Thinking Outside the Box: Lessons from a public forum

Snea Thinsan & Malinee Prapinwong

 Last updated: 02/17/2008

 Screenshot from http://www.pantip.com. 

 

Introduction

History and Rationale

Computer- Mediated Communication (CMC), both asynchronous and synchronous, has been widely used in online education programs that have mushroomed during the past decade.  Asynchronous CMC (ACMC) tools, such as emails, blogs and webboards, have also been used extensively in foreign or second language learning in recent years. However, despite their popularity, we still do not know enough about what learners do that can inform us how and how much they are actually learning using the tools. Thus, more and more efforts are being devoted to examining recorded data from ACMC-based learning to understand how the learners interact and how learning occurs in such non-traditional learning environments.

Asynchronous CMC tools have been used to facilitate assessments of cognitive interactions in academic context.  Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001), who have extensively studied the online interactions among students in distance education courses, developed the so-called Community Inquiry Model to help assess three elements of the online community inquiry: Cognitive presence, Teaching presence and Social presence. Informed predominantly by their work, we became interested in using their Cognitive presence, which refers to the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meanings or knowledge through sustained discourse in a critical community of inquiry, in order to capture the ways in which participants express ideas and knowledge in a non-academic context, hoping to see how learning takes place informally that might be applicable in formal education, particularly in EFL teaching and learning, our field of interest.

Pantip.com, a public forum in which Thais from a wide variety of sociopolitical backgrounds participate has presently become a most popular informal tool for building an inquiry and learning community among Thais outside the academia. The forum has in these days captured the Thai public attention, being often referred to in the Thai media and influential over the ways social and political issues are discussed and handled in Thailand. Thais from many walks of life living both in Thailand and overseas have exchanged ideas, knowledge, and information through this public forum, making it an online learning community in which all sorts of knowledge and experiences are exchanged. Our initial plan was simply to use the model developed by Garrison, et al (2001) to code the data from a sub-forum at Pantip.com to see the participants’ thinking and information-exchange behaviors in such a successful online non-academic community. We were led to see, based on our observation of the dynamics in this public forum and a few others prior to this study, that public forums have a potential to be a place where cognitive engagement and meaningful learning can take place, and we would like to understand these non-formal learning practices because such knowledge has not been amply available in the education literature. Our hope was to learn some lessons from the online public forum that may lend some guidance to EFL/ESL teachers who consider using webboard discussions in their teaching.

Having co-coded and analyzed the first 10 out of 200 threads of discussions surrounding the Name Act, which was abruptly announced to be effective in summer, 2003 and, as a result, provoked great public interest in Thailand, we found that the hierarchical Cognitive presence developed by Garrison, et al. (2001) did not capture the types of interactions we found in our data well. We thus developed what we called the 'Information Exchange Model' and further refined it based on three more systematically randomly selected chunks of data, each consisted of ten threads of varied numbers of responses, before using it as a tool for this study. Details will be offered later in the Methodology section. 

Research Goals

Consequently, our research goals were expanded to include modifying the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001), among the following:

1.      To identify the general and unique characteristics of interactions in a public forum.

2.      To employ the insights learned from 1. in adapting the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison,  Anderson, & Archer, 2001) and use it as a tool to capture the nature of interactions among participants in a selected online public forum; and

3.      To use the insights gained from the above to identify strategies for using web-based forums in EFL teaching and critical thinking promotion.

Research Questions

1        What are the characteristics of interactions in the selected forum in terms of “Cognitive presence” (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001)?

2        What are the unique characteristics of the public forum that may be of use for teachers trying to use web-based forum in their teaching languages and promoting critical literacy?

This paper continues by reviewing relevant research, describing the methodology employed in the study, reporting on the findings, and providing our interpretations and implications.

