DREW: Dialogical Reasoning Educational Webtool Rainbow: analytical framework for analysis of debate...

DREW: Dialogical Reasoning Educational WebtoolRainbow: analytical framework for analysis of debateTatiana (Trace Analysis Tool for Interaction Analysts)

CITE Seminar: Room 101, Runme Shaw BuildingHong Kong University, March 2009

Dr. Kristine Lund, CNRS, Vice director ICAR laboratory(Interactions, Corpus, Apprentissage, Représentations)

University of Lyon [email protected]

2

• The European project SCALE Learning to argue and arguing to learn Theory construction

• DREW and Rainbow Theoretical underpinnings

• The European project LEAD Face-to-face networked learning in the classroom with CoFFEE Theory construction

• Using Tatiana to replay and analyze with Rainbow DREW and CoFFEE interactions

• Using Tatiana to analyze the dynamics of DREW and CoFFEE interactions• Using Tatiana to compare indicators stemming from analytical frameworks

across theoretical perspectives• Summary

Overview

3

SCALEInternet-based Intelligent Tool to

Support Collaborative Argumentation-Based LEarning

in Secondary Schools

IST-1999-10664IST-1999-10664mars 2001 - février 2004mars 2001 - février 2004

4

PartnersFinland

University of Jyväskylä, Department of Education

France

UMR 5191 ICAR, CNRS & Université Lumière Lyon 2

Département RIM, École des Mines de St. Étienne

Great Britain (coordinator)

Management School, Royal Holloway, University of London

Hungary

SZAMALK TCC, Budapest

Pays Bas

Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University

Portugal

Departamento de Didáctica e Tecnologia Educativa, Universidade de Aveiro

5

General objective

Elaborate computer-supported pedagogical tools that favor…

collaborative learning founded on argumentative activity…

in secondary schools in Europe

6

Pedagogical objective

Argue to learn argumentative

knowledgeLearn to argue

Argue to learn

Broaden and deepen knowledge of the space of debate

J. Andriessen, M.J. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.) 2003

Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments

7

Theory construction during SCALE

•Multi-representational pragma-dialectics Baker (2003)…

• Theory will support pedagogical objective• Tool design (DREW) will be based on theory• Analytical method (Rainbow) will arise from theory

and illustrate progress towards pedagogical objective

8

Broadening and deepening ones knowledge of the space of debate

• The space of debate In relation to a question relevant for society (ex. GMOs) theses, arguments, values, viewpoints, social actors

– Students were taught argumentation– Lessons were designed in collaboration with the teacher

• Broaden Gain knowledge of more arguments (+/—), variety of viewpoints,

viewpoints more balanced, coherent

•Deepen Negotiate the meaning of underlying notions within discussion Capable of arguing about arguments

9

Back to original theories on argumentation

10

Argumentation as rhetoric, dialectic or demonstration •Rhetoric

Focuses on the goal to which argumentation is oriented (persuasion)– Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958)

•Dialectic Focuses on the process by which argumentation takes place Regulated exchange, a dialogue game (winner, loser)

– Hamblin, 1971; Barth & Krabbe, 1982

•Demonstration Focuses on the relation between arguments, viewed as logical

inference– Geach (1976)

van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Henkemans, 1996, pp. 29-50

for human interactive argumentation

11

Human interactive argumentation

•Not just about giving reasons People also verify if reasons do not contradict each other

•Can argue without hope of persuasion Show point of view is worth considering

• Argumentation is not just mathimatico-logical Everyday soundness is not the same as logical validity

– All organisms with wings can fly.– Penguins have wings.– Therefore, penguins can fly.

Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.

• Views and knowledge evolve during argumentation This is the learning !

12

Extended view taking into account social context

•Why do people argue ? Are they motivated ?

•What does arguing change for them ? Are they stakeholders ?

•What are the types of reasoning they engage in ? Logical, use analogies and every-day experience

13

What kinds of argumentation ?• Phenomenon

Monological or dialogical discourse

•Referent Factual information, personal,

commonly held judgments, ethical principles

•Reasoning Analogies from everyday life

•Media Computational : text editors,

argumentation diagrams, chat– Personal / collective

•ActivitiesAnalysis, writing, reading, construction, communication

•SituationArgumentative norms transposed from everyday life (debate not common in class)

•GoalsTeacher / researcher viewpoint - widen and deepen the space of debateStudent viewpoint - my teacher ? My partner ?

