Advertisement

Disengaged students and dialogic learning: the role of CSCL affordances

  • Benzi Slakmon
  • Baruch B. Schwarz
Article

Abstract

Only a few studies have dealt with the challenge of bridging the linguistic gap between the dialogic realm and the talk of disengaged students. Bridging this gap is particularly relevant to the CSCL community since one of its utmost aims is to promote the dialogic. This study aims to articulate how to harness the CSCL design and affordances to enhance dialogic pedagogy with disengaged students. Using temporal analysis of philosophical discussions for children, we focus on three disengaged 8th grade students participating in successive discussions mediated by a CSCL tool (Argunaut), and follow the way they talk with their peers in the classroom. The study shows the gradual emergence of the dialogic among those students. We describe the transition of their talk moves, from initially reproducing the way they talk to adopting dialogical norms. To explain this we conceptualize the notion of carriers of discursive norms and discuss its transformative role in dialogue. The dialogic transition was made possible by the pedagogical design and the design of the CSCL tools. These affordances allowed the students change the meaning of the conversational building blocks of space, silence, addressee, and the ethics of talk.

Keywords

Disengaged students Dialogic pedagogy Technology affordances Discursive norms Philosophy for children Voice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for their supportive and in-depth comments. The first author would like to thank his colleagues in the ‘Chevruta’ research group. We wish to thank Rotem Abdu, Dani Ben-Zvi, Gerry Stahl, and Rupert Wegerif, for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper. We wish to thank the staff at the school in which the study was developed and conducted, especially to Shai Melamed, Avi Ben-Moshe, Yfat Gal, Yossefa Elkabetz, Niva Barda, Gila Ben-Yossef, Yafit Shriki-Megidish, Sara Brom, Tami Liani, Dr. Avi Golan, and Michal Franco-Dvash. The first author is also indebted to the Mandel Leadership Institute for providing the ideal context for writing this paper. Finally, we wish to deeply thank our students.

References

  1. Adler, M. J. (1984). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R.J. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. New-York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 11–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, M., Bernard, F. X., & Dumez‐Féroc, I. (2012). Integrating computer‐supported collaborative learning into the classroom: The anatomy of a failure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, B. (1972). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization; with some references to educability. In: J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 472–496). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–163.Google Scholar
  11. Cremin, A. L. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dudley-Marling, C., & Michaels, S. (2012). High-expectation curricula: Helping all students succeed with powerful learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardman, M., & Delafield, B. (2010). Philosophy for children as dialogic teaching. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 149–164). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hymes, D. H. (1980). Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, D.C: Center for the Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  19. Hymes, D. H. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipman, M., & Sharp, M. (1978). Growing up with philosophy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2011). Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lund, A., & Eiliv Hague, T. (2011). Changing objects in knowledge-creation practices. In S. Ludvigsen, I. Rasmussen, A. Lund & R. Säljö, (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 206–221). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Mirza, N. M., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A. N. & de Pietro, J. F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 247–272. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9021-5.
  35. Nikulin, D. V. (2006). On dialogue. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  36. Nystrand, M. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Passmore, J. A. (1970). Philosophical reasoning (2nd ed.). London: G. Duckworth.Google Scholar
  38. Pifarré, M., & Staarman, J. K. (2011). Wiki-supported collaborative learning in primary education: How a dialogic space is created for thinking together. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Rampton, B., & Harris, B. (2010). Change in urban classroom culture and interaction. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 240–264). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller-Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education – theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and synchronous argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, S., Johnson, S., Cavell, S., & Parsons, T. (2012). Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: An analysis of students’ interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Slakmon B. & Schwarz, B.B. (2013). The contagious effect of dialogism with new technologies. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time and scale. CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 161–165).Google Scholar
  49. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stahl, G. (2011). Social practices of group cognition in virtual math teams. In S. Ludvigsen, I. Rasmussen, A. Lund, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites (pp. 190–205). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2006). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children socio-emotional effects at 11 to 12 years. School Psychology International, 27(5), 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning (Vol. 7). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., et al. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54(3), 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mandel Educational Leadership InstituteThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.School of EducationThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations