The thinking web? Designing tools and mashups for cyber-argumentation

Andrew Ravenscroft, Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI)

…+ many others:University of Leeds, Open University, Exeter, Queen

Mary - University of London, Bolton, Teesside, Oxford

www.interloc.org

Overview of talk

Design-based Research (DBR)Dialogue Games (DGs) Investigation by Design (IBD)Dialogue modelling work-bench (CoLLeGE)Scaffolding critical discussion and reasoning

(AcademicTalk)Digital Dialogue Games for learning (InterLoc)Mashups and ecosystems for cyber-argumentationSo, What about “The thinking web?”

‘Cyber-Learner’

DBR: Analyse, Model, Design Cycle

Analyse

ModelDesign

Dialogue Games: a flexible paradigm

Used:– Analytically (e.g. Levin & Moore, 1977): investigate

natural dialogues: “Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction”, (Pilkington, 1999) DISCOUNT DA Scheme

– Prescriptively (e.g. Mackenzie, 1979; Walton, 1984): formal ‘logical’ games to investigate dialogic logic

– Analytically and prescriptively (Ravenscroft & colleagues): Analyse and model argumentation to design dialogue tools that support it

Problems with natural dialogue

Promote educationally useful features and processes and discourage undesirable ones

– Promote: even turn-taking, reasonable responding, generally focus on ideas in play rather than the person proposing them

– Discourage: uneven turn-taking, interruptions, unreasonable responding, personal attacks etc.

…constructive critical engagement rather than conflict

Investigation by design (IBD) method

Ravenscroft & Pilkington (2000) “A more direct approach to this problem [of designing dialogue tools], and the one adopted here, is to investigate by design - to take some of the features of successful dialogue (as yet not fully proven to be effective), and actively design them into interaction scenarios aimed at supporting learning.”

Not derivative, but creative and prescriptive design-based approach

Promote improved forms of educational dialogue not replicate naturalForms

Produce models of dialogue interaction and designs (for new media tools)

Features of educational dialogue games (DGs)

Ravenscroft & Pilkington (2000): Pedagogical goals (or purpose) for conducting the game, approx. the type

of game supported (e.g. critical discussion and reasoning, exploratory talk, creative thinking).

Numbers of players (e.g. small groups of 4 - 8) Roles of the participants - may be symmetrical or asymmetrical (discussant,

facilitator etc.) Dialogue Moves (or tactics) that represent the intention of the performed

utterances, e.g. Inform, Question, Challenge.– In designed tools: locution Openers used to‘scaffold’ the expression of

the actual ‘surface level’ realisation of the Moves, that may vary depending on the particular game being played (e.g. I think…, Let me explain…, Why do you say that…? Don’t we need more evidence…?)

Rules of interaction that guide and structure the dialogue process in ways that make it legitimate, coherent and relevant in meeting the pedagogical goals (e.g. turn-taking and permissible move sequences)

Problem: Conceptual Change in Science

Addressing misconceptions/alternative conceptions related to the Physics of Motion (Twigger et al.,1991)

When using simulations (DM3) and Modelling Tools (VARILAB) DA (using DISCOUNT) showed Collaborative argumentation between student and tutor needed to overcome pervasive

alternative conceptions (e.g. force motion)

…how could an intelligent tutor/partner be designed to manage and participate in these facilitating (& Socratic) type dialogues?

…Dialogue Game (DG) Approach (e.g. Ravenscroft 1996)

Collaborative argumentation process specified as a facilitating-DG (interaction design)

CoLLeGE: DG modelling work-bench

CoLLeGE (Facilitating-DG): Pilot study

Small scale ‘laboratory’ evaluation of a CoLLeGE facilitating-DG for collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science (Ravenscroft, 2000), expert tutor performed CoLLeGE role

• 11 students, all demonstrated deficient explanations & misconceptions in initial accounts

…dialogue game was effective, to varying degrees, with 8 of 11 students; encouraging, given problems teaching this domain!

• CoLLeGE workbench provided important and relatively unambiguous insights into dialogical and pedagogical processes and strategies that stimulated conceptual change

Facilitating-DG: Field Study

The facilitating-DG was evaluated in a larger field study, 36 students (Ravenscroft & Matheson, 2002)

Related to school physics curriculum Year 11 science topic: “forces and motion”

– this topic has known alternative conceptions, e.g. “force motion”

all students had been taught the relevant topic 3 conditions:

– Facilitating-DG– Informing-DG (told answers)– No intervention (control)

…pre, post, delayed post-test paradigm

Facilitating-DG: Results

The results clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of stylised, collaborative, inquiry dialogues - of up to 30 minutes duration - performed as two dialogue games, in stimulating improvements in the students’ understanding of the physics of motion