–Inquiry, information-seeking, quarrel, debate, persuasion, explanation

14

Collaborative Learning research

•Co-construction of knowledge “interactions paradigm” (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye & O’Malley, 1996)

– What types of interactions between students favor learning?

• Socio-cognitive conflict (Doise & Mugny, 1981) Importance of resolving the conflict (Mevarech & Light, 1992)

– Interactive learning mechanisms & argumentation (Baker, 1996,1999)• Nuanced opinion, differentiate similar conceptual notions• Rendering explicit, self/other explanation and reflection lead to restructuring

15

Educational technology research

• The computer as… a collective memory of what has been constructed ; As the focusing point of dialogue and action ; As a means of representing elements in a discussion ;

– Translation between multiple representations (e.g. text <-> diagram can be a factor in learning) (Ainsworth, 1999; Schnotz, 2001)

As a medium for communication

De Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63—103.

16

Argumentation Theory

Collaborative Learning Research

Educational Technology Research

Theoretical and pedagogical

foundations of SCALE

multi-representational pragma-dialectics

Collaborative argumentative

interaction, as means of deepening and

widening argumentative knowledge

Synchronous CSCL, as collective memory,

means of representing and medium of interaction

17

What does such theory mean for DREW (the tool) ?

18

DREW (Dialogical Reasoning Educational Webtool)

Authorize GMOs

+

Sterile seeds make farmers dependant on

big seed companies

—

World famine problem solved if we have GMOs

• Social-cognitive conflict Doise & Mugny, 1981 Awareness tool in DREW

– Anne : blue shows Anne has put her opinion

– Bill : red shows Bill has put his

• The process by which verbal conflict is cooperatively resolved

Specific forms of argumentative interaction

Learning

– Anne : blue– Bill : red

Thesis

19


object, representation of a debateThe debate happens around a diagram (distancing)(cf. Belvedere, Suthers et al.)

Medium of debateThe debate happens through the diagram(personal implication)

Authorize GMOs

+


big seed companies

—World famine

problem solved if we have GMOs

Authorize GMOs

+


big seed companies

—


– Anne : blue– Bill : red

20


agree

disagree

+ white board, text editor, chat, 3-D annotation tool, etc.)

1.

2.

GMOsqsdf qsdfqsd qsd

+/—

3. for, against

21


Authorize GMOs

+


big seed companies

—


•Constructive argumentation is facilitated

if the pedagogical scenario makes sense for students ;

Argumentation is dialogical ; Students can see where to focus

their debate ;

Learning

Ok, this statement is true but…

I think it does not make a difference for world famine

–The distinction between argument and opinion is embodied in the tool

–No color shows that no opinion yet stated ;

–The difference between having an opinion on a particular argument and having an opinion on whether that argument is in favor or against a thesis is embodied in the tool.

22

So, what are we analyzing and why and how will we do it?

• Nature of interactional data Recorded computer-mediated human activity trace data

• Multiple semiotic representations Diagrams, language

• Interactive context Broadening and deepening occur within debate

• Descriptive vs. normative Rainbow is descriptive (identifies frequencies of functional categories), can also

thus compare against desired normative outcome

• Static code and count vs. dynamic process analysis Categories are NOT assigned outside of their interactive context Specific sequences can be identified for more detailed dynamic analysis (Tatiana)

23

Why ?

• Correlate characteristics of student interactions with differences in learning outcomes across experimental groups

Categories stem from a combination of speech act and problem-solving theories Categories are discrete units (code and count), inter-coder reliability used (Tatiana)

• Interaction is considered a process of interactive meaning making, not something that produces learning “effects”

If discursive phenomena (explanation, argumentation) are processes, there is a difficulty in ascribing discrete analytical categories, because these phenomena underlie extended interaction sequences

– Tatiana…

• Inform design of interactive technologies Problems of coordination or mutual awareness brought to light

24

Rainbow • To what extent did students engage in argumentative activities ?

Pedagogical goal attained ?

– Broadening and deepening

However, such activities need to be understood in the broader framework of social and task-focused interaction

25

Getting to argumentation -1

• Prescribed by the teacher

On topic

• Vion, 1992 — interactive space

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur

sont requis pour visionner cette image.

