Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 229 Accesses

  • 17 Citations

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  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.

  5. Bakhtin/Volosinov. (1929/1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar.

  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.

  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.

  8. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard: Harvard College.

  9. Carrière, J.-C. (1992). La controverse de valladolid [the valladolid controversy]. Belfond: Le pré aux Clercs.

  10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

  11. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1987). Development of justification in disputes with motherand sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23, 791–798.

  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).

  13. Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourses Processes, 18 (2), 187–210.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  19. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.

  20. Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, 2.

  21. Mac Alister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2003). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation in education. CALRG, 204.

  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.

  23. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, cop.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  27. Muller Mirza, N. (2005). Psychologie culturelle d’une formation d’adulte [Cultural psychology of an adult training]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  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.

  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.

  30. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  45. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  49. Vygostsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher Psychological Processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

  50. Wood, T. (1996). Classroom contexts and learning mathematics. 2nd ISCRAT Conference, Genève.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nathalie Muller Mirza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A. et al. Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. Computer Supported Learning 2, 247–272 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Dialogue
  • Learning
  • Argumentative maps
  • ICT tool