Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo

  • Nathalie Muller Mirza
  • Valérie Tartas
  • Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
  • Jean-François de Pietro
Article

Abstract

ICT tools have been developed to facilitate web-based learning through and learning about argumentation. In this paper we will present an example of a learning activity mediated by Digalo-software for knowledge sharing through visually supported discussion-developed in a university setting. Our aim is to examine, in particular, socio-cognitive construction of knowledge and argumentation by students debating a controversial question in history. We propose a descriptive approach of understanding and meaning-making processes based on two levels of analysis: (1) a topic meaning-making process oriented level and (2) an argumentation oriented level. We focus our studies on how the participants-small groups of students-develop understanding of the topic, their arguments and their interactions through the use of different functionalities of this software. Our results show that interactive and argumentative processes are themselves objects of learning and develop through collective activity. Development of the understanding of the topic through argumentation is discussed and linked to the design of the activity and the affordances of the Digalo software.

Keywords

Argumentation Dialogue Learning Argumentative maps ICT tool 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. J. (2004). Recherches sur l’élaboration de connaissances dans le dialogue. [Research on the elaboration of knowledge in dialogue]. Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches (HDR), psychologie, Université Nancy 2. [http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00110314].
  4. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of computer assisted learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakhtin/Volosinov. (1929/1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar.Google Scholar
  6. Bakhtin/Volosinov. (1930/1983). Literary stylistics 2. The construction of the utterance. In A. Shukman (Ed.), Bakhtin school papers. Russian poetics in translation (pp. 114–138). Somerton: Old School House.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdin, S., Licot, M.-N., Conti, A., & Duquenne, C. (2001). La question de l’autre en débats: Jouer la Controverse de Vallodolid en classe [the question of the other in debates: To play the Valladolid Controversy in class]. Le cartable de Clio. Revue romande et tessinoise sur les didactiques de l’histoire, 1, 155–161.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard: Harvard College.Google Scholar
  9. Carrière, J.-C. (1992). La controverse de valladolid [the valladolid controversy]. Belfond: Le pré aux Clercs.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1987). Development of justification in disputes with motherand sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23, 791–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. (2004). The synchronous mapping discussions: The effects of floor control in turn–taking and choice of argumentative representations. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV’04).Google Scholar
  13. Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourses Processes, 18 (2), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heimberg, C. (2002). L’Histoire à l’école. Modes de pensée et regard sur le monde [History at school. Ways of thinking and a glance at the world]. Genève: ESF.Google Scholar
  15. Hirsch, L., Saeedi, M., Cornillon, J., & Litosseliti, L. (2004). A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U., & Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a dPBL Meeting. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proc. international conference on computer support for collaborative learning 2003 (pp. 37–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, 2.Google Scholar
  21. Mac Alister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2003). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation in education. CALRG, 204.Google Scholar
  22. Marková, I. (1990). A three-step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 129–146). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.Google Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, cop.Google Scholar
  24. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is exploratory talk productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–101). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, M. (1986). Learning how to contradict and still pursue a common end: The ontogenesis of moral argumentation. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (Eds.), Children’s words and children’s language (pp. 425–479). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Muller, N., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1999). Negociating identities and meanings in the transmission of knowledge: Analysis of interactions in the context of a knowledge exchange network. In J. Bliss, R. Säljö, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites. Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 47–61). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  27. Muller Mirza, N. (2005). Psychologie culturelle d’une formation d’adulte [Cultural psychology of an adult training]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  28. Munneke, L., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.Google Scholar
  30. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Carugati, F., & Oates, J. (2004). A socio-cognitive perspective on learning and cognitive development. In J. Oates & A. Grayson (Eds.), Cognitive and language development in children (pp. 303–332). The Open University & Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L. (1981). Conflict and cooperation on opportunities for learning. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Communication in development (pp. 203–233). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Ravenscroft, A. (2003). From a conditioning to highly communicative learning communities: Implications of 50 years of research and development in eLearning interaction design. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11, 4–18.Google Scholar
  35. Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2004). Introduction. http://www.argumentum.ch.
  36. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003a). Designing CSCL argumentative environments for broadening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Säljö (Ed.), Information and communication technologies and the transformation of learning practices.Google Scholar
  37. Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003b). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dorbrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right... if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soller, A., Lesgold, A., Linton, F., & Goddwin, B. (1999). What makes peer interaction effective? Modelling effective communication in an intelligent CSCL. Working Papers of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence Fall Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in collaborative systems. Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  40. Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R. Medina, R., Joseph, S. & Dwyer, V. (2006). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
  44. Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Marro, P., & Grossen, M. (2004). Interactions sociales et appropriation des strategies par l’enfant pour résoudre un problème: Quelles methodes? Bulletin de Psychologie, 469(57), 111–115.Google Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Van der Puil, C., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2004). Exploring relational regulation in computer mediated (collaborative) learning interaction: A developmental perspective. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H. (2003). A glance behind the scenes: The state of the art in the study of argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, 3/1, 1–23.Google Scholar
  48. Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–229). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vygostsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher Psychological Processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wood, T. (1996). Classroom contexts and learning mathematics. 2nd ISCRAT Conference, Genève.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Muller Mirza
    • 1
  • Valérie Tartas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
    • 1
  • Jean-François de Pietro
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Cognition, Communication and Development Laboratory (CCD)University of Toulouse Le MirailToulouse Cedex 9France
  3. 3.IRDP, Fbg de l’Hôpital 43NeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations