).

ONLINE LEARNING: NOT THAT SIMPLE...

The clash shows how emotions can take over an online learning environment when an ill-regulated teaching strategy is in place. The clash suggests that lack of proper structuring played a role in the escalation of conflict. Key moments of the escalating clash in which imperative affirmation and negation are used indicate the difficulties of the learners to interact in an environment lacking clear rules. Below, some examples1:

a) In the "imperative meaning implication thread", student "A" decides to take charge of the process by the use of authority. The instructors did not clarify whether the student was or was not crossing the line:

"It is recommended..."

"It is high time..."

"Although so far there are no rules prescribed for... debate, and no interest shown... in this class, I think I still should fulfill the responsibility of participating in this conference due to my commitment..."

b) In the "technical/ethical meaning implication thread", "E" warns "A". Without any remark by the instructor, the student makes use of authority to morally "forbid" and condemn the colleague for lurking at conferences that were not part of the course:

"Ethically we don't have permission to wander into anyone else's..."

"A" responds to the criticism by writing the following:

"If students who aren't registered (in the course)... therefore aren't permitted to browse those conferences (of other courses), then they should be given either navigational aid/netiquette at the very beginning, or those courses shouldn't appear on the pages where they have permission to log on..."

c) In the "debating meaning implication thread", "D" answers imperatively to "A" when the student writes "I need to understand" (the directions of the seminar). "D" use words that could be read as irony:

""A", keep in mind guessing is what it's all about!"

d) In the "emotional meaning implication thread", "A", like the others, express doubts and insecurity about what the reading and writing behaviour should be. The student formulated the following questions, that were never clarified by the instructor:

"Q1: When logging on the conferences with professional content I was wandering if it's acceptable/desirable to read other people's submissions, prior to writing our own?...

Q2: What is the good way to address the message to one person in particular? Can we read such messages, can the instructor/moderator read such messages?"

e) In the "confrontation meaning implication thread", the doubts about what were the rules for making photocopies (to get some readings for the course) ended with the pivotal comment that soured definitely the relationships, without any instructional intervention:

"I ... feel compelled to make a comment regarding the blatant disregard for proper netiquette ... snide remarks about having to get them ourselves is in poor taste..."

Although suggestions on how to properly behave online (netiquette) can be found in the literature (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff, 1995) and elsewhere, they are far from being enough or appropriate for the use in the real world of online learning. The analysis of the flows of meaning implication led us to conclude that clear rules and proper nurturing seem to be necessary to regulate interaction and integrate cognitive tasks in a positive environment. The clash highlights that the participants were, in one way or another, victims of the absence of an appropriate instructional intervention. We discuss this lack by presenting:

• The difficulties of online learning
• What is, then, competition, cooperation, and collaboration?
• The need of regulating collaborative online learning

The difficulties of online learning

Introducing technology in education is not as easy as it seems to be for first-timer enthusiasts. Many problems can arise in online education through learning networks (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff, 1995). If not properly addressed by the instructors, these problems can have serious consequences for learning, trigger conflicts, and create unforeseen problems, different from those already known in face-to-face communicative interaction. The clash is a remarkable example of those problems.

Some of the problems that arose in the clash are known in the literature. The most common are (a) technical difficulties leading to communication anxiety, (b) information overload, and (c) group dynamics and miscommunication due to cultural differences (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff, 1995; Ishii, 1994).

Technical difficulties and anxiety

Research suggest that lack of proper preparation, adequate hardware and software, training of instructors and students, and course planning can cause fear of computers and new technology. In addition, a correlation between computer anxiety and computer experience was already found (Dyck, and Smither, 1994), contributing to strategies for lowering anxiety (McInerney, McInerney, and Sinclair, 1994; Maurer, and Simonson, 1993 1994; Carlson, and Wright, 1993; Crable, Brodzinski, Scherer, and Jones, 1994; Bohlin, and Hunt, 1995; Carlson, and Wright, 1993).

It is worth noting that the escalation of the conflict in the online clash was apparent in the "technical/ethical thread" messages (see the Appendix). Participants were learning how to navigate in the system at the same time that they were supposed to be engaged in new course content. Although the clash might have causes that are impossible to assess only by studying the transcripts, the fact that the students were dealing with two learning curves and were clearly facing technical difficulties seems to have had a negative effect on interaction. In addition, there was a lack of permanent and consistent instructional intervention clarifying the students on how to solve navigation problems.

Group dynamics and Cultural differences

A number of studies recognize the importance of culture, and the communication difficulties that arise from cultural gaps (Walls, 1994; Ishii, 1994). Ishii uses the iceberg metaphor for explaining this problem. The iceberg of online behaviour, overtly understood as a mere exchange of messages, has hidden the under-sea problem of interpretation, of the multiple drafts stream of consciousness that are projected in the configurations of meanings that we build. Habits, attitudes, beliefs, and values play an important and crucial role in group interaction (Ishii, 1994). Cultural differences are closely related to personal differences. Different languages, social and geographical settings, religion, perception of race, gender, age, etc., have an impact on online learning. Individual constructs such as personality, emotions, and the way we show attachment to others in our relationships have an important impact as well because they result in context dependent use of language (Gibbs, 1994).

The clash shows that the idea that online education can hide cultural and personal differences because of the lack of face-to-face contact (Harasim, 1994) is a myth. There is no evidence that such a situation holds, only anecdotes. The written discourse can easily reveal aspects of those differences and affect interaction either positively or negatively. Most students in the studied course came from very different cultural environments, and we concluded from our analysis that the way language was used and meanings were interpreted influenced the escalation of conflict. Again, the clash shows that the lack of appropriate instructional intervention "allowed" the participants to engage in a competitive race: Regulatory measures, clarifications along the way, and sensitivity to cultural differences were absent. The instructional silence acted as a consent, although, certainly, this outcome was unintended.