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to a wide range of technologies that facilitate both human communication and the interactive sharing of information through computer networks (Barnes, 2003).  CMC can be broadly divided into two categories: asynchronous and synchronous.  Asynchronous CMC (ACMC) tools include email, blogs[i], discussion groups[ii], newsgroups[iii], and webboards[iv] or forums[v].  Synchronous CMC (SCMC) tools refer to chat[vi], instant messengers[vii], ICQ[viii], MUDs[ix]and MOOs[x]and other tools that allow people to interact in close-to-real time.  These CMC tools enable people around the world to communicate, exchange information, interact and build virtual learning communities. 

CMC tools have increasingly been utilized in educational contexts, especially in distance education, in which they are the required tools for learning, teaching, moderating, mentoring and community building. Text-based forum, or webboard, or threaded discussion board, has become one of the most popular choices for distance education because of its unique characteristics that help support high level of responsive and cognitive interaction among instructors and students (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison and Archer, 2001).  Asynchronous threaded discussions, the core of this study, refer to a type of text-based online discussion that is started with a topic, which could be in a form of question, statement of issue, or response to the previous topic, and followed, by responses by participants.  A number of researchers have offered claims about the pros and cons of this type of educational tool.

Anderson & Kanuka (1997) conducted an evaluation research on the output, level of participation and perceptions of effectiveness and value among participants in a web-based forum as opposed to face-to-face discussion. They found that asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing has advantages over the face-to-face instruction in terms of cost effectiveness, reduced travel time and the increment of participants’ time commitment. However, most participants in the study felt that “the information exchanged during the on-line forum was not as good as information that would have been exchanged in a face-to-face forum and felt more limited in their ability to communicate with other participants” (p.9).  Such inconclusive, or even contradicting, findings suggest that more studies need to be conducted on issues relevant to learning via ACMC in general and via asynchronous threaded discussion in particular.

The online threaded asynchronous discussion has drawbacks that should be noted.  A disadvantage is the lack of social cues, which generally refer to gestures, body language, and physical appearances such as gender, age, or race.  People need to see and know other people’s real identities, and what their affiliations, beliefs and interests are, in order to build up social relationship (Donath, 1996).  Such a lack affects users’ perception of communication context and constrains their interpretation of messages (Leh, 1999).  Social cues are important for people who try to build social bonds, trust, and hence a sense of community, which in turn allow for sustained learning or knowledge construction to take place. Online participants have to rely on communication styles to create their identities and, in turn, perceive other’s identities.  When people have to change from fully sensory communication to text-based interaction, they are faced with challenges in which they need to establish new behavioral norms (Barnes, 2003).  The lack of visual information in online communication has been found in other studies to be problematic (Barnes, 2003).  Because of such lacks, the theory of Social presence has been developed to account for the impersonal nature of CMC (Gunawardena et al., 2001).

Meanwhile, asynchronous threaded discussions also have advantages.  The most beneficial characteristic of this kind of online communication is its democratic nature.  People need to look at other people’s thoughts and ideas instead of their skin color or gender.  Everyone is allowed equal opportunities to participate and the freedom to selectively interact as they wish.  This is in line with what Harasim (1993) states: text-based communication is conducive to more reflective interaction and thus can help people transcend physical appearance and enable them to communicate at the level of ideas.

Other advantages include the fact that asynchronous threaded discussions leave the stage available for 24/7 access and show how multiple ideas are put on the discussion table for further analysis and synthesis.  Also important is the utility associated with anonymity that allows less vocal or introverted participants the comfort zones in which they can contribute, helping to create the equalized effects of participation (Olaniran, 1994).

The greatest advantage of online threaded discussion has been claimed to be its potential to elicit higher order thinking, although the evidence still falls short of being fully convincing that it does so. In higher education contexts, the goal of learning has been focused on the “student’s ability to think critically, to reason, and to evaluate and weigh evidence judiciously in making decisions and choices among alternative course of action” (Pascarella, 1999).  Educators in distance education are placing more and more emphasis on the critical thinking abilities.  According to Jonassen (1996), online learning should focus on the quality of interaction that fosters critical thinking in order to achieve the instructional aim and outcome. Duffy, Deuber, and Hawley (1998) assert that the advantage of asynchronous text-based environment is the capacity of giving students the time for thoughtful analysis, reflection, and composition as their discussion of an issue evolves.

