Comparing Graphical and Textual Preparation Tools for Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning

1. Comparing Graphical and Textual Preparation Tools for Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning Jerry ANDRIESSEN Marije VAN AMELSVOORT Department of Educational Sciences, University of Utrecht

2. * Research carried out within the framework of: • European Community ‘Information Societies Technology' (IST) Programme • SCALE project: • Internet-based intelligent tool to Support Collaborative Argumentation-based LEarning in secondary schools, • http://www.euroscale.net/ • project n° IST-1999-10664 • March 2001 – February 2004 • Partners: • Finland : University of Jyväskylä, Department of Education • France • UMR 5612 GRIC, CNRS & Université Lumière Lyon 2 • Département RIM, Ecole des Mines de St. Etienne • Great Britain: Management School, Royal Holloway, University of London • Hungary: SZAMALK TCC, Budapest • Netherlands: Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University • Portugal: Departamento de Didáctica e Tecnologia Educativa, Universidade de Aveiro

3. Research goal Understanding the characteristics of CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) environments that favour Collaborative Argumentation-Based LEarning (CABLE) CABLE = collaboratively: • neither learning to argue nor arguing to learn • arguing to learn argumentative knowledge • cooperative exploration of a dialogical space rather than a dialectical confrontation • broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate • more arguments (about arguments) • greater range of points of view (societal, epistemological) • greater coherence (opinion <=> arguments) • more balanced (counter-)arguments • deeper understanding of associated concepts

4. Collaborative learning processes:Argumentative interactions and knowledge co-elaboration • sharing, exchanging knowledge • co-elaborating understanding, knowledge • justification, defense, leads to explicitation, knowledge restructuring, elaboration of a more coherent discourse (Chi et al., 1991; Crook, 1995) • negotiation of meaning: problem definition, theses, problem solutions (compromise) • conceptual operations: association, dissociation • knowledge constitution (Galbraith) & transforming (Bereiter & Scardamalia)

5. * argumentation and refinement of discourse objects epistemic values argumentation (co-)elaboration meaning, conceptualisation, knowledge

6. Our approach to favouring CABLE in CSCL • design appropriate teaching materials • balanced and varied information on topic of debate • design appropriate sequences of tasks • initial acquisition of skill with tools, knowledge of argumentative notions and of the space of debate, debate and knowledge co-construction, consolidation and integration of knowledge • exploit use of multiple representations as communication media • synchronous CHAT (typewritten interaction across Internet) • using an argumentation graph/diagram • Collaborative text production

7. Role of text production in collaborative argumentation-based learning • a relatively new area of research on cognition, learning, yet which has hardly been applied to argumentation • typewritten CHAT interactions • intrinsically, strategically indeterminate • a primary ‘place’ for the negotiation of meaning • Collaborative Text production • A product to work on • Knowledge constitution requires constraint free interaction and collaboration • Knowledge transformation requires negotiation of content and form

8. Task sequence 0. Training 1. Preparation 2. Debate 3. Consolidation • introduction to argumentation notions • interface training • reading dossier on GMOs • individual graph production OR • individual text writing (argued personal opinion) individual text/graph revising • COLLABORATIVE TEXT PRODUCTION • CONDITION 1 : GR • • CONDITION 2 : TXT • CONDITION 3: CGR

9. Design • 30 pairs of students, 5 classes, 3 schools • 16-17 years old • Upper secondary education • 4,5 hours on task; 2,5 hours on discussion and collaborative writing • Topic of discussion: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

10. ResearchQuestions 1 To what extent [chat & ctext] do students collaboratively explore the space of debate in breadth and in depth? (And how do we know?) • How are preparation tools used in this exploration of the space of debate?  are there differences in text, graph and automated graph conditions?

11. Hypotheses (prepare) • Students writing a text go deeper (details, exactness) • Students constructing a graph go broader (relations, balance) • Students writing a text and receiving a graph have advantages of both: deepen and broaden space of debate

12. Hypotheses (explore & use) • The transition linear text > linear text is easier to make: less discussion, more knowledge telling in text: broader, not deeper • Graphical representations support argumentation and argumentative text production because debates are hierarchical: deeper discussion, deeper text

14. Diagram op scherm

15. Exploring the space of debate • Breadth  Topic Analysis • 5 main topics, 14 subtopics • Depth  Depth Analysis • (counter) arguments 1 point • examples, explanations 2 points • Supports, rebuttals 4 points • Explicit relations 8 points

16. Findings exploring space of debate • 14% of all activities (chat+ctext) are content-related argumentative activities • No differences in broadening and deepening the space of debate between conditions • On average, 10 out of 14 subtopics are discussed • On average, students deepen the space of debate with 92 points (in chat and text)

17. DEPTH: Different approaches, independent of experimental group? Text Text > Graph Graph

18. Synthesis, conclusion, questions • Preparation of a debate does not seem to translate directly into different debate strategies • Mountains: using chat affordances for deeper debates • Valleys: no debate, but deep collaborative texts • Rising slopes: how we like it: deeper and deeper • But clearly, preparation tools are neither favourable nor unfavourable to learning in the abstract, we need to find the most appropriate learning task within which they can be used • How can we design tasks so that the students can derive most benefit from different representations, and “switching” between them? • Would there be personal preferences (experience, social awareness) in employing the affordances of different representational tools?