RELATIONSHIPS

In addition to culture, other personal differences subjacent to the psycho social configurations of meanings moulded along the written processes of each individual also interfered in the learning experience of the group. The analysis of the transcript suggests that the group dynamics and the lack of instructional conflict resolution abilities contributed to the disaster. The "imperative thread" shows how a dominant personality triggered competition by placing itself in a position of authority (and, thus, of inequality) as a result of feeling culturally and personally excluded. The "technical/ethical thread" shows how dissimulation took over the relationships in the episode in which "A" forgot to delete "B" 's message reproduced at the end of a message to "C" (see Appendix). The "debating thread" shows a mixed situation in which the competitive attitudes of two group members were dissimulated as cooperation: "A" refused "to understand". The others refused to clarify. The "emotional" and "confrontation" threads show the lack of mutual trust, misunderstandings, and escalation of the conflict. Most "sorry" and "thanks" were obvious lies.

It is our understanding that these problems could be minimized depending on the strategy taken by the instructor. In-depth online learning through conferencing systems depends not only on problem solving processes carried out through appropriate meta-cognitive instructional strategies (Bruer, 1994), but also on proper skills for guiding group dynamics, and on applying appropriated conflict resolution strategies when necessary. As Piaget highlighted, affective schemas can disturb positively or negatively the cognitive process (1954). It is unfortunate that most cognitive science research, working from a neo-behaviourist perspective, tends to ignore the role of feelings and the psycho-social history of the individuals in the cognitive process, as remarked by Varela (1996).

In addition, it seems that the way the course design was implemented contributed to the clash. The course was divided in a number of sequential conferences to be moderated by the students. The use of moderation is well-known in face-to-face courses, conferences, seminaries, and group presentations without reports of being counter-productive. In the case of the studied course, the use of conference moderation seemed to have had a negative impact on the relationship between the participants. However, it is likely that conference intervention strategies do work or do not depending on the appropriateness of their application and not on the strategies themselves. Indeed, transcript analysis suggests that the instructor's decision not to actively intervene in either debating content or mediating relationships ended up contributing to the progressive escalation of the student's discomfort. The students were neither motivated nor had their questions and problems promptly addressed because they had no rules to follow. Without clear rules about how to behave and to participate, students created their own rules without consensus. As a result, competition emerged. It is worth noting that competition and lack of authority are antithetical: the first cannot exist without the second. The end result becomes an online clash.

What is then competition, cooperation, and collaboration?

It is our understanding that the conceptualization of adequate instructional intervening strategies in online conferencing depends on clarifying the notions of competition, cooperation, and collaboration, and the relationship among them (Laferriere, 1997). Although the difference between competition and cooperation/collaboration is quite visible, the relationship between cooperation and collaboration is far less clear. We believe that a constructivist approach can shed light on this debate.

Competition is a situation in which contenders act independently but heteronomously (Freitas, 1998; Piaget, 1977b). It implies for the competitor the need to "win the game", and to come up to a position of authority. The winner gains authority, while the loser does not. The use of most cooperative techniques appear quite similar to the competitive ones. The term cooperation is applied to the act of working together in heteronomous situations.

The positive outcomes of cooperative work in the achievement of cognitive group goals and individual accountability in the learning process were extensively studied and examined by a number of researchers (Sharam, 1980; Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1980). This theoretical tradition relies on the idea that getting awards and other forms of recognition for the work done cooperatively enhances learning. The awarding system used in cooperative and competitive techniques strengthen heteronomy because someone in a position of authority decides what, how, and why a learner should win. This view is antithetical to constructivism , which is based on autonomy and the setting of individual learning goals. l2.

On the contrary, collaboration is the act of working together with the intention of achieving autonomy. The theoretical tradition of collaboration is consistent with the principle of autonomy because it implies the idea of collective building of knowledge through inquiry, a process of continuous adaptation (Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1994; Bereiter, and Scardamalia, 1996) in which learners engage collectively in generating, linking and structuring ideas (Harasim, 1990). Although most educational institutions have top-down authority policies and are, thus, always essentially heteronomous, collaborative learning is driven by an autonomous perspective.

The analysis of the course showed that although a collaborative approach was initially applied, it degenerated into competition. We argue that competition, cooperation and collaboration, as well as heteronomy and autonomy, are neither good nor bad in themselves. In addition, they do not exist in pure forms and can be mixed up. Furthermore, there is still no definite scientific evidence that one approach is better than the other in terms of learning. Decision on which path to take (competitive, cooperative, or collaborative) is mainly philosophical. Nonetheless, whatever strategy we chose, it should be consistently implemented along the teaching process if instructors' learning goals are to be achieved. The study of the transcripts suggests that rules and sensitivity might have changed the negative outcomes of the clash.

Regulating online learning activity

Research on either heteronomous (Sharam, 1980; Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1980; Stevens, and Slavin, 1995) or autonomous (Stevahn, Johnson, and Johnson, and Real, 1996; Oshima, Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1996; Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1994; Koschmann, 1994; Koschmann, Myers, Felttovich, and Barrows, 1994; Harasim, 1993; Repman, 1993; Oakes, Hare, and Sirotnik, 1986) approaches to education suggest that better qualitative learning is achieved by applying group work instead of focusing on individual techniques or strategies. Rules and sensitivity are necessary in both cases.

Regulating conferencing as well as other online learning activities appropriately is critical. Research suggests that structuring is key in the development and acquisition of expertise (Bruer, 1994; Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1994). However, a close look at the way the clash evolved suggests that commitment and nurturing - these essentially emotional human qualities - are also crucial. An effective way to describe these qualities is to apply the metaphor used by Breuleux. When explaining to a group of online learning researchers how to foment and to progress educational research, Breuleux asked the researchers to consider the act of researching (here we replace researching analogically with the act of teaching) as a small and fragile plant that will only survive with care, proper attention, and consistent and permanent nurturing (1999).

The clash shows that along with cognitive research, studies on how emotions affect the establishment of values in the inter-individual exchanges of the online learning process should also be pursued. Evidence on the practices that best integrate cognition and emotions will help to set up appropriate online learning scenarios able to improve schools and to promote adequate learning environments (Bruer, 1994). Although such environments are a necessary condition for scaffolding collaboration, they are not sufficient. Sufficiency can only be met with the application of adequate instructional conferencing intervention strategies. A guiding and supportive hand along with clear rules can be instrumental for a balanced process of reciprocal meaning moulding.