26

Getting to argumentation -2• Focused on the “task” (cf.

Grosz, 1981) or “problem” (e.g., producing mathematical solutions ; manipulating an engine in order to repair it)

vs. focused on different aspects of managing collaboration in achieving that task

Social talk Types of interaction

management (Bunt 1989)





27

Getting to argumentation -3 • The task is not to coordinate outside of action, instead debate is inherent to dialogue (chat)

Task is both the medium in which the task is carried out (by verbal expression of argumentative moves) and the medium in which this cooperative task is regulated

– But watch chat / graph usages



28

Getting to argumentation -4 Argumentation is a means of resolving conflicts of avowed opinions (Barthe & Krabbe, 1982 ; Baker, 1999, 2003)

Opinions Argumentations

– Theses, arguments, counter-arguments, concessions

Broadening and deepening – Argumentation theory —

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958; Walton 1989,

– Argumentation & K co-construction — Baker 1999; Leitao 2000)

– Argumentation & decision making — Lund, Prudhomme & Cassier 2007



29

30

How ? Chat analysis with Rainbow : possible





31

Rainbow analysis of chat - quantitative results

Rainbow / Chat - Graph

1,970

23,1025,55

19,90

11,55

17,94

0

10

20

30

1. Off-Task

2. Social Relation

3. Interaction Management

4. Task Management

5. Attitudes and opinions6. (Counter-) Arguments7. Explore and Deepen

Relate categories to pedagogical scenario, tool use and learning outcomes / further explore 5, 6 and 7

32

A closer look at Rainbow Deepening

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)


33

DIAGRAM analysis with Rainbow : more difficult



Marks her opinion against some argument(which?)

Names an argument :Tasteless product with less energetic value

Marks her opinion for some argument (which?)

Moves the box of some argument (which?)

Marks her opinion for some argument (ok, the one she moved - it has same number)

Renames the argument :Tasteless productMoves the box of some

argument (which?)

34



The solution is Tatiana ! (especially with Chat and Diagram together)



35



lead2learning.org

FP6-2004-IST-42006 — 2009

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur sont requis pour visionner cette image.



36

LEAD partners (P for pedagogical T for technical)

• P Utrecht University, Research Centre Learning in Interaction / Centre for the development of educational appliances (CLU) - coordinator

• P Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, SHS (MoDyCo)

• T Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines, Association pour la Recherche et le Développement des Méthodes et Processus Industriels

• P University of Salerno, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Educazione

• T University of Salerno, Dipartimento di Informatica e Applicazioni

• P University of Nottingham, Learning Sciences Research Institute

• M ICATT interactive media, Amsterdam

Two associated partners

P ICAR Research Laboratory, CNRS, University of Lyon

P Tilburg University | Faculty of Arts | Department of Communication and Cognition

37

• Scientific objectives To develop a conceptual model of technology-enhanced learning processes

during face-to-face problem-solving discussions. To define pedagogical scenarios that guide effective problem solving

discussions in the classroom. To implement and evaluate the pedagogical scenarios in real-life educational

settings.

• Technical objectives To develop a text-based, electronic meeting system for collaborative problem

solving. To improve an existing shared workspace system (DREW) so that it suits

collaborative problem solving --> CoFFEE To integrate the two systems. To define, develop and evaluate prototypes for active support. (TATIANA)

LEAD objectives

38

Problem descriptions

Technology and scenarios

Practice real-life and semi-experimental settings

Research findings

Conceptual models

Problem (analysis)

ImplementationResearch

Abstractions

Design (patterns)

Theory-driven design

User-driven design

Wouter van Diggelen, 2008

Theory construction during LEAD

39http://www.coffee-soft.org/

40

Replaying DREW and CoFFEE interactions with Tatiana



http://lead.emse.fr/Download/tatiana.html





41

Movie of DREW replay

• A DREW replay is embedded within Tatiana and synchronized with visualizations and analyses = replayables (cf. CSCL 2009 paper to appear Dyke, Lund, Girardot)

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur DV/DVCPRO - NTSC


42

Log Data (1)

Writing units (2)

Transcription (3)

Tool replayer (5)

Video (6)

Visualisation (4)

Highlights are synchronised

Remotecontrol (7)

TranscriptionWriting units

Reformulation of talk & writing

Tatiana sample screen shot

43

Zooming in on static analyses (Rainbow) in order to perform analyses on dynamics of

chat-diagram interaction

AliceSally

Sally’s opinions ChatAlice’s opinions Chat

Alice’s opinions GraphSally’s opinions Graph

A

AS

S

A

A

S

S

Interaction

continuestimeline

44

• Replay the whole interaction, visualize it (zoom in on opinions)• Select and describe sequences pertinent for opinion change

Opening of interaction

Chat<Alice> SALUT

< Alice> TU MAINTRISE ?