A number of research studies related to the Cognitive presence in online discussions (see for instances, Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2001, Rourke et al, 2001, McLoughin &Luca, 2003) have examined cognitive involvement and higher-order thinking through the use of computer conferencing. Interestingly, many studies have found that online engagement in learning, or knowledge construction, is not as deep as educators would like it to be. Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) examine the social construction of knowledge in online collaborative learning environments of a large group asynchronous listserv debate. The instrument that was developed to evaluate the cognitive level of the debate consists of five phases: 1) Sharing and comparing of information 2) Discovery and exploration 3) Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge, 4) Testing and revision of ideas, 5) Awareness of newly constructed knowledge. They found that the messages reflected almost exclusively at the stage of sharing and comparing information rather than knowledge construction or higher order thinking.

Similarly, McLoughlin & Luca (2000) who used the content analysis instrument developed by Gundawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) to evaluate the higher order thinking in an asynchronous, text-based communication forum in a Web Course Tool (Web CT) environment at Edith Cowan University.  They found that most of the forum messages fell into the first category, comparing and sharing information and that there was little evidence of construction of new knowledge, critical analysis of peer ideas, or instances of negotiation.  They further suggested that, in order to develop higher order thinking, the online learning environment must be designed to make sure that tasks demand the active engagement and cognitive demand, and require that Scaffolding of thinking processes be provided.

Among research on the adoption of CMC for higher-order thinking, studies by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001) have become arguably among the most well known. They proposed a model of the “Community of Inquiry,” which is composed of three essential elements: Cognitive presence, Social presence and Teaching presence .  In this model, the computer asynchronous conference is believed to be useful in fostering an abundance of interaction in the online community. Garrison and his co-researchers continued on their previous work and develop the so-called ‘Practical Inquiry Model,’ which focuses on the ‘Cognitive presence’ and is used primarily as a conceptual framework for their later studies.

The Practical Inquiry Model (see Appendix I), developed by Garrison, et al (2001), which is a tool to assess the nature of the critical thinking process, reflects the following four stages of Cognitive presence: 1) Triggering event, the initial phase in which the participants pose an issue or problem emerged from their experiences; 2) Exploration phase, which emerges when the participants start to ask questions, brainstorm, and exchange information based on the issue posed; 3) Integration phase, which carries on from the exploration phase to construct shared meaning including a synthesis of new understanding within the community of inquiry; and 4) Resolution, the final stage in which the synthesis or a new understanding is reached. They found that among these phases, the exploration phase accounted for most of the discussion while the ‘Resolution’ phase seldom took place.

Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin and Chang (2003) also adopt the Practical Inquiry Model as their theoretical framework to evaluate patterns of engagement and interaction among teachers in asynchronous discussions in three distance education courses. They discover that the discussions are centered largely on the Exploration Phase, little on Integration, and none on Phase 4: Resolution. These findings are in line with previous studies in that most participants posed their messages to share information and their ideas rather than building upon ideas of others or going beyond that.

Is there any evidence of higher order thinking at all?  Using the practical inquiry model tool developed by Garrison and colleagues, Meyer (2003) studies the evidence of higher-order thinking in threaded discussions in two graduate level courses. The results drawn from 751 postings across 25 threaded discussions show that the threaded discussions exhibit some evidence of small portion of higher-order thinking, by contributing comments in the following proportion: exploratory (51%), integrative (22%) and resolution (7%).

Given the literature that shows little evidence of higher order thinking, we suspect that, by nature of formal distance education, the learners’ interactions may have been restricted by time constraints, either too rigid or unclear role expectations, narrowly scoped content, and lack of community sense. We therefore were inspired to seek to understand the active, rich learning community established in several public forums that we had observed as members prior to our study.

 

Public Forum: What is Outside the Box?

The public forum, in principle, allows the users to interact anonymously. Although more and more forums are requiring membership or some sort of registration that enables the webmaster to track or communicate with each participant if necessary, individual participants do not have to reveal their authentic identities.  Chester and Gwynne (1998) report a finding about the delights and dangers of pseudonymity from a study about collaboration through anonymity. They report that the anonymity can create an opportunity for disruptive behaviors. They found greater aggression, more “playful insults” in online classes compared to the face-to-face ones.

On the other hand, the participants of public forums may feel more willing to share their candid ideas, knowledge, and cultures with the luxury of anonymity. They conclude that “the benefit of online anonymity for teaching and learning has increased equity” because people do not need to reveal their identity and others do not know who they are, so people are able to express their opinions more freely. This is one of the most salient features of online public forum. While academic forums are usually formally monitored or managed, public forums, in which people from a wider societal context participate, have become an informal tool for building inquiry and learning communities in the real world outside the academia, and that deserves further investigation.

In a public forum, there is neither role assignment nor assigned moderators among the participants, and nor is it limited by the demand of course expectations.  The simultaneous submission of messages to all members of the group facilitates the free exchange of ideas, the sharing of multiple perspectives, and the creation of an interpersonal distance, resulting in an equalizing effect on participation (Olaniran, 1994). This special atmosphere, we contemplated, could contribute to candid, profound learning and critical thinking driven further by increased motivation.  However, we have not been able to find any studies that examine critical thinking process in non-academic, public forums with a goal to explore critical thinking behavior. 

Methodology 

About Pantip.com: Rajdumnern Table

To gain a better insight into the nature of public forums in Thai websites, we, the two researchers, planned to spend three summer months (May through July, 2003) as participants in several public forums, hoping to start the project as soon as we became adequately informed about a selected forum. The project began officially when we met to decide on which forum to study.  Our selection criteria were popularity and an emphasis on social-issues. Pantip.com’s webboard, called Café, met both criteria very well.  Pantip.com was then claimed to be the largest online community in Thailand. Thousands of visitors participated in the forums daily (Hongladarom, n.d.), and the number is constantly growing every day now. The number of threads as of November 21, 2004 is 3,135,188 since its humble start in 1994. The participants range from adolescents to the adults mainly from working and middle classes. All participants are now required to be registered as members to be able to participate in the discussions, following recent legal cases against abusive users. Others who do not register can read the postings, but will not be able to post any messages. In the big picture, Pantip.com is divided into fourteen different discussion “tables” arranged by such topics as science, computers, mathematics, politics, health, entertainment, food and pet care (Hongladarom, n.d.).  We have noticed that, as of this date, there are seventeen tables.  Each table, or group, employs rather sophisticated asynchronous threaded discussion tool, allowing polls, smileys, editing option, webmaster notification, topic expansion button, picture upload, and voting.

Model development

Our data were drawn from the “Rajdumnern” table, which is devoted for discussions on economic, social, and political issues. We had been looking for threads that would center on a selected topic would elicit a substantial number of responses, when, in mid June, 2003, we were struck by then the hottest threaded-discussions surrounding the new Name Act, which promised the new right for Thai women to keep their last names after their marriage. The discussions about the new Name Act generated an incredible number of over 200 threads with over 2000 responses within the course of only two weeks. The following are the summary of the steps w took to select and analyze the data.

1) We first arranged the threads in a chronological order. The selected discussions related to the Name Act took place between June 6, 2003 and June 18, 2003. Then, we started to approach the first ten threads by using the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison, et al, 2001) as a tool to capture the four levels of cognitive engagement. Operationally, we coded the threads separately and later compared our notes to see how the data fit in the mode. It turned out that we both agreed that the model could not capture all the interactions we found in the selected threads adequately. So, we decided to shift our research project toward modifying the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison, et al, 2001) and developing a new measure or model of our own.

