Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 2, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 315-357

  Baker, Michael ^a   Andriessen, Jerry ^b   Lund, Kristine ^c   Van Amelsvoort, Marie ^d   Quignard, Matthieu ^e  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS OUEST NANTERRE LA DÉFENSE   (France)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LUMIÈRE LYON 2   (France)

^d TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e LORIA   (France)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Collaborative learning; Debate; Interaction analysis; Methodology; Pedagogy

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548557778     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Allwood, J., Nivre, J., & Ahlsén, E. (1991). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics no. 64. University of Gothenburg, Department of Linguistics, Sweden.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003a). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003b). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79-115). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
5. Baker, M. J. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193.
8. Baker, M. J., 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 2003 (pp. 11-20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
9. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
10. Bunt, H. C. (1989). Information dialogues as communicative action in relation to partner modelling and information processing. In M. M. Taylor, F. Néel, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), The structure of multimodal dialogue (pp. 47-74). The Netherlands: Elsevier.
11. Bunt, H. C. (1995). Dialogue control functions and interaction design. In R. J. Beun, M. J. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction, modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Natural Dialogue and Interactive Student Modeling (pp. 197-214). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
12. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2006). Characteristics of students' argumentation practices when supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
14. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review (in press).
15. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
16. Cohen, J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Coirier, P., & Andriessen, J. (Eds.) (1999). Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
18. Corbel, A., Girardot, J. J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning web tool, ICTE2002. Int. Conf. on ICT's in Education. Badajoz, Espagne, 13-16 November 2002.
19. Corbel, A., Jaillon, P., Serpaggi, X., Baker, M., Quignard, M., Lund, K., et al. (2003). DREW: Un outil Internet pour créer des situations d'apprentissage coopérant [DREW: An internet tool for creating cooperative learning situations]. In C. Desmoulins, C. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), EIAH2003 Environnements Informatiques pour l'Apprentissage Humain, Actes de la conférence EIAH 2003. Strasbourg, 15-17 April 2003 (pp. 109-113). Paris: INRP.
20. 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.
21. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 189-205). London: Pergamon.
22. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.
23. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
24. Grosz, B. J. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 84-105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.
26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
27. Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 15-22). Melbourne, Australia, Downloaded from the Internet on 7 December 2005: http://www.ascilite. org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pubs/index.html.
28. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
29. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
30. Litosseliti, L., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Salminen, T. (2005). Computer-based and face-to-face collaborative argumentation in secondary schools in England and Finland. Education, Communication and Information, 5(2), 131-146.
31. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63-86.
32. Moeschler, J. (1985). Argumentation et Conversation : Eléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours [Argumentation and conversation: Elements for a pragmatic analysis of discourse]. Paris: Crédif-Hatier.
33. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. London: Allen & Unwin.
34. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l'argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. [Treatise on argumentation: The new rhetoric]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
35. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41-62). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
36. Pilkington, R. M. (1999). analysing educational discourse: The DISCOUNT scheme. Technical Report no. 99/2. CBLU, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/aboutus/ profiles/curped/pilkington/docs/DISCoun99.htm.
37. Quignard, M. (2000). Modélisation cognitive de l'argumentation dialoguée. Etudes de dialogues d'eleves en resolution de probleme de sciences physiques. [Cognitive modelling of argumentation dialogue. Studies of students in physics problem-solving]. Unpublished PhD thesis in Cognitive Science. Grenoble: Université Joseph Fourier.
38. Quignard, M. (2005). A collaborative model of argumentation in dyadic problem-solving interactions. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 69-86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. Roulet, E. (1991). On the structure of conversation as negotiation. In J. R. Searle, et al. (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 91-99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40. Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Schelling, M., Moeschler, J., & Rubattel, C. (1991). L'articulation du discours en français contemporain [The articulation of discourse in contemporary French]. Berne: Peter Lang.
41. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
42. Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., & Hauser, S. (2005). A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In T. Koschmann, T.-W. Chan, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The next 10 years! (Proceedings of CSCL 2005, Taiwan) (pp. 622-631). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 53-85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
44. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (vol. II, pp. 37-54). London: Pitman.
45. D. Suthers 2006 A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 1 2 1 28 Suthers, D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1-28. [Final draft at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/papers/2006/Suthers-2006-RPTEL.pdf ].
46. Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Vatrapu, R., & Medina, R. (2007). An abstract transcript notation for analysing interactional construction of meaning in online learning. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-40), January 3-6, 2007, Waikoloa, Hawai'i (CD-ROM): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). [Final draft at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/papers/2007/Suthers-et-al-HICSS-2007.pdf ].
47. Suthers, D., Toth, E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL'97) (pp. 272-279). Toronto, accessed on December 10-14, 1997 at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/papers/1997/CSCL97.html.
48. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Trognon, A. (1990). Relations intersubjectives dans les débats [Intersubjective relations in debates]. In A. Berrendonner & H. Parret (Eds.), L'interaction communicative [Communicative interaction] (pp. 195-213). Berne: Peter Lang.
50. Trognon, A. (1993). How does the process of interaction work when two interlocutors try to resolve a logical problem? Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 325-345.
51. Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2003). Comment représenter le passage de l'intersubjectif à l'intrasubjectif ? Essai de Logique Interlocutoire. [How to represent the transition from the intersubjective to the subjective: An essay in interlocutionary logic]. L'Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 32(3), 399-436.
52. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (in press).
53. van Bruggen, J., & Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177-203). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54. Van der Puil, C., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2004). Exploring relational regulation in computer mediated (collaborative) learning interaction: A developmental perspective. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 183-195.
55. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
56. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117-143). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
58. Vion, R. (1992). La Communication Verbale: Analyse des Interactions. [Verbal communication: Interaction analysis]. Paris: Hachette.
59. Voss, J. (Ed.) (2001). Argumentation in psychology [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 32(2 & 3).
60. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71-95.
62. Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2007). Transana v2.2x. http://www.transana.org. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin.