Argumentation

"Modélisation cognitive de l'argumentation dialoguée. Étude de dialogues d'élèves en résolution de problème de sciences physiques" Thèse en sciences cognitives de l'Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble 1 (2000).
http://www.loria.fr/~quignard/these/
http://www.loria.fr/~quignard/publis/

“Self-explanation effect” = subjects that are asked to “selfexplain”
their solutions show better problem-solving performance (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989; Chi & VanLehn, 1991).

EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF SCRIPTED DIALOGS REGARDING CONCEPTUAL LEARNING BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIBLE AND THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE

In theory, the engagement in solitary argumentative reasoning may be expected to yield similar results. However, argumentation is basically a social process that presupposes the presence of an audience (Leitao, 2000). The act of solitary argumentation on scientific concepts is likely to be cognitively too demanding. The presence of a dialog partner, on the other hand, may promote reflection and awareness to one's own beliefs (Amigues, 1988), cause learners to engage in explanatory activities (Okada & Simon, 1997) and reduce cognitive load through the personification of different alternatives.

[...]

A third lesson concerns instructional models for promoting conceptual learning. The dialogical and monological models worked well in this endeavor, and we should admit that they provide two alternative approaches. As researchers engaged in education, the question is then ethical: Do we have to choose between fostering dialogical and monological settings? Should we promote dialogical settings at the detriment of monological ones? This is not the place to discuss such issues, but we should say that, based on the present findings, and our pedagogical experience, we opt for both kinds of practices.

Of course, dyadic interaction often uncovers extraordinary processes that intertwine social and cognitive processes in the emergence of explanatory schemata. The collaboration between peers with different views in a distributed, non adversarial and dialectical way shown in the present protocol is only one among many examples in which dialog went far beyond a simple accommodation of ideas. This was a co-creation. But the Buberian stance we adopt in our group at the Hebrew University (e.g. Schwarz & Glassner, 2003) should not deny the importance and effectiveness of monological practices.

Bibliography :
Asterhan C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Submitted to the Journal of Educational Psychology.
Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.

http://escalate.org.il/construction_knowledge/papers/schwarz.pdf
http://education.huji.ac.il/eng/staff_academic_one.asp?id=229

Publications de Daniel Suthers :
http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/suthers/

- Toulmin
- Leightao
- Pontecorvo
- Alcorta

Michael J. Baker


Synthèse des travaux
MJ Baker, HDR 2004 "Recherches sur l'élaboration de connaissances dans le dialogue" :
http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/umr8606/FichExt/mbaker/hdr.pdf


CSCL et TICE
Baker, M.J. (2003). Les dialogues avec, autour et au travers des technologies éducatives. L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 32, 3, 359-397.
http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/umr8606/FichExt/mbaker/publications/ArticlesBakerPDF/2003/2003b.pdf


- Fondements = approche socio-historico-culturelle + théorie de l'activité + dialogisme...

- interactions épistémiques et formes de l'activité "coopérative"
- Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning et TICE
- Négociation des connaissance ; négociation du sens et des significations
- ...

- Pour MB, "interaction" (communicative a fortiori) = des actions interdépendantes, qui s'nfluencent mutuellement et volontairement (au contraire de réaction, et de comportement) et "dialogue" = interaction communicative à finalité externe.
"D’un point de vue cognitif et interactionniste, la communication suppose : (1) de la part du locuteur, une anticipation et un contrôle des activités mentales de l’interlocuteur (Caron, 1985) ; (2) un travail collaboratif dans la production du sens : « parler c’est échanger, et c’est changer en échangeant » (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1990 : 17). Ainsi, les influences mutuelles exercées par les interlocuteurs lors d’une interaction communicative porteront sur le plan de leurs univers mentaux : dialoguer présuppose un certain de degré d’élaboration d’une représentation de l’univers mental de son interlocuteur, et d’adaptation des énoncés en fonction d’une telle représentation. Une telle représentation sera construite à partir de connaissances culturelles supposées partagées, voire de dialogues antérieurs." (Baker, 2003)