CONCLUSION

Bruer (1994) highlights the need of developing ways to propitiate interaction that supports apprenticeship, and remarks that a successful school reform depends on better understanding education, learning and teaching. Unfortunately, networked education can reproduce some of the old mistakes of the past. Technology, as Breuleux wisely remarked, is not "an all-or-nothing proposition" (Lewington and Owen, 1999). The clash is a remarkable example that the use of technology does not necessarily build a good learning environment, and he reminds us about the need for better understanding of the online communication processes.

The current understanding that cognition has nothing to do with emotions is damaging to education. The needs of a networked reformed school in the knowledge society will not be addressed without seriously taking into consideration the values that we attach to the practices. The online clash is a remarkable example of how the collaborative effort to achieve mastery in a knowledge domain was gravely disturbed by emotions due to the lack of instructional regulation and careful nurturing of relationships.

We argue that the development of an Ethics of telelearning could be a contribution to the design of online courses and conferencing intervention techniques. An Ethics would provide:

• the necessary values from which regulation would derive to prevent conflicts to become destructive,
• a normative structure that would help emotions to be positively integrated in the learning process instead of becoming an extraneous and unwelcoming interference,
• mechanisms for guaranteeing the necessary moral respect between learning partners in their meaning-moulding efforts.

Networked communities nurtured in the knowledge of practical ethical norms would promote collaboration through autonomy, and would provide the renewal of educational practices (Laferriere, Breuleux, and Campos, 1999). How to design instructional intervention strategies for conferencing consistent with a body of ethical values that could regulate cognitive processes through positive emotions? It seems that participatory design (Silva and Breuleux, 1994; Riel and Harasim, 1994) could be one among other possible strategies because it allows the contribution of all persons involved in the learning process. Designing participative learning scenarios implies, necessarily, relationships based on respect, equality, shared interests, and mutual inquiry. In addition, this strategy allows the enhancement of social and democratic values necessary for the constitution of networked learning communities through autonomous collaboration, as we could verify in another study (Gunderson, Currie, & Campos, 1999).

The online clash is rich in showing how irreplaceable masters are, and that simple Socratic teachings are, still, to be seriously considered. Jaeger (1987) remarks that the ethical construction of the human being, according to Socrates, was in fact an action, a pedagogical practice. Educators of the networked age should be able to guide high-tech new generations to face the challenges of the future with open minds and hearts through the digital paths of information, avoiding a choice between one or another. Kant's lesson is more than two centuries old, but still holds: "Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind" (1994, p. 89).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Therese Laferriere (Universite Laval, Canada) for a public remark about the need of clarifying the notions of competition and collaboration, made at the closing session of the Second International Conference on Computer-Support Collaborative Learning (Toronto, December 1997). That remark inspired this study. I also thank Dr. Jean Blaise Grize (Universite de Neuch‚tel, Switzerland), Dr. Lia Beatriz de Lucca Freitas (Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil), Sylvia Currie (Simon Fraser University, Canada), and Dr. Linda Harasim (Simon Fraser University, Canada). I dedicate this article to Dr. Alain Breuleux (McGill University, Canada) who investigates participatory design, and to all those people who experienced suffering in computer-mediated-communication.

REFERENCES

Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's world 3. Educational Researcher, 23, 7, pp. 21-23.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Rethinking Learning. In Olson, D. R. and Torrance, N. (Eds.) The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling (pp. 485-513).

Bohlin, R. M. & Hunt, N. P. (1995). Course structure effects on students' computer anxiety, confidence and attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 13, pp. 263-270.

Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Campos, M. N. (2000). The hypermedia conversation: reflecting upon, building and communicating ill-defined arguments. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning.

Carlson, R. E. & Wright, D. G. (1993). Computer anxiety and communication apprehension: Relationship and introductory college course effects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 3, 329-338.

Crable, E. A., Brodzinski, J. D., Scherer, R. F. & Jones, P. D. (1994). The impact of cognitive appraisal, locus of control, and level of exposure on the computer anxiety of novice computer users. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 4, 329-340.

Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: Principles, training, and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 1, 13-22.

Dennet, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, Little, Brown and Company.

Dyck, J. L. & Smither, J. A-A. (1994). Age differences in computer anxiety, the role of computer experience, gender and education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 4, 329-340.

Farr, R. (1994). Representações sociais: a teoria e sua história [Social representations: the Theory and its History]. In Jovchelovitch, S. and Guareschi, P. (Eds.) Textos em Representações Sociais [Texts on Social Representations] (31-59). Petrópolis: Vozes.

Freitas, L. B. L. (1998). A moral na obra de Jean Piaget: Um projeto inacabado [Morals in the Work of Jean Piaget: an Unfinished Project]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation obtained from the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grize, J.-B (1997). Logique et langage [Logic and language]. Paris: Ophrys. (Original work published 1991)

Grize, J. & Pieraut-Le Boniec. (1991). Logique naturelle et construction des propriétés des objets. L'Année psychologique, 91, 103-120.

Gunderson, J., Currie, S. & Campos, M. N. (1999). Advancing educational practice through researcher / teacher / student collaboration. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Telelearning - Network of Centres of Excellence, p.8. Montréal, 9-8 November.

Harasim, L. M. (1994). Networlds: Networks as social space. In Harasim, L. M. (Ed.) Global networks: Computers and international communication (pp.15-34). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

Harasim, L. M. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 2, 119-130.

Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In Harasim, L. M. (Ed.) Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (39-66). New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995) Learning networks: A field guide. Cambridge: Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ishii, H. (1994). Cross-cultural communication and CSCW. In Harasim, L. M. (Ed.) Global networks: Computers and international communication (143 151). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

Jaeger, W. (1987). Paideia: Los ideales de la cultura griega [Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture]. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica. (Original work published 1953)

Koschmann, T. D. (1994) Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3, 219 225.

Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3, 227-264.

Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., & Campos, M. (1999). L'évolution des métiers et des formations dans les nouvelles méthodes de production des connaissances. L'apprentissage en réseau, une réalité pédagogique à définir [The evolution of professions and professional formation in the new methods of knowledge production. Networked learning: a pedagogical reality to be defined] .Paper presented at the colloquium Initi@tives99, Universités Virtuelles: Vers un Enseignement Égalitaire [Initiatives, Virtual Universities: Towards an Egalitarian Teaching], Edmunston, NB. [Online]. Available: http://www.aupelf-uref.org/initiatives/colloque/ (October 21,

1999).

Laferrière, T. (1997). Public communication. Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Toronto, December 14.

Lewenstein, M. et alli (2000). Standford Pointer Project. [Online] Available: http://www.poynter.org/eyetrack2000/ (29 June 2000)

Lewington, J. & Owen, T. (1999, April 29). Higher learning goes high tech. The Globe and Mail, pp. T1, T4.

Maurer, M. M. & Simonson, M. R. (1993-1994). The reduction of computer anxiety: Its relation to relaxation training, previous computer coursework, achievement, and need for cognition. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 2, 205-219.

McInerney, V., McInerney, D. M. & Sinclair, K. E. (1994). Student teachers, computer anxiety, and computer experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 1, 27-50.

Moscovici, S. (1994) Prefácio [Forward]. In Jovchelovitch, S. & Guareschi, P. (Eds.). Textos em representações Sociais [Texts on social representations] (7-16). Petrópolis: Vozes.

Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse: Son image et son public [Psychoanalysis: its image and its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Oakes, J., Hare, S. E., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1986). Collaborative inquiry: A congenial paradigm in a cantankerous world. Teachers College Record, 87, 4, 543-561.

Oshima, J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Collaborative learning processes associated with high and low conceptual progress. Instructional Science, 24, 125-155.

Piaget, J. (1992). Biologie et connaissance. essai sur les relations entre les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs [Biology and knowledge: essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes]. Nêchatel-Paris: Delachaux et Niesté.

Piaget, J. (1991). Introduction. In Piaget, J. & Garcia, R. Toward a logic of meanings (3-8). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Piaget, J. (1977a). Essai sur la nécessité [Essay on necessity]. Archives de Psychologie, 45, 175, 235-261.

Piaget, J. (1977b). Études sociologiques [Sociological studies]. Genève Paris: Librairie Droz.

Piaget, J. (1976a). Le possible, l'impossible et le nécessaire [The possible, the impossible, and the necessary]. Archives de Psychologie, 44, 172, 281-299.

Piaget, J. (1976b). Ensaio de lógica operatória [Essay on operatory logic]. São Paulo: Globo/EDUSP.

Piaget, J. (1954). Les relations entre l'intelligence et l'affectivité dans le développement de l'enfant [The relationships between intelligence and affectivity in child development]. Bulletin de Psychologie, Groupe d'Études de Psychologie de l'Université de Paris, Sorbonne, Paris V, 7, I-III, 143 150, 346-361; 346-361; 699-709.

Popper, K. (1994). Knowledge and the body-mind problem. In defense of interaction. London: Routledge.

Ramozzi-Chiarottino, Z. (1998). Piaget selon l'ordre des raisons [Piaget according to the order of reasons]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 51, 3, 345, 333-343.

Ramozzi-Chiarottino, Z. (1997). Organismo, Lógica e sociedade no modelo piagetiano do conhecimento [Organism, logic, and society in the Piagetian model of knowledge]. In Freitag, B. (Ed.) Piaget: 100 anos [Piaget: One hundred years] (111-122). São Paulo: Cortez.

Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 2, 149-163.

Riel, M. & Harasim, L. (1994). Research perspectives on network learning. Journal of Machine-Mediated Learning, 4, 2-3, 01-114.

Saussure, F. (1987). Curso de Lingüística geral [Course of general linguistics]. S„o Paulo: Cultrix.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3, 265 283.

Sharam, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 2, 241-271.

Silva, M. & Breuleux, A. (1994). The use of participatory design in the implementation of Internet-based collaborative learning activities in K 12 classrooms. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, 2, 3, 1 11. [online serial] Available: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/misc/ipct.html (29 June 2000)

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 3, 429-445.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 2, 315-342.

Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Real, D. (1996). The impact of a cooperative or individualistic context on the effectiveness of conflict resolution training. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 3, 801-823.

Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 2, 321-351.

Varela, Francisco J. (1996). Invitation aux sciences cognitives. [Invitation to the cognitive sciences]. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (edited by Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S. Carton; prologue by Jerome S. Bruner). Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York : Plenum Press.

Walls, J.(1994). Global Networking for local development task focus and relationship focus in cross-cultural communication. In Harasim, L. M. (Ed.). Global Networks: Computers and International Communication (153-165). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

APPENDIX

In order to present the results of our analysis, we tell chronologically how the clash developed along the flows of meaning implication that we identified. The students' names were replaced by "A", "B", "C", "D", and " E". Instructors' names were replaced by "X" (instructor responsible for the course) and "Y" (instructor invited to participate in the course). When an instructor's or a student's name was wrongly written in the original transcript, we added the symbol "\". For example: "A\". Pronouns were replaced by # (student) or ## (instructor) to avoid the identification of the person's gender. The symbol # was also used by participants with the meaning of "number". Three consecutive periods (...) indicate that part of or a whole phrase was concealed. English mistakes were not corrected.

The Imperative Meaning Implication Thread

The thread starts with a conditional suggestion of participant "A", that the colleagues "might" use questions to motivate the others for discussion, and then by saying that

"it is recommended that members in the conference or discussion group synthesize their ideas"

Ten days later, the same participant writes in another message that

"it seems now is high time for another class activity"

and demands that the instructors

set up rules for an online debate.

In another conference, two days later, "A" writes to "C":

"I'm sorry that both you and "X" wasn't well... By the way, "B" also seems not well these days because # didn't show up yesterday, and therefore also delayed the first assignment. Could it be due to the outbreak of measles?"

"B" replies one day later, and explains that # has been having problems at home with computer modem access. After providing technical tips for creating web pages in html, "B" writes:

"what do you mean by 'delayed the first assignment'? Was there an extended deadline I didn't know about? Anyway, I hope you have a good weekend."

"A" 's answer comes two days later:

"As for your last query about the assignment due last Thursday, I just inferred from your absence that day that you must have been not feeling well then, ... If I was wrong, please forgive my conjecture. Anyway, I don't think you would miss it, right?"

