tension and relaxation in cscl argumentation dialogue

Tension and relaxation in CSCL argumentation dialogue

Michael Baker Jerry AndriessenUMR LTCI, CNRS - Telecom ParisTech Wise & Monroe Learning Research

1

Types of situations studied

Video 1

Video 2

Main objectives

“The cognitive dimension”

processes of co-elaboration of

understanding and knowledge

Computer-mediation

Collaborative learning?

“The social dimension”

of dynamics of interpersonal

relations

Tool-appropriation

Interactions between students

Argumentation dialogue

?

Plan

1. Research background

2. A case study

3. Questions and perspectives

4

1. Research background

The cognitive and the social in collaborative learning research The “social” as a ‘leftover of the cognitive

The social as a variable: socio-cognitive conflict Peer interaction leads to stable cognitive progress not attributable

to repetition of correct responses

Sociocognition: two sides of the same coin … “… research paradigms built on supposedly clear distinctions

between what is social and what is cognitive will have an inherent weakness, because the causality of social and cognitive processes is, at the very least circular and is perhaps even more complex …”

“… it is no longer possible to decide a priori if a competence is purely cognitive or also involves the social competence of displaying that behaviour. Intelligence, then can be considered as intrinsically a sociability.” (Perret-Clermont et al. 1991, p. 50)

1- Research background

The collaborative working relation (van de Puil & Andriessen)

Motivation Groups struggle to find balance between the need to accomplish

their work, and desire to achieve harmonious interpersonal climate

Efficient group: eobjectives > egroup maintenance

Dimensions Ontological: perception of knowledge as a dynamically

developing, subjective, and preliminary construct Procedural: belief, motivation, and ability to take responsibility for

the process of learning and shaping learning interaction Relational: appreciation of peer(s) and the self as valued

contributors to the collaborative process and to knowledge

Criteria (Allwood) cognitive consideration, joint purpose, ethical consideration, trust


Our approach to the CWR

Apprehending the collaborative working relation in terms of tension-relaxation

In conjunction with cognitive, structural and logical features of dialogue


QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (LZW)

sont requis pour visionner cette image.


Bales (1950) Interaction process analysis

Facework in arguing (Muntig & Turnbull)

T1 - A: CLAIM

T2 - B: DISPUTES [T1-A: CLAIM]

1. Irrelevancy claim [most aggressive] 2. Challenge 3. Contradiction 4. Counterclaim [least aggressive]

T3 - A: Either, DISAGREES [T2-B: DISPUTE]

1. Irrelevancy claim, 2. Challenge, 3. Contradiction, 4. Counterclaim

Or, SUPPORTS [T1-A:CLAIM]

The more T2 damages A’s face, the more likely A, in T3, will SUPPORT own T1 CLAIM

Facework is a major determinant of regularities (cf Barth & Krabbe, choice of argumentative strategy, counteractive or direct defense)


Tension-relaxation in Western tonal music


Appropriation of CSCL technologies

Distance modifies the social relation

Interactive, (a)synchronous, tool-mediated, multisemiotic communication transforms the intercognitive

In many CSCL situations, students must appropriate the tools whilst, as a means to, learning

Appropriation as an inherently open, not totally predictable process, of détournement of the tool, instrumentalisation (hybrid cognitive-technical action schemas: Rabardel)

How does tool appropriation transform the articulation between the social and the cognitive?


2. Case study

SCALE project

Computer-mediated interaction (CHAT)

Debate in school on GMOs

SCALE and CABLE

2- Case study

Arguing to learn

argumentative knowledge

Learning to argue

Arguing to learn

Broadening and deepening understanding of a space of

debate

Question

T/R

Deepening debate

??

