Ο επιχειρηματολογικός διάλογος στη δια ζώσης επικοινωνία και στη διαμεσολαβούμενη από υπολογιστή σύγχρονη επικοινωνία

PDF
Δημοσιευμένα: Ιαν 1, 2018
Λέξεις-κλειδιά:
επιχειρηματολογικός διάλογος δια ζώσης επικοινωνία σύγχρονη διαμεσολαβούμενη από υπολογιστή επιχειρηματολογία
Μαρία Χιώλου
Τμήμα Φιλοσοφίας, Παιδαγωγικής & Ψυχολογίας, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών
Ζαχαρούλα Σμυρναίου
Τμήμα Φιλοσοφίας, Παιδαγωγικής & Ψυχολογίας, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών
Περίληψη

Τα τελευταία χρόνια η επιχειρηματολογία (argumentation) έχει απασχολήσει αρκετά την εκπαιδευτική κοινότητα αναφορικά με τη σημασία της στην εκπαίδευση. Ταυτόχρονα, η ψηφιακή τεχνολογία αποτελεί σημαντική αρωγό στο εκπαιδευτικό έργο. Στην παρούσα έρευνα μελετήθηκε ο επιχειρηματολογικός διάλογος 15 ατόμων όπως αυτός αναπτύχθηκε σε δύο μορφές σύγχρονης επικοινωνίας, τη δια ζώσης και τη διαμεσολαβούμενη από υπολογιστή. Οι συμμετέχοντες στην έρευνα συμμετείχαν σε επιχειρηματολογικούς διαλόγους στις δύο μορφές επικοινωνίας και τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας κατέδειξαν διαφορές και ομοιότητες ανάμεσά τους.

Λεπτομέρειες άρθρου
  • Ενότητα
  • Articles
Λήψεις
Τα δεδομένα λήψης δεν είναι ακόμη διαθέσιμα.
Αναφορές
Alamargot, D., & Andriessen, J. (2002). The “power” of text production activity in collaborative modeling: Nine recommendation to make a computer supported situation work. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The Role of Communication in Learning to Model (pp. 275-302). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.
Alagoz, E. (2013). Social argumentation in online synchronous communication. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 399-426.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). 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.
Andriessen, J. E., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In Ν. Muller & Α. Ν. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 145-174). New York: Springer.
Asterhan, C.S.C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 5 (259-282).
Bağ, H., & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Education and Science, 42 (190), 281-303.
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Ν. Muller & Α. Ν. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127-144). New York: Springer US.
Basel, N., Harms, U., & Prechtl, H. (2013). Analysis of students’ arguments on evolutionary theory. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 192-199.
Berland, L.K., & Hammer, D. (2011). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus Computer-mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99-120.
Chen, W., & You M. (2007) The Differences Between the Influences of Synchronous and Asynchronous Modes on Collaborative Learning Project of Industrial Design. In Schuler D. (Ed.), Online Communities and Social Computing (pp. 275-283). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Chin, C., & Anderson, R.C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
Clark, D.B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2001). The use of computer-mediated communication to enhance subsequent face-to-face discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(3), 269-283.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
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.
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processses, 32 (2&3), 135-153.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-871.
Kim, Ι-Η. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467-484.
Khishfe, R. (2013). Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, Argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: argumentation is learning, In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative learning environments (pp. 259-265). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Howe, C. (2014). Science teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017-1036.
Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Cerda, J. (2014). Argumentation in Whole-Class Teaching and Science Learning. Argumantaciόn en Enseñanazaen Clase Completa y Aprendizaje de Ciencias. Psykhe, 23(2), 1-15.
Larson, D., & Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42.
Mcalister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.
Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices. New York: Springer.
Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education (pp. 67-90). New York: Springer.
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. In C.A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 532-541). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Okumus, S., & Unal, S. (2012). The Effects of Argumentation Model on Students’ Achievement and Argumentation Skills in Science. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 457-461.
Pérez-Echeverría, Mª P., Postigo, Υ., & Garcia-Mila, Μ. (2016). Argumentation and education: notes for a debate/ Argumentación y educación: apuntes para un debate. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 39(1), 1-24.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.
Scheuer, O., Loll., F., Pinkwart, N., & Mclaren, B.M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102.
Schwarz, B.B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Ν. Muller & Α. Ν. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91-126). New York: Springer.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Straus, S.G. (1997) Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the Connections in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups. Human–Computer Interaction, 12(3), 227-266.
Veerman, A.L., Andriessen, J.E.B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(3/4), 269-290.
Veldhuis-Diermanse, A. E. (2002). CSCLearning? Participation, learning activities and knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. Retrieved 20 January 2018, from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/121278.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and non-verbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 31-65.
Μαγγόπουλος, Γ. (2014). Η μελέτη περίπτωσης ως ερευνητική στρατηγική στην αξιολόγηση προγραμμάτων: θεωρητικοί προβληματισμοί. Το Βήμα των Κοινωνικών Επιστημών, ΙΣΤ (64), 73-93. Ανακτήθηκε 15 Ιανουαρίου, 2018, από http://ojs.lib.uth.gr/index.php/tovima/article/view/96/85.