Kansai University, December 2007

Yukari Makino of the Faculty of Informatics welcomed me to Kansai University as part of our exchange funded by the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation. During my week in Japan we worked on communication theory, reflecting on Yukari's Message Construction Cross (MCC) model (Makino, 2007a, 2007b) and the role of teachers in scaffolding digital communication using this model. My model of teachers' roles (Hartnell-Young, 2006) and the communication tools of eportfolios (Hartnell-Young and Morriss, 2007) and new literacies informed our work. I gave a lecture on eportfolios as communication and employability tools to 150 undergraduates in Communication Theory (using my trusty interpreter, Kazuyo Kawai). There were lots of questions from the students who had not heard of the concept of eportfolios before.

As it was our intention to write a journal paper together, we had arranged a focus group session with Yukari's tutor group, who had all used the MCC model to produce video clips in small teams. In great Japanese style, the students had arranged a welcome reception so they could get to know me a little and practice their English. Even my name 'Elizabeth' can be a bit strange for Japanese speakers, as they don't really distinguish between 'l' and 'r'. I conducted the focus group with my interpreter and recorded the whole event for transcription. I felt it was very successful: my first time conducting focus group in another language. Students said:

Making a video is like…we clearly can tell viewers what we think by constructing what we really want to tell them. We can carefully plan it. It may require a huge investment of time, but we are able to present what we really want to communicate. It is very good for that reason. (Student F)

I had a feeling that MCC itself was useful for allowing you to explore an idea more deeply when conveying one’s own thoughts. And by using video to express yourself, it was a valuable experience for me with regard to increasing the means of expressing my thoughts, as it is not something I usually do. (Student N).

For the rest of the week we worked on writing a journal paper, in English, entitled ‘Structuring and scaffolding learners’ verbal-and-visual thinking’, in which we explore the use of technology and the structure of the MCC in relation to different cultural and language groups.

I also met with Professor Haruo Kurokami, who has previously arranged a visit for me to observe the use of laptops on a primary school in Japan, about the research themes currently being pursued in the Faculty of Informatics, including using TV in schools, and interesting work with ICT in Syria.

REFERENCES

• Hartnell-Young, E. (2006). Teachers’ Roles and Professional Learning in Communities of Practice supported by Technology in Schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 14, 3. pp. 461-480.
• Hartnell-Young, E., and Morriss, M. (2007). Digital Portfolios: Powerful Tools for Promoting Professional Growth and Reflection (second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Makino, Y. (2007a). The third generation of e-learning: Expansive learning mediated by a Weblog. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3, 16–31.
• Makino, Y. (2007b). Potential of dialogical movie work based on the model of Message Construction Cross: Integration of message and story in video clip making. The Study Meeting Reports of the Japan Association for the Study of Educational Media, 21, 13-18.

Message Construction Cross (MCC) (an excerpt)
The cross in the MCC model (see Figure 2) presents the two principles in the process of message construction: (a) Meaning is created and shared through the interaction of logic and dialogue; (b) The value of the meaning is evaluated in the light of its context. Further, with a metaphor of a chemical reaction, the cross can be divided into three molecules and seven atoms n (see Figure 3). The logic molecule is formed of thesis, general, and specific atoms; the dialogue molecule is formed of rebuttal, refutation, and thesis atoms; and the application molecule is formed of issue, thesis, and claim atoms. This model was originally developed in the attempt of integrating Aristotle’s Enthymeme and Example (deductive and inductive reasoning) and Toulmin’s Layout of Arguments (Makino, 1999). Aristotle is traditionally considered to have originated formal logic. Toulmin (1958) is historically considered to be the turning point of informal logic. In order to integrate the perspectives of geometric decontextualization and pragmatic recontextualization, Makino (2005; , 2006b; , 2007a) applied the natural and flexible law of chemical reactions to the process of message construction. One can use this conceptual tool for the facilitation of constructing monologue, dialogue, and “multilogue” (Makino, 2007b) as well as discourse analysis.

Figure 2. Message Construction Cross

Figure 3. Seven atoms in the MCC model

Logical-narrative thinking
The MCC model provides the theoretical basis for the hypothesis that logic is the common feature between a verbally oriented rational argument and a visually oriented rhetorical story. This section develops the idea of MCC model through the interpretation of the ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern, the four-part structure of storymaking.
Interestingly, the ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern no longer simply means the traditional structure of classical Chinese poetry in contemporary Japanese society. Rather, there is a kind of confusion due to the coexistence of deductive and inductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu patterns (Makino, 2006a). The structure of the deductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern, which is relatively new, is closer to the linear order in the English essays, in the sense that the thesis statement comes in the beginning. The mechanism of it can be explained by applying the seven atoms in the MCC model to the four parts included in the new deductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern. As described in Figure 3 and 4, (1) ki is equivalent to the issue and thesis atoms; (2) shoo is equivalent to the general and specific atoms; (3) ten is equivalent to the rebuttal and refutation atoms; and (4) ketsu is equivalent to the claim atom. The point here is that it is the logic molecule with the thesis, general, and specific atoms that makes the deductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu structure logical.
On the other hand, in the traditional inductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern, the thesis statement comes in the end. The mechanism of it can also be explained by using the seven atoms in the MCC model. As described in Figure 3 and 5, (1) ki and (2) shoo start and develop the specific atom; (3) ten associates the specific atom with the general atom; and then (4) ketsu ties up the whole story with the thesis atom. The issue and claim atoms are often hinted; the rebuttal and refutation atoms are usually omitted (see Figure 5). The areas with gradational gray in Figure 5 show that some of the atoms are expressed subtly. However, the point here is that it is the logic molecule with of the thesis, general, and specific atoms that makes the inductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu structure logical.
Notice that the deductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern (see Figure 4) begins from the top and ends at the bottom  while the inductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern (see Figure 5) starts from outside and develops toward inside. Kaplan was right indeed. It follows the swirling development; some parts of the elements or connections are not as visible as the other parts. Hinds was right indeed. The reasoning is quasi-inductive; it is the reader’s responsibility to interpret the thesis and how it is connected with other components that are hinted or omitted. However, neither of them associated their observations with the structure of a rhetorical story. Perhaps, it is because the logical nature of a rhetorical story has not been recognized until recently as mentioned above. The idea of logical-narrative thinking has not been so common in the Anglo-European culture. In fact, it is as unusual in the Japanese culture to recognize logic in a story. However, it has been suggested that the MCC model is effective in facilitating logical-narrative thinking (Makino, 2006a). We argus that the MCC model is also effective in structuring verbal-and-visual thinking in learners.

Figure 4. Structure of the deductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern (Makino 2006a)

Figure 5. Structure of the inductive ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern (Makino 2006a)