2- Case study

Main analysis categories

2- Case study

Tension Relaxation Confirmation of CWR

Irrelevancy claims

Challenges

Counterclaims

Claim against doxa (contentious)

Taking stance

Questions

Requests (for justification or

clarification)

Concession

Building

Compromise

Self/other disclosure

Dyadic pronouns

Motivating the other

Joint purpose

Personal attacks

Sarcasm

Humour

Consideration

Conversational equality

Interrupting

Ignoring

Persisting

Giving a turn/time

Focusing

Change of focus

Future orientation

Corpus extract (1)

2- Case study

10 Betty Hi

11 Carla Hiya

12 Betty how's it goin? R: conventional/

politeness

13 Carla good and you?

14 Betty ok, so what about GMOs? T: question

Q Carla and you? R: giving a turn

16 Betty no, you first

17 Carla you little rascal R: humour

18 Betty why?

19 Carla you'rre vicious R: humour

20 Betty oh don't get excited

21 Carla i'm just kidding R: consideration

22 Betty of course i know R: self disclosure

23 Betty ouououou

24 Carla no but seriously i'm half fig half grape opinion R: focusing

Corpus extract (2)

2- Case study

41 Carla there'll be a better production thus less famine Argument T: taking

stance

42 Betty yeah but if it's bad for the organism, then it

comes down to the same thing

Counterargument T: challenge

43 Carla it will maybe permit us to create vaccinations

against mucovicidose and i think that that is

maybe a good thing

Argument

44 Carla there'll be - pollution and this is essential if we

don't want to die

Argument

45 Betty yeah but they can create it without making all

food and the rest genetically modified

Counterargument T: challenge

Corpus extract (3)

54 Carla why are you against GMOs? Isn't there a single

positive argument in your opinion?

Request

(clarification/

justification)

T: request

55 Betty phhh maybe but nothing has been proved Counter-argument T: challenge

56 Betty for the vaccinations nothing has been proved Counter-argument T: persisting

57 Carla it's obvious that these are nothing but

hypotheses at the moment but imagine just one

instant if it worked don't you think that it

would be a great step for mankind?

Request

(clarification/justific

ation)

T: request

58 Betty yeah but they can succeed otherwise until now

how have we done

Counter-argument T: counterclaim

59 Carla if gmos can help in many different domains i

can totally for but

Argument R: focusing

60 Betty but? Request T: challenge

61 Carla just a sec

62 Betty and then the flavour and the savour of food

could be lost!

Counter-argument T: challenge

63 Carla you can't be sure of that!!!!!!!!! Counter-argument T: challenge

64 Betty you can’t be either for the

vaccins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Counter-argument T: challenge

65 Carla ok even score Concession R: concession

2- Case study

Corpus extract (4)

94 Carla look it's like piercing in the beginning

everybody was against it but then people

changed their minds

Argumentation T: challenge

95 Betty yes that's a fashion it's not the same this

is nature that's on the line and the human

organism

Counter-argumentation T: challenge

96 Carla i am for j300% in the only case that it

doesn't cause any problems but they have

to be sure 600%

Conclusion R: concession

97 Betty no i'm against 1000 Counter-argumentation T: contradiction

98 Betty %

99 Carla you put make-up on though so that's not

natural it's more or less the same

Counter-argumentation T: challenge

100 Betty i am for

101 Betty no it doesn't go into the organism* Counter-argumentation T: contradiction

102 Carla we gotta stop so see ya big kisses bye R: change focus

103 Betty ok bye kisses

2- Case study

T-R/B-D: relations in the extract (1)

2- Case study



T-R/B-D: relations in the extract (2)

2- Case study



Interrelations

T/R

Deepening debate

3. Questions, perspectives

Questions

What is a “good” T-R management process, for collaborative learning?

How can tension-relaxation be measured?

How can analysis of tension-relaxation be validated?

Contextuality of analysis of tension-relaxation If, a priori, a light-hearted remark reduces tension, in high-tension

contexts it can also throw oil onto the fire … ! The effect will depend on the T-R history, amplitude of change Conflict on the level of the interaction genre

Refusal to ‘fight’, intentional blocking of empathy

3- Questions, perspectives

What next?

Try to answer the questions …

Refine analysis categories

Combining researcher and first-person perspectives?

Physiology? (!)

Much broader corpus analysis to try to identify regularities in the relations between T-R and argumentative depth, between social and cognitive conflict

A new collaborative research project …

3- Questions, perspectives

Reference

Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & van der Puil., C. (à paraître). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I. & Saljo, R. Learning across sites; new tools, infrastructures and practices. London: Routledge.

[email protected]

tension and relaxation in cscl argumentation dialogue

Documents