<Sally> oui ca va<Sally> on se lance?< Alice> ok

< Alice> moi je suis contre les ogm

< Sally > moi je suis pas contre et pas pour non plus

Graph

OGM

Alice : connects to the graphSally : connects to the graphAlice : disconnects

Alice : connects to the graph again

Sally : marks her opinion in favor of GMOs

OGM

Sally :

1

43

2

6

5

7

8

10 9OGM poison in foodAlice :

Dynamics of chat and diagram - 1

45

•Alice flounders a bit with the graph

•Sally is more sure of her actions However, she marks her opinion to be in favor of GMOs in

the graph but in the chat says she is “neither for nor against”.

Opening sequence

46

Dynamics of chat and diagram -2

• A middle sequence

Chat<Sally> (turn°127) tu penses que les OGM résistent aux antibiotiques ?<Alice> non

< Alice> I mean yes< Sally > ok

Graph

Alice :

Sally : moves this boxAlice : (turn°77) marks her opinion against her own argument…Alice : moves this arrow twiceSally : moves Alice’s humain=cobaye box

2

1

3

4

Résistance aux antibiotiques

Sally : marks her opinion as being against this boxthen moves Alice’s arrowSally : takes off her opinion from humain=cobaye, then puts it back on, then checks Alice’s opinion

Résistance aux antibiotiques

5 6

47

• Alice marks her opinion as being against her own argument Devil’s advocate ? (unusual)

• Sally checks up on whether Alice’s marked opinion on her own argument really reflects what Alice thinks Sally does this while working on another part of the graph Alice is flustered, her incertitude regarding this argument is perhaps

shown

A middle sequence

48

The interchange of chat and graph illustrate the “positioning game” between Sally and Alice

Sally is more sure of herself than Alice; Sally is the “good” student

Alice has more trouble with the graph: Sally is an expert multi-tasker

Sally plays the person who checks things and goads Alice, exposing her

Alice does not want to admit that Sally convinced her

Analysis of the whole interaction shows a particular social dynamics --> learning?

49

Relate two different static coding schemes with Tatiana

50

KP Lab Case Study (1)

Andriessen, Lund & Dyke (in preparation)







QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.

Time

Level 1 2 3 or 4

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.

Discussion 1

Discussion 2

Discussion 3

Conceptual focusing broadening and deepening

over time : urban design project

Metro is expensive, more

expensive

But it has the advantage of

being underground

Let’s have a high school

And a university

In Maarssen there is a road, and in principle

you could use it with a car, but in fact it is a

bicycle track

We can do that as well, but cars can come there, allowed for

parents

51



Dialogical tension and relaxation between teacher and students :

urban design project





Discussion 1

Discussion 2

Discussion 3



QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)sont requis pour visionner cette image.

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

S1S2S3

S1S2S3

S1S2S3

Time

Time

Time

?

52



Is conceptual deepening and broadening correlated with a good mixture of dialogical

tension and relaxation ?



Discussion 3 Teacher

S1S2S3

Time



53

General summary Theory construction in SCALE and LEAD

– Related to objectives (pedagogical, research, technical) and thus to tools (DREW, CoFFEE)

Tatiana can replay the interactions produced by DREW, CoFFEE and other collaborative software thus facilitating analysis

Tatiana allows for analysis of the dynamics of an interaction– Positioning game between Alice and Sally

Tatiana allows for the comparison of indicators stemming from two different coding and counting frameworks

– Tension and relaxation vs. conceptual focusing– How is scaffolding in Knowledge Building related to deepening

in argumentation ? (choose facets of the interaction to visualize)

Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	george-mcdowell
View:	232 times
Download:	1 times

DREW: Dialogical Reasoning Educational Webtool Rainbow: analytical framework for analysis of debate...

Documents