2) We developed our own model based on the salient characteristics found in those first ten threads, while keeping the theoretical framework from Garrison et al as a guide, especially in terms of the four-staged depth of thinking.  Using the first drafted model, we looked at the second set of data which was comprised of 50 threads. We again compared our coding and thereby continued to modify the model.

3) We repeated the previous stage twice with two more randomly-selected sets of data (25 threads each).  After these four analyses, our reliability improved to a level that we were confident about the model.  

Consequently, we achieved our so-called “Information Exchange Model,” which would later be used officially to assess the process of cognitive interactions among the participants in the selected forum.

Instrument

Our Information Exchange Model (see Figure 1) is consisted of seven indicators as follows:

1. Initiating refers to a message the participants use to start the topic by asking a question or raising an issue. Participants can use different strategies to raise an issue, e.g. with questions, with arguments, with new perspectives, and even with resolution on a certain issue that has been discussed profoundly. Initiating a new thread with resolution is unique in that it suggests that what seems to be a starter or a new thread may indeed involve high order thinking.  Our model, therefore, adds the hierarchical layers of depth within this indicator, unlike any other model we have found in the literature.

2. Socializing refers to a message participants use to communicate mainly for the purpose of socializing, to create a mood of sociability such as making jokes, making irrelevant comments rather than to communicate information or ideas (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 1999). This indicator also includes comments that are intended to alleviate the conflicts, to compromise, or to simply refer to others’ opinions without taking a position. We see this stage as a scaffolding tool that serves to keep the community going and to color the dialogs. 

3. Sharing/Scaffolding refers to a message that facilitates the dialogs. Before starting to engage in an argument, some participants were found to be productive of socio-cognitive interactions when they offer different perspectives, exchange resources and information, and clarify or elaborate on the issue. This process is considered crucial to the higher cognitive interaction in the later steps because it provides new perspectives on the issue, or clarifies the points made earlier by participants.

4. Agreeing refers to a message that expresses the acceptance of or agreement with the view in the previous statement or idea regardless of the side of the central issue being taken (i.e. for or against the Name Act). The agreeing messages are divided into five subcategories: (4.1) agreeing with no further comments, (4.2) with emotional expressions, (4.3) with reasons based on personal beliefs, (4.4) with reasons  based on facts, reliable resources and (4.5) with proposed suggestion. These subcategories are arranged in a hierarchical order from low to high level of thinking, comparably in line with the four phases in the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al, 2001).

5. Disagreeing refers to a message that negates a view in a previous statement or idea regardless of which side of the central issue being taken (i.e. for or against the Name Act). The disagreeing messages are divided into six subcategories: (5.1) disagreeing with no further comments, (5.2) with emotional expressions, (5.3) with reasons based on personal beliefs, (5.4) with opposing question, (5.5) with reasons  based on facts, reliable resources and (5.6) with proposed suggestion. These subcategories are arranged in a hierarchical order from low to high level of thinking, , comparably in line with the four phases in the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al, 2001).

6. Taking a New Position refers to a message by participants who choose not to express an agreement or disagreement, but to do one of the following: (6.1) show no sensitivity of what is being taken for granted. Like in the agreeing and disagreeing stances, those who take a new position can also show their reasons: (6.2) based on personal beliefs, (6.3) based on facts and reliable sources, (6.4) with proposed recommendation. There is no explicit process in the Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al, 2001) that suggests this position happens.

7. Integrating/Resolution refers to a message that shows the process in which the discussion moves from expressing positions and sharing ideas to making connection between ideas and creating a synthesis of new understanding. This indicator is divided up into 3 subcategories: 7.1 Elaborating on both sides of the stories without taking a position, 7.2 Elaborating on both sides and taking a position with reasons, 7.3 Elaborating on both sides, taking a position or stating a solution. This process is similar to the process of integration in the practical inquiry model of Garrison et al. (2001). The uniqueness of this model is that it has the hierarchical depth of thinking embedded within this Integrating stage, too. Thus, resolution, the highest order thinking, is also layered within this stage.

