Dataset1/D1T5SS
From Jsarmi
Contents |
Group Trajectory
Session I
This dyad generates only two questions. Perhaps because when they have two the facilitator states that they have "very good questions to start with".
(C/W) How far away are the 2 points? (es) (C/W) What is the shortest path between the two points? (dg)
They seem to be using the two distances together and having them coexist in the grid world. They work on the first one, get an answer and move to the second one, which leads to this exchange;
dragon: lets go onto the second one? estrickmcnizzle: allright dragon: remember that we can only go on the grid estrickmcnizzle: well, judging by my calculations, any root that does not go along a diagnol is the same length dragon: it should be dragon: except if you go some extra long way for no reason estrickmcnizzle: haha, precisely dragon: but why are they the same? I remember that I proved this once but I forgot...
Session II
Session III
Fa joins the team for the first time. He is very active and introduces some of the ideas he explored with Rw in Session II of team 1 (his first session). He picks a horizontal arrangement of points and wi remarks that "if it's a straight line, it doesn't represent the majority of the lines, though does it?" At the end fa moves the points to where they are not horizontally connected and with wi, try to convince mo (newcomer) that if you follow the grid there can be more than one shortest path between 2 points. For a while they are trying to clarify if you do have to follow the grid lines. Fa is the one who suggest that you do, more emphatically. The moderator posts a textbox with the original problem description, sort of clarifying that point. Fa sees that as validation. Mo then shifts and starts working on different grid cases ("a one by one square has two paths"). Fa states that to have a formula you need "BLAH = blah / where BLAH = to the distance between the points / and blah = to the number of paths." Here Mo exhibits what might be "solution fitting" instead of "problem solving" even though he is exploring the problem: "can we find 13 paths in this rectangle (a 2 by 3 rectangle) / If so, then X squared + Y squared = the number of paths"
What happens in the rest of the session, I think is a very good case of how extremely difficult intersubjective meaning making can be. There is a lot of individual reasoning externalized but through answers (I see 6, I see 9, etc.) and only vague terms (e.g. an "x-y turn"). Session 4 could be a very good contrast when a smart way of labeling and counting emerges. REVIEW IN DETAIL
Interesting comment by Mo: "I dunno whether my problems developed from my stupidity, my absence for the first 2 sessions, or both"
Group composition: Stable
Session 1: es, dr Session 2: es, dr, gd, wi Session 3: gd, wi, mo, fa Session 4: es, dr, gd, fa
Grid-World vs. Diagonals
Session 1: define shortest way (grid) and straight distance (diagonal), work on grid Session 2: grid? Session 3: grid Session 4: 3D grid?