There is no answer for this apology. "A" replies to "C", two days later:

"I'm also still thinking about something related to my first assignment these days, and I don't think I've finished it even if I handed it on time last Thursday."

Hours later in the same day, "A" posts a new message directed to all participants:

"Although so far there are no rules prescribed for... debate, and no interest shown... in this class, I think I still should fulfill the responsibility of participating in this conference due to my commitment..."

The reaction comes almost immediately, posted by "D":

"...my prediction is this debate will be pretty one-sided"

"A" refutes it on the next day:

"No, "D", I don't think this debate is one-sided... I just took the initiative... Now... comes yours... That proves this debate is not just one-sided, right?

No response. Three days later, "A" writes:

"I take the liberty of summarizing my opinions..., please forgive my 'parsimony' in reply."

The Technical/Ethical Meaning Implication Thread

The initial messages only present inferences related to Virtual-U navigation. In some messages, participants discuss difficulties. In others, they discuss exciting actions taken. All of the messages involve "A" and "B", the two main contenders of the previous meaning implication thread. The messages suggest that they are helping each other on how to face technical problems, and also on how to share discoveries. Notwithstanding, in a message that is directed to all participants (although it is composed as a reply to "E") "A" writes:

"After encountering innumerable 'no data' messages by keying in the URL that "E" e-mailed us... Incidentally by clicking on the active... linkage, to my surprise, I found myself lurking conferences in archive. It seems like walking into history as a spook, and met some people you might never know."

Three days later, "E" writes:

"...as "A" found out you can wander... please only go to... Ethically we don't have permission to wander into anyone else's..."

On the following day, "A"'s responds to "E"'s remark:

"As for the concern of cross-... browsing, I think it may belong to the administration/design problem. If students who aren't registered... therefore aren't permitted to browse those conferences, then they should be given either navigational aid/netiquette at the very beginning, or those courses shouldn't appear on the pages where they have permission to log on..."

The response remains unanswered. Later developments in the course indicate that this interactive exchange has consequences.

The final messages of this meaning implication thread are related to technical problems involving the main contenders of the "imperative" thread. The very last message "A" apologizes:

"By mistake I didn't delete "B"'s message attached at the end of my previous response to "C"'s message... Sorry for the confusion."

Both "A" and "B", the main contenders of the "imperative" thread have written to "C". There are two possibilities in this case:

c) "A" uses the message to "C" to indirectly respond to "B", but forgets to delete "B" 's message that was used as a model

d) "A" copied "B''s message into # own just to look at its content to guide # response "C", but forgets to delete it

The Debating Meaning Implication Thread

Because the presentation of excerpts of this thread can lead readers to the identification of the topic discussed, and also to the course field of knowledge, we conceal most of the relevant text.

This thread marks the deepening of the differences between "A" and "B". It also marks the rise of a new conflict between "A" and "D".

"A" and "B" show opposite understandings. Discussion is elegant. Both recognize well-supported arguments from the opposite side, and both insist in keeping theirs by refuting the arguments systematically. In the middle of the thread, a proposal by "A" is seriously confronted by the others, specially by "D". A hot debate takes place along many messages. "A" argues that # does not get "D"'s point:

"I need to understand"

"D" responds:

""A", keep in mind guessing is what it's all about!"

"A" writes:

"Just as I raised a question last week in my previous message... here I also need clarification... I don't get what your question is here."

"D" responds:

" "A", thanks for the reminder that I didn't tie up some loose ends in the previous con
/"É closed"

"A" writes:

"Though you haven't clarified your core question... I hold the same confusion about what do you mean by... and just don't want to post another guessing"

The Emotional Meaning Implication Thread

This thread starts at a conference set up for socializing in which "C" writes:

"I felt competitive and admiring of "A", who had time to do all homework and experiment with the system, on a variety of levels.",

and recognizes experiencing difficulties in using the system to write to all colleagues:

"I find it difficult to address the entire class as a group... that is why I structured this message on an individual level... maybe the way to do it is to say: This message is for X, in the header, but then, will the other feel excluded, left out?"

In a different message, "C" writes minutes later:

"Def: n-etiquette = VU conferencing system... Here are some of my questions:

Q1: When logging on the conferences with professional content I was wandering if it's acceptable/desirable to read other people's submissions, prior to writing our own?...

Q2: What is the good way to address the message to one person in particular? Can we read such messages, can the instructor/moderator read such messages?"

"A" posts the following comment on the next day:

"Yes, "C" is right. I'm sorry that I have ruined your lunch hour... but anyway I shared the same feeling with you, and I apologize for any discomfort that I have brought to this cozy, and hopefully always full of sunshine,... Sorry, I don't wish anyone to feel "excluded", or "left out" (to use "C"'s terms) in this space."

"B" also posts a comment about the same subject:

"I've noticed that it's a little difficult addressing all the previous messages in one, and try to write an all encompassing subject title... So, sorry if I don't actually continue on a specific person's 'thread'."

These problems, apparently caused by a software constraint, increase. From a discussion about whom to address, it becomes a discussion about what is a group, after all. Participants demonstrate suspicion about the others' online behaviour, while remaining very polite. Excerpts show the conflict escalation between "A" and "B", the two main contenders of the "imperative" thread. "A" and "B" do not direct the first three messages to each other, but to other participants, or to all of them. We start with a message by "A":

"Each member in the community has his or her own contribution. It does not necessarily mean that all have to reach the same knowledge level or agreement... Even if there is no follow-up from other members..."

"B" writes:

"...being in a group (either meeting f2f or not) doesn't necessarily guarantee cohesiveness anyway."

"A" writes:

"It's always better to be friendly and polite to any one surrounding you than rude in wording when interacting with others, isn't it? ...some people who incline to use vulgar language in writing may commit defamation in the online environments..."

"B" writes:

"...it is definately important to be polite and friendly to people surrounding you. However I would like to add that it should be so online as much as it is in person... people who converse online need to be clear in their messages and be aware of the "tone" they may be presenting to the rest of the group... a person who a generally friendly in person, should act that way and not become everyone's "best buddy" online... I agree with what you mentioned - the use of vulgar language which may defame the online environment, but don't you think the other extreme - excessive friendliness could also have a negative impact on the environment in terms that the environment may seem "fake"?"