Note that, in our model, messages that are equivalent to those classified as Resolution, the final phrase in Garrison’s model, do not necessarily follow the integration process in the simple four-step Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al, 2001). We found that resolution can occur in different modes of interaction, although by nature all messages marked as high as “Resolution” imply that participants attempting to provide solution to the problem at any stage and some of which come out of an accumulation, analysis and synthesis of information.

Figure 1 Coding Scheme for Information Exchange Model

 

Indicators	Specific discourses	Examples	Relevant Research
1. Initiating	1.1   Puzzlement (asking questions) --(sometimes more than one)	I wonder if the decision by the Constitutional Court to overrule the old law also means that married women register a new surname.	Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001)
	1.2      Raising an issue (with/without taking a position and explanation)
	1.2.1 with question (s)	Would you marry a woman who doesn’t want to use your surname?
	1.2.2 with an argument against previous idea(s)	The intellectual level of Thais is going down. Judging from the laws that has been passed
	1.2.3 with new perspective on the issue --(challenging the previous ones)	If we need to talk about social equality, I would like us to care more about the rights of disabled people.
	1.2.4 with resolution(s) – (stating and substantiating own position)	When voting, be sure to look at the candidates themselves, not at their political parties.
2. Socializing	2.1   Making non-significant or irrelevant comments/ remarks ( e.g. Jokes, sarcasm)	- J, J, I am here to laugh. - Mr. Krating wrote quite an unusually lengthy message, don’t you think? (laugh)	Rourke, Anderson, Garrison &Archer (2001); Bonk & Kim (1998); Bonk, Malikowki, Angeli &Supplee (1998); Tharp, 1993, Gunnawardena & Zittle (1997)
	2.2    Compromising, making non-judgmental comments	Let the couples talk this through, ok? Please keep smiling J
	2.3    Referring to/Adding on others’ opinions without taking a position	Posting 6 and 8, please join the discussions at thread 2308239
3. Sharing (scaffolding, engaging)	3.1   Asking other participants questions for clarification/ correcting one’s self/ clarifying	Could you explain your idea again?	Gundwardena,Lowe and Anderson (1997), Mcloughlin & Luca (2000)
	3.2   Referring to resources/ providing more information on the raised issue by citing diverse sources e.g. Websites, Statistics numbers	Suandusit poll revealed that 58% agreed with the constitutional court’s decision on the Surname Act; 16.3% disagreed and 24.8 % had no opinions.
	3.3   Asking related questions from a different perspective	Would the new act change the Thai family system?
	3.4   Offering new perspectives on a given issue or a point already discussed, Looking at the issue from a different angle	According to the poll, 58% of people agreed with the surname act and only 16% disagreed, then how come so many people in this forum arguably attack this issue, I wonder.
4. Agreeing (Accept the view in a previous statement)	4.1   With no further comment	Agreed	Fraser’s Speech Act Theory  (1975) in Cole & Morgan
	4.2   With emotional expressions ( e.g. Humor, irony, anger, frustration)	I totally agree, don’t you have anything else to do, stupid?	Social Presence (Rourke et al., 2001)
	4.3   With reasons based on personal beliefs, claims, social norms, proverbs, etc.	I agree with you. In my personal opinion, I think…
	4.4   With reasons based on facts, reliable sources
	4.5   With proposed suggestion/ recommendation with substantiated evidence/ explanation	I agree with you but it should be made clearly that married women must retain their surnames.
5. Disagreeing (Give no support to a view in a previous statement)	5.1   With no further comments	I disagreed.	Fraser’s Speech Act Theory  (1975) in Cole & Morgan
	5.2   With emotional expressions (e.g. Humor, irony, anger, frustration)	Hooray! Now Thailand is going to be the first country in the world that can solve the rape crimes without law enforcement.	Social Presence (Rourke et al., 2001)
	5.3   With reasons based on personal beliefs, claims, social norms, proverbs, etc.	I always watch the news, but never heard of anything like that.
	5.4   With opposing questions	How come the decision on such important law was made based solely on the legal interpretation? / What is the point?
