Analysing Arguments in Networked Conversations: The Context of Student Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the method of meaning implication discourse analysis can be applied in the context of online collaborative reflective practice of student teachers. The method was developed to identify knowledge building in networked contexts. It derives from the model of meaning implication developed by Piaget, and the model of “schematization” proposed by Grize. It also borrows from the knowledge building theory developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter. The method allows understanding knowledge construction as an evolving process of conceptual change and learning through argumentation. We present two studies in which online “conversations” of pre-service teachers are analyzed. Contributions for higher education are discussed.

Development of argumentative discourse based on learning demand / Evolución del discurso argumentativo en función de la demanda de aprendizaje

“…Changes in opinion are clearly significant for the convince condition, whereas they are less evident when the debate's objective involves reaching agreements by consensus, which is in line with the emphasis of past studies on the fragility of opinions or the resistance to changing personal conceptions (Campos et al, 2005;Mason et al, 2011;Pozo & Rodrigo, 2001). The change towards often less extreme positions is also consistent with argumentation's contribution to the development of multiple representations of knowledge, which we already referred to in the introduction (Correa et al, 2003;Crowell & Kuhn, 2014;Garcia-Mila et al, 2013;Gilabert et al, 2013;Pozo & Rodrigo, 2001;Schwarz et al, 2003;Simonneaux, 2001).…”

“…De los resultados expuestos se desprende que los estudiantes modificaron sus tesis y sus argumentos después de participar en dos debates con objetivos diferentes. Los cambios de opinión fueron claramente significativos cuando se trató de convencer mientras que fueron menos evidentes cuando el objetivo del debate implicó el establecimiento de acuerdos, algo que concuerda con el énfasis de estudios previos en la fragilidad del cambio de opinión o la resistencia al cambio de las concepciones personales (Campos et al, 2005;Mason et al, 2011;Pozo & Rodrigo, 2001). El cambio hacia posiciones a menudo menos extremas también concuerda con la contribución de la argumentación a la elaboración de representaciones múltiples del conocimiento, a la que ya hemos aludido en la introducción (Correa et al, 2003;Crowell & Kuhn, 2014;Garcia-Mila et al, 2013;Gilabert et al, 2013;Pozo & Rodrigo, 2001;Schwarz et al, 2003;Simonneaux, 2001).…”

“…La investigación sobre argumentación en la universidad ha puesto de manifiesto que la adquisición de estrategias argumentativas depende de variables contextuales vinculadas al escenario comunicativo, oral y/o escrito (Baker, 2009; Campos, Laferrière, & Lapointe, 2005; Cano & Castelló, 2011; Cros & Vilà, 2002; Crowell & Kuhn, 2014; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Glasner & Schwarz, 2005; Leitão, 2012; Litosseliti et al, 2005; Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011; Pérez Echeverría & Bautista, 2009). Además, algunos estudios han demostrado que la construcción de conocimiento se favorece cuando en las discusiones predomina el discurso exploratorio caracterizado por la corresponsabilidad (Kuhn et al, 2013; Leitão, 2000; Schwarz, Neuman, Gil, & Ilya, 2003; Simonneaux, 2001), a la vez que se tienen en cuenta las creencias epistemológicas (Mateos et al, 2011) y afectivo-emocionales de los participantes (Schwarz et al, 2003), la escala de valores que comparten (Simonneaux, 2001), los objetivos y motivos (Engel & Onrubia, 2013; Garcia-Mila et al, 2013; Gilabert et al, 2013; Schwarz et al, 2003), así como la representación de la tarea y de su significado por parte de los participantes (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Mateos & Solé, 2009, 2012; Newell et al, 2011).…”

“…Research on argumentation at the university level revealed that the acquisition of argumentative strategies depended on contextual variables linked to an oral and/or written communicative setting (Baker, 2009; Campos, Laferrière, & Lapointe, 2005; Cano & Castelló, 2011; Cros & Vilà, 2002; Crowell & Kuhn, 2014; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Glasner & Schwarz, 2005; Leitão, 2012; Litosseliti et al, 2005; Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011; Pérez Echeverría & Bautista, 2009). Additionally, some studies demonstrated that knowledge construction was favoured when exploratory discourse characterized by joint responsibility predominated in discussions (Kuhn et al, 2013; Leitão, 2000; Schwarz, Neuman, Gil, & Ilya, 2003; Simonneaux, 2001) at the same time that participants’ epistemological (Mateos et al, 2011) and affective-emotional beliefs (Schwarz et al, 2003), the values scale that they share (Simonneaux, 2001) and aims and motives were considered (Engel & Onrubia, 2013; Garcia-Mila et al, 2013; Gilabert et al, 2013; Schwarz et al, 2003), as well as the representation of the task and its significance to the participants (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Mateos & Solé, 2009, 2012; Newell et al, 2011).…”

Cooperation and Collaboration in Higher Education

“…Having in mind the need to clarify what cooperation and collaboration are, we decided to enhance a method of argumentation analysis developed in previous researches to analyze knowledge co-construction (Campos, 2004;Campos, Laferrière, & Lapointe, 2005) with the goal of assessing whether or not participants of communication processes cooperated, collaborated, or did both. This time though, in addition to the study developed previously on cognitive procedures of online argumentation (logos), or the form, we explored the contextual content of messages, expressed by affective (pathos) and moral (ethos) feelings (Campos, 2007(Campos, , 2011.…”