"A" writes:

"The online environment is an extremely difficult environment in terms of dealing with people, not machines. Due to its lack of physical cues. Very often what we put into the computer isn't what we get out of it just because we have emotions and the computer doesn't. But people often neglect this feature or defect in online interaction, and intuitively assume others can totally understand the message conveyed in the context. The reality often turns out to be out of their expectations, and the message may not only be well decoded but totally misunderstood owing to the lack of paralinguistic cues, such as facial expression, intonation, gestures, voice quality, etc.... And I also agree with you that, people should be less presumptious online to prevent misunderstanding. However I think immediate apology should always be posted as a follow-up message once it's found to be wrong... Personally I'm quite sensitive to the language usage because here in this country ethnical discrimination is legally forbidden..."

The Confrontation Meaning Implication Thread

The "confrontation" meaning implication thread is an articulate and rather complex play of hidden and open attacks. It mixes up elements created along the previously presented threads. It is important to remember that the instructional strategy adopted transferred responsibility of course delivery to the students. Each one had a turn in leading a seminar.

The "confrontation thread" has forty messages. The clash, interestingly, happens in a single conference, and involves directly five participants with a final one line comment by the invited instructor. The instructor responsible for the course did not attempt to resolve the conflict. Two students moderated this conference: The second part by "A", and the first part by "B". This information is relevant for understanding the development of the clash.

"A" posts a message when the first part, moderated by "B", is still not over:

"Glad to meet you again online! This is a reminder to you all for the new readings and Web site with relevant sources of information to discuss in the forthcoming seminar... Part II. Two newly assigned readings are available at..."

"B" responds:

"Regarding the readings, I thought the moderators were suppose to make the readings available to the rest of the class... Since you have already read them and have a copy, perhaps you would be so kind in photocopying them for us?"

"A" answers:

"...I'm sorry that I can't do this kind of service as you suggested."

"E", the student who did not respond to the reply to a remark made on Ethics in the technical/ethical thread, posts a message in response. This posting is a turning point in the participants' relationships:

"I've been reading the messages with avid interest and feel compelled to make a comment regarding the blatent disregard for proper netiquette. I appreciate the fact that "A" went to the effort of collecting the required articles but the snide remarks about having to get them ourselves is in poor taste. At the ... level, have we not reached a level where we share information... It is time-consuming for all... of us to go to the library and the journals may not even be on the shelf... I learned a valuable lesson - don't re-invent the wheel if it has already been done - and all of us rushing to get copies seems like one of those wheels to me."

"D" interferes:

"OK, I'm the nerd who takes notes! The deal was supposed to be that a folder with readings for the week be left at... by noon Monday prior to the conference... A, this way "X" and "Y" can get copies without too much hassle, as well as the rest of us student-types."

"A"'s response:

"Thank you, "E", for your message pointing out the supposing situation you may confront in getting copies of papers from the library. However, there are several things in need of clarification.

1. Regarding your faulty accusations with flaming wording like "blatant disregard", not "proper netiquette", "snide remarks", and "poor taste" directly addressing to me are *personal attacks* and totally *not acceptable* to me because they just reflect your prejudice and bias, and are not the factual statements. I wonder if it is due to the previous message that I posted in your moderating conference which protested there was no netiquette or navigational aid at the very beginning of your session that misled the direction and focus until later.

2. Maybe the reason why you hold such a negative attitude towards getting photocopies from the library... it's time-saving. If you have this problem, of course I can do it for you at your request...

3. Moreover, after all, it's "B"'s comment about what... students should do in library research, not mine... I also feel uncomfortable with that comment, but please notice the context of my message: It's not my original comment.

4. I sincerely suggest (please notice that it's not to criticize, but advise) that you be more objective, put the discourse in context, and not judge things in your own way. As I mentioned in my message to "B", we both agree people should be less presumptious in the online environment, and that vulgar language defames this environment (and I never did that myself). This is what the "proper netiquette" should mean... When you talk to different people, your discourse will reflect your inward inclination towards the person you're talking to. That's what I mean discrimination, bias, or prejudice. As I mentioned in that message, I'm very sensitive to the language used in the environment, and unavoidably I may reflect it in my discourse towards a particular character who has previously offended me in discourse. However, I'm definitely not the person as you hold in your mind based in your bias. As long as I am treated fair, and with mutual respect and equity, I'll be sure use the same discourse in response. Unfortunately... you missed the point, and posted your *personal attacks*.

5.... The emotional expressions in the beginning of your message are totally *not acceptable*.

6. ... please advise me before 12:00 noon on Thursday how many of you need the copies from me for free, but, I'm afraid I have to say that I also need you to *post your apology* for these faulty accusations before Thursday noon in the conference. Thanks."

"B" posts a message within two hours:

"I would appreciate it if you would please stop quoting me about... students doing research. I meant it in the context of actually researching for articles and finding out more about a topic. I feel that you are using my words inappropriately to support your point... I really don't understand the big deal here... Perhaps you have read too much into my original message, because the tone didn't come across well. I didn't ask you to "provide a service", just to share what you had."

"B" writes one hour later:

"Perhaps to some degree, all of us have posted messages that may have pushed netiquette guidelines. In any case, I would appreciate it if we returned our focus and energy to... Thank you for your cooperation in this request."

The continuation of the course shows that the situation is far from over. Discussions on the course topics, pertaining to other meaning implication threads are mixed up with the "confrontation" meaning implication thread. "A" posts:

"...I've double-checked...and was confirmed that there will be no class... Another confirmation that I got is there is no obligation for preparing the photocopied papers, and now that there's no class, I'm afraid you still have to get your copies by going to the library yourselves. Sorry for this inconvenience!... Thank you"

"B" interferes:

"Though we've experienced a little tension concerning the next seminar... And to break the earlier tension -- :-p to all of you!

"A" answers to the message in which "B" writes that "A" quotes "B":

"Have I quoted "B"' words? No, I don't think I have. I just refer to # ideas in my message... Very often the interpretation of others' messages are varied according to individual reader's angle of view as well as the schemata of the reader. It's within the legal permit even to "report" on the contents of a personal e-mail. I don't see anything legal ban on referring to some points in others' postings in the public computer conferences."

A counter-attack directed to the whole class comes in another message. The message cannot be reproduced in full. We select a number of interesting phrases. This message is written to set up the rules for the upcoming seminar. "A" provides details of # original instructional design and an explanation of why # felt it was necessary to reconsider # strategy. The original strategy involved hiding real names in order to avoid identification. "A" also threatens to withdraw the consent already given for the course to be used for research.

"... due to the concern of "restriction to specific tasks"... together with the "flaming"... occurrence in this Seminar's preview session, and so far no "netiquette"... ever set up in the... Conference to "discourage negative and hostile exchanges"..., the role-play design now is adapted to be conducted in the conventional way, instead of manipulating the participants' default names... Sorry for the postponed Seminar uploading time, because I had to give the flaming offender, "E", an ample time of consideration before posting an apology... Any further delay, a formal complaint will be sent on file to the University Ethics Review Committee... I trust a subject's complaint shouldn't be ignored by the University Ethics Review Committee or the highest authority under *any* circumstance. Go ahead, folks, enjoy yourselves, and have fun in this Seminar!"

"C" posts:

"Are we supposed to perform in a certain way during this class? What is the significance of changing one's name online? (I understand we don't need to do it anymore.)"

"A":

"So far there's no netiquette ever set up as guideline for this course, though there's one posting re Any suggestions on n-etiquette? But I don't see any response or answer to it. "E", would you please explain what is *your definition* of "proper netiquette"?"

The apology of "E" comes through a private e-mail that "A" reproduces in a message:

"An apology from "E" -- Thank you!

Hi "A",

I just heard about your apology request today - unfortunately, when I travel I don't have access to the internet. It's unfortunate that this situation was created... My intentions were not to discredit you with my first message but rather state my concern over the tensions that were arising throughout the discourse by several members of the course... I want to apoligize to you that I caused you concern and as you feel personally attacked you - it wasn't my intentions. I will not have access to the internet until... so, if you would you can post the above message to the group.

(Private e-mail message from "E"...)"

"A" in a subsequent message:

"...now that the nightmare is over..."

Later, "A" responds to "C":

"Thanks for the posting from "C" re Clarification on "role-play"... Now that, as you understand, we don't need to do it anymore, there's no need to assign diversified personalities in this seminar."

"B" interferes:

"The use of pen names can give a student anonymity in some environments... I just wanted to add that the use of pen names on the V-U does not mean a person has anonymity. For example, we've one in our conferences. When you view "A greeting message to "X"" by "Teddy Bear"... and move the cursor over the author's name, you can see down at the bottom of the screen that "A" wrote it because of # e-mail address. I question the availability of anonymity online, because there is always the opportunity for abuse. Like "A" indicated, I think it definately should not be used in an environment where netiquette has not been defined... Disclaimer: Given the "negative tones" we've experienced in the conferences lately, please note that in terms of the abuse of anonymity, I am NOT referring to anyone in this class nor am I criticising "A" by using # message as an example.

"A" 's answer to "B":

"P.S. Thank's for "B" 's additional note re the premise and constraint to pen names.

>From this message on, "A" starts writing "D" 's name with a typo. This action has further consequences:

"Now that this is the last week for the class online, no wonder that "X" strongly suggested WE GET IT RIGHT NOW. (Sorry, "X", these days we've missed this very key point.) To date, "D\" must have been back from her out-town trip for the past couple of days (Hi, "D\", welcome back!), "B" has also promised to come back to the topic in the conference, and it's good "C" is able to be online again, so, folks, it's high time for this class to go back to the right track in... discussion (too bad, "E" is still on #... travel, hence definitely won't participate in the group members' discussion!)

"C" steps in:

"I find the concept of anonymity intriguing and I can see why it can be desirable, and not desirable, but I'm not sure that in our environment (VU) that can work very well (due to the fact "B" mentioned, that anonymity is not complete. It is fascinating though how the online personality develops in a conferencing system (or e-mail broadcast system), and may be quite different than the one experienced in f2f interaction. I am wandering if personality can be simulated to a high degree (i.e. self-censor the posting so that it belongs to a given psychological profile)."

"D":

"This side topic on role play and anonymity (sp?) is interesting... it can be tricky. I remember... we were assigned various roles in a big company. My character (not I!) decided to fire a staff member. I promptly received a private e-mail message from the character I fired, and as I was reading it I realized this person was no longer in character, but truly put off that I had chosen her! I think I gave her a promotion instead and we were all back on track!"

"A" starts summarizing the others' ideas as part of an adopted moderating strategy:

""D\" approaches... "D\" doesn't see... According to "D\"... One applausive point "D\" mention is... Just as "B" says in the beginning of her postings, there are several points echoing with "D\" 's because they hold the similar viewpoints. In my interpretation of "D\" and "B" 's standing points..."

"D" reacts:

"Just a point of clarification in "A" 's summary of my messages, I didn't actually state that... ...*yet*."

"B" comments "D" 's message:

"In response to your comment... For example, if one were to portray a government official, it would help if the student knew what stance the person actually has and what power they have to make a decision about something, such as when you fired and promoted a staff member in your example. This is similar to how actors need to "study their parts" - hmm, that didn't come across right, but it's late and the end of the semester, so I'll just leave that there. Sorry if I offend anyone. ;-)"

"A" goes on summarizing:

"It's good to see an in-depth discussion going on... a vital issue in the*... field* was directly pointed out by one of the group members, "C", in *the first sentence* at the very beginning of Message #..., but, "B", who was questioned by "C" on that issue, didn't make any explanation to that point in # follow-up to "C". Because discussion is still in an ongoing process, and one of the *... task-accomplishment* questions required of everyone to answer on the topic... hasn't been answered by all the group members yet... I hope "B", in addition to offering #answer to the last one of the *...task accomplishment* questions, can also defend #self on the credibility re the above mentioned vital issue in this conference by that time."

"D" responds to "B":

" "B", I just want you to know I'm still laughing my head off over that last message! Er, enough said!"

"D" responds to "A":

"I tried to backtrack and find the gaps you identified... I'm wandering if the pointers are to the wrong messages?"