	5.5   With reasons based on facts, reliable sources	The law creates difficulties fro women in dealing with legal documents e.g. the purchase of house and car, inheritance, employment, and continuing their education.
	5.6   With proposed recommendation/ course of action/ implication    and with substantiated evidence/ explanation	The law did not reflect public opinions. I think there should be a referendum on this issue.
6. Taking a new position	6.1   By Ignoring (no sensitivity of what is being taken for granted)	Whatever… I don’t see if this issue (Surname Act) would be more important than living to survive.
	6.2   With reasons based on personal beliefs, claims, social norms, proverbs, etc.	If they truly love each other, they should be able to solve the problem.
	6.3   With reasons based on facts, reliable sources	I don’t care whose surname we are going to use, I care only the selection surname for the children that must be made clearly which one will be used because surname identifies a unique gene pool.
	6.4   With proposed recommendation/ course of action/ implication and with substantiated evidence/ explanation	I’m fine with any outcome, only if the names of parents and partners must be included in the ID card.
7. Integration and/or Resolution	7.1   Elaborating on both sides of the stories without taking a position	One obvious advantage of this new law is that we have more alternatives, , but I think most people may prefer the same old way they are used to, only a few people will choose the new way. To use or not to use the husband’s surname after marriage has both advantages and disadvantages. This issue can be looked through multiple lenses and perspectives.  I don’t know which one way is better.	Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001), Fraser’s Speech Act Theory  (1975)
	7.2   Elaborating on both sides and taking a position with reasons	Advantages : A family that has only daughters is still able to maintain their surname. Women have more choices.   Disadvantages: The law could cause the conflict among family members because people are feeling that they lost the traditional norms and values. It could bring about selfishness and competitions. A consequent problem may occur when a baby is born. The couple may argue and fight on whose surname the child should use. I predict this is happening definitely in the future. The problem could lead to a disruption and may end up with a divorce. The new law does not benefit the society and the country.   In sum, when weighing both sides, there are more disadvantages. Therefore, I disagree with the law that allows women to maintain their surname after marriage.
	7.3   Elaborating on both sides, taking a position/ stating a resolution	In my opinion, a child should use father’s surname. However, I don’t mind if the law allows the child to use mother’s surname as well. It’s okay for siblings to use different surnames because the law always allows an individual to rename his/her own name, for example,  our former Prime Minister, Master General (above the five-star General)  Por Pibulsongkram was once named “Plack Kitasunkha”. Later, he probably preferred “Pibulsongkram” which was the name given by the King. So he adopted the new surname solely for himself, which differed from his other siblings.   (The Surname Act) is, for first time in Thailand’s history, to formally declare the equity of men and women. Women need not to exercise this right, just to remind men not to violate women’s dignity. However, women’s duties are limited due to their naturally physical disadvantages. This law, hopefully, would make prostitutes realize their dignity and quit their jobs eventually.   One of the concerns relating to the use of different surnames is the datings between unknowingly-related relatives. If the dating couples use the same surnames, it easily causes the suspicion among both families. But if they use different surnames, and do not live closely, for example, brothers and sisters who changed their surnames. Later, one moves to Chiengmai (North), one moved to Songkla (South) and both of them never have any contact. Children from both families accidentally meet and fall in love, the problem will definitely occur. Nevertheless, this problem does not absolutely come from the surname when the couples let their family know about their relationship. So from this case, the problem does not spring from the surname, but from other sources. Ideally, it’s good to have all relatives use the same surname, but it’s impossible.