The two dialogue games were differentially effective:– argumentative interchanges, deploying challenging, critiquing

and persuasive moves were more effective in addressing alternative conceptions experienced by students

– a more informing style of interchange was slightly more effective in addressing incompleteness in students’ explanatory models

“good to talk…but better to argue”

Adaptation & generalisation of DG approach: Socio-cognitive tools

Supporting (mediating) synchronous Collaborative Argumentation for Critical Discussion and Reasoning between peers– AcademicTalk tool (McAlister, 2004)– DG interaction linked to a local ‘context design’ (McAlister,

Ravenscroft & Scanlon, 2004) Setting up and mediating various dialogue games for ‘collective

inquiry’ and ‘reasoned discussion’– InterLoc projects (ongoing project involving LondonMet, OU,

Southampton, Bolton/CETIS & Oxford)• Flexible, adaptable and reusable tool• Draws more heavily on ‘gaming’ metaphor for interaction

design (Ravenscroft & McAlister, 2005)

AcademicTalk (AT): synchronous peer argumentation

Evaluation of AT approach with ODLs

Evaluated through comparison with equivalent Chat exercises (i.e. same tasks/activities, different interfaces/interactions) (McAlister, Ravenscroft & Scanlon, 2004a, 2004b)– Students could easily use the interface so it soon became

relatively transparent in supporting the dialogue process– Students showed extended, deeper and yet more varied

argumentation and discussion compared with Chat – Overcame politeness rules amongst ODLs to support

constructive conflict and debate• Students challenged other player beliefs, positions and

ideas, not the person proposing them

InterLoc…or ‘here and now’

Towards future learning practicesAmbient learning designs (or pedagogies)Designing for the learner experience (cf. just content

and tools)

Stance that reconciles personal and institutional needs in the context of developing digital literacies

(evolution or paradigm shift?)

Future learning practices

Embrace developing digital literacies (OS, Web 2.0 etc.)– media-rich, multimodal, participation-centric, provisionality of

representations etc. Design for opportunities offered by new technologies cf.

optimising old/existing methods (e.g. VLEs)– text and book, author-reader/broadcaster-consumer, fixed

representations etc.

+ Get ‘back to basics’ about learning and re-claim…thinking, meaning making, understanding, dialogue, communities

of inquiry etc. …cf deliver learning = management of instructional content

Digital Dialogue Games (DDGs) and InterLoc

i. Collaborative exercises in ‘digital discourse’ ii. Development of reasoning and discussion skillsiii. Linking dialogue and thinking to writing iv. Range of adaptable dialogue games

• Argumentation (CDR)• Exploratory dialogue• Creative thinking

v. Attractive, inclusive and engaging• e.g. low barriers to participation (like web 2.0

stuff)

InterLoc: A structured learning practice

Synchronous learning dialogue and interaction as a social game– Structured rule-based interaction (scaffolding)– multimedia dialogues (4-6 players)– Roles: player, facilitator, learning manager– Pre-defined dialogue features that promote thinking

• Moves: Inform, Question, Challenge, etc.• Sets of Openers to perform each move: “I think…”, “I

disagree because…”, “My evidence is…” etc.– Feedback on personal dialogue style

Content generated as an Active Document Coordination with Web 2.0 and mobile devices

InterLoc: Digital Dialogue Games

The Activity Screen

CDR game: argumentation

turn taking and ‘listening’

User selected content (Web 2.0)Feedback on performance

Replay on mobile phones

Eco-system for cyber-argumentation

How realise ecosystems?

> emphasis on SOAs approaches & Mashups– DDGs as a service that can be easily mashed up

1. DDGs for learning integrated with Institutional technologies and Social Software (JISC Projects)

2. DDGs integrated with Social Bookmarking/Ontologies for work-place knowledge managament (MATURE FP7)

– SOBOLEO-InterLoc mashup• DDGs integrated with particular media-centric social

software– Think-Media: InterLoc integrated with YouTube &

Google Video

But, retain learning designs!

In open and social software landscape with infinite possibilities for interaction, for learning, need to:– Manage complexity (make the complex simple)– Shape behaviour and interaction along pedagogical lines– Realise ‘bounded openness’ or ‘walled gardens’

…link services and mashups to human practices!• Ambient pedagogies and learning designs• Experience design

…where we are with DDG work

So, “The thinking web?”

…e.g. what does the semantic web etc. mean for learning?

> Emphasis on the sort of thinking we want humans and machines to do in the future not just what sort of thinking new technologies give rise to

More information

Digital Dialogue Games www.interloc.org

Research theme: Learning Interaction and Dialogue Design (LIDD) http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/ltri/research/interaction.htm