"B" writes to "A":

"1.What is your point about my not responding to "C" 's message? My reply to # was... a reply and continuation of our "conversation".

2.I responded to the final question in my own way... Sorry if you don't think I replied to the "mandatory" question... If you'd like, I can do so again.

3...

4. I don't really like the tone in having to "defend" (myself) on the credibility of the final vital issue?... "Defending" sounds like we are in a competitive and hostile environment - are we? "Discuss" or "support" are better words."

"B" answers:

"In an attempt to appease "A" and # view that I didn't respond to..., here it is. But I find the question rather confusing in the sense that... In response to..., I don't think that the *...* in general are..."

In another message, "B" writes:

"Hi "A",

Thought you might want to know that you've been spelling "D" 's name incorrectly for a few days. It's "D", not "D\". Cheers, "B" "

"A" posts the following message:

"Thanks for "D\" 's reminder, but there's nothing wrong with my precious linkage. In the second paragraph of..., "C" posted... The following day, "B" at first posted... under the thread... with a more or less vague statement... And # ends her comments citing a quotation form Star Trek: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Later on, once again, "B" posted Message..., which holds a much clearer view... but, under a different thread.... As a result, the next day "C" replied by Message... protesting "B" 's refined answer in two different messages without acknowledging # source of the concept shift in posting in *the first sentence* at the very beginning of... But, "B", who was *questioned* (please read this word in its connotation, not denotation because it doesn't mean "ask a question", rather, it means "discredit") by "C" on that issue, didn't make any explanation to that point in... Although we appreciate "B" 's support and participation in..., "C" 's contributions and concern should also be treated fair. That's the reason why, being the Moderator of this..., I am obliged to ask for "B" 's further explanation... Even "X" #self requested our group members: Pls. Put any... in the context of "A" 's questions..." So, "B", if you like, we would be more than happy to have your contribution... of a *...* in any of the... Thank you very much for your attention and corporation in advance."

"A" apologizes:

"Terribly sorry for the typo in your name. Thanks for "B"'s kindly reminding (and thanks "B" for the contribution... as well)"

"C":

"Thank you for being supporting on my behalf, but I realize that I don't have a clue that my contributions and concerns are not treated fair, on the contrary. Maybe I am entirely missing the point, but I am trying to communicate as best as I can with all of you, and I am entirely satisfied with everyone's reply so far."

"D":

"Goodness! I see now why I had trouble backtracking! I just want to add that I am also entirely satisfied with the way things have progressed. But "A", I have to add that it isn't very motivating, or productive, to read detailed accounts what you perceive our shortfalls to be... I think we're all beginning to squirm a little here!"

"A":

"Thank you for the great support from "X", "Y", ..., and everyone of you to make this experiment in online education an unforgettable one. It is indeed an invaluable experience to all of us, though not necessarily a happy one to everybody.;-) Best regards, "A" Reference... Learning together and apart"

"A" clarifies the appearance of the article reference in another message:

"Sorry I didn't delete the extra lines..."

"C" remarks:

"I am very disturbed by the misquotings that happened, which contributed to misunderstandings, and to a painful participation, on my part. Also, I found the structure of the... very constraining, having our participation dissected and our mistakes publicly exposed (which would not happen in an offline course)."

"B":

"Dear "A", You don't seem to understand what anyone is getting at and you seem to be very defensive about things. Can't you understand that we are suppose to be equals and work together in the course? You stated before that you were sensitive to language and have show that you are sensitive to what we say to you. However, have you really considered the negative tone you have towards us sometimes? I believe you have made valuable contributions to the course and we all think of you on as equal, but when you focus on your colleagues' supposed short-comings, make almost insulting comments that have a written "pleasantness" and added politness, and are defensive about comments we make (or lack of). It really comes across negatively online. This is suppose to be a collaborative learning environment. Granted you use terms such as "thank you" and provide ideas and support to us sometimes, but you don't take the time to respond to all of our messages with the respect you give to "Y" and "X". As for misquoting, please don't take offense, but you sometimes tend not to get the point we are politely trying to get across. Neither "C" nor "D" were absolutely content with your... and I think you are aware that I'm not either. Sorry if you are upset about it, but if you read their messages you will see that they felt constrained and were not happy about your negative feedback... you seem to deem it essential to pick apart my contributions and accuse me of being unfair towards another student's comments... I may not be writing at the faculty-level because I'm not, but nor should I be made to feel like I'm have to defend myself to the moderator... I really don't know why you harbour such disrespect towards me. It's been very draining on me... Speaking of respect... please remember WE ARE your colleagues... you haven't always portrayed this in your messages to us as you have with "X" and "Y". Please, don't get offensive about my comments and claim that I'm flaming or making personal attacks, but accept it as honesty and explanation for the tension we've all been feeling. Thank you for your mature understanding and reaction to this issue in advance..."

A short remark by the invited instructor:

"I think we ALL need to be careful, face to face, or online, in the interpretations we put on each others' words."

The main instructor remains silent.

1 The students' names were replaced by "A", "B", "C", "D", and " E".

2 It is worth noting that constructivism is a misleading notion.

Epistemologically speaking, it is the possible resulting process of the structuring of mental operations. These operations obey the functioning of the classic logic, are isomorphous to neuronal processes, and constitute a model of the mind. (Piaget, 1976b ; Piaget, 1992). Pedagogically, constructivism is the theory that explains the acquisition of knowledge through the development of expertise as a dynamic process of cognition (Bereiter, 1994), in which psycho-social and cultural factors play an essential role. It accepts the biological given that the mind enhances its cognitive capacities along time, but understands that after maturation content has prevalence upon structure (Vygotsky, 1998) although the last determines the limits of its own possibility.

3 AretÈ means the virtue of the warrior, the highest achievement of the Greek ideal.

4 Due to the sensitive content of the online clash, and in order to preserve the identity of the persons involved, we do not provide any information that can lead to their recognition. University, department where the course took place, level (post-secondary, undergraduate, graduate, etc.), discipline and field of knowledge are concealed. Letters replace names, and signs replace pronouns. All participants provided informed consent, according to the rulings of the university Ethical Review in which the course took place. Partial reproduction of the written text is allowed under the terms of the informed consent form.