Tension and relaxation in CSCL argumentation dialogue

1. Tension and relaxation in CSCL argumentation dialogue Michael Baker Jerry Andriessen UMR LTCI, CNRS - Telecom ParisTech Wise & Monroe Learning Research

2. Types of situations studied Video 1 Video 2

3. Main objectives Collaborative learning? ? Computer-mediation Interactions between students “The social dimension” of dynamics of interpersonal relations “The cognitive dimension” processes of co-elaboration of understanding and knowledge Argumentation dialogue Tool-appropriation

4. Plan • Research background • A case study • Questions and perspectives

5. 1. Research background

6. 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

7. 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 1- Research background

8. 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 1- Research background

9. 1- Research background Bales (1950) Interaction process analysis

10. 1- Research background 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)

11. 1- Research background Tension-relaxation in Western tonal music

12. 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? 1- Research background

13. 2. Case study SCALE project Computer-mediated interaction (CHAT) Debate in school on GMOs

14. SCALE and CABLE Arguing to learn Learning to argue Broadening and deepening understanding of a space of debate 2- Case study Arguing to learn argumentative knowledge

15. Question 2- Case study T/R ?? Deepening debate

16. Main analysis categories 2- Case study

17. Corpus extract (1) 2- Case study

18. Corpus extract (2) 2- Case study

19. Corpus extract (3) 2- Case study

20. Corpus extract (4) 2- Case study

21. T-R/B-D: relations in the extract (1) 2- Case study

22. T-R/B-D: relations in the extract (2) 2- Case study

24. Interrelations T/R Deepening debate

25. 3. Questions, perspectives

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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. michael.baker@telecom-paristech.fr