19. Thank you, I'm done

20. Depth in graph-condition

21. Depth in text-condition

22. Depth in text>graph-condition

23. Example of scoring discussion

24. How do students use preparation tools in general? (1)

25. How do students use preparation tools in general? (2) 1. To see on what topics they agree/ differ 2. To gather arguments 3. As a starting point to go deeper in the discussion

26. Example (graph) 0 I am really against GMOs 1 I am not, I think it is very good for the Third World, they can use the extra vitamins 0 No, the 3rd world doesn’t have money to pay for GMOs, manipulation is used to make people in the rich West healthier Then nobody will buy products from the 3rd world anymore • But those rich countries already said they would help the poor countries with money and funds

27. Example 1 (graph) 0 and 1 both start with looking at each other’s GRAPH, then chat: 1 your point of view is neither for, neither against 0 yours is definitely in favour, wait, I’m going to read it carefully • Ok 0 Your text is good, how is mine? • Also good, but I think you are more in favour than against 0 Then let’s write a text that is pro, but also has some aspects of against 1 A little in favour, a little against 1 Uhm…GMOs are good for society? 0 Genetic modification of food is good, as long as there are no harmful consequences?

28. Example (textgraph) 0 Hi Colin, let’s write! 0 You were against, weren’t you? 1 I am against applications that haven’t been researched yet. I am in favour of applications that have proved to be useful 0 Me too 1 See Colin’s product 0 writes in text: We are in favour of GMOs, only if the applications have been researched and proven

29. * Text (product) analysis : the QED method • richness • the student’s text is “rich” when it provides a large set of arguments; • elaboration • the student’s text is “deep” when it develops arguments, with sub-arguments, examples, explanations, etc.; • balance • the student’s text is more “balanced” when it provides well balanced pro/against arguments. If the question is really open, there must be arguments on each side (pro and against); • coverage • the student’s text has a wide coverage when the arguments reflect the variety of the opinions or standpoints of the differents actors of the debate, or cover the different topics of the question; • coherence • the student’s text is coherent when the general point of view (or opinion) expressed is a rational function of the arguments given (e.g. a pro opinion associated exclusively with counter-arguments is viewed as having low coherence).

30. example text before and after discussion Carla (2001-11-13 09:15:37) GMOs is a subject that is currently in the news that must seem to concern everyone nevertheless, numerous opinions diverge. As far as I’m concerned, I can’t yet manage to stop at something fixed ; I think that there are as many arguments “for” as arguments “against”. One must admit it, GMOs could be useful : -in the domain of food, an improvement in the nutritional quality of certain products, an augmentation ffqo production –thus- reduction of famines, guaranteed quality: notably, lowering of chemical residues in fruits. –from the medical point of view; medicines could be invented, principally against mucovicidose but also vaccinations. – from the environmental point of view; a sort of “respect” would be established given the reduction of chemical types of products, pesticides… - with respect to agriculture, properly speaking, there would be better guarantees of production, even an increase in it, with even less chemical processing. –with respect to economics, the guarantee of supply due to better performance of production would be the fundamental positive aspect giving rise to numerous socio-economic stakes. Carla (2001-11-13 10:42:16) GMOs is a subject that is currently in the news that must seem to concern everyone nevertheless, numerous opinions diverge. As far as I’m concerned, I can’t yet manage to stop at something fixed ; I think that there are as many arguments “for” as arguments “against”. One must admit it, GMOs could be useful : -in the domain of food, an improvement in the nutritional quality of certain products, an augmentation ffqo production –thus- reduction of famines, guaranteed quality(notably, lowering of chemical residues in fruits) are positive factors –from the medical point of view; medicines could be invented, principally against mucovicidose but also vaccinations. – from the environmental point of view; a sort of “respect” would be established given the reduction of chemical types of products, pesticides… leading to a considerable lowering of pollution. - with respect to agriculture, properly speaking, there would be better guarantees of production, even an increase in it, with even less chemical processing. –with respect to economics, the guarantee of supply due to better performance of production would be the fundamental positive aspect giving rise to numerous socio-economic stakes. Nevertheless, the few arguments “against” are all the same important and to be very seriously taken into consideration. –in the medical domain; can give rise to risks of allergies. –for food; it would greatly penalise biological agriculture. –from the point of view of public health; the consumer could feel a bit left out. To conclude GMOs would allow Mankind to carry out great advances but all the same beforehand their non-risk must be 200% sure (above all with respect to the organism). Despite the fact that my opinion tends towards accepting these uses, cloning is a possibility that repulses me: in no case at all do we have the right to put ourselves on a higher rank in order to decide on creation of life (human and genetically modified) of anything whatsoever. Certainly some hypotheses have been brought forth but one must maintain sufficient detachment so as to not “dive in with one’s head lowered” into this new experience and envisage ALL possible imaginable cases. QED = 6% low coherence: divided opinion yet only arguments in favour QED = 55%; higher coherence, more topic areas

31. QED results