Exchanging and countering points of view: a linguistic perspective on school students' use of electronic conferencing

The ability to argue is an important academic goal in secondary education. This paper reports on an exploratory study which investigated how asynchronous text-based conferencing provides a new site for school students to rehearse and develop their skills in argumentation. The study used linguistic tools of analysis to investigate two key questions: • How is argumentation structured in asynchronous text-based conferencing? • How do students use language to negotiate their position on an issue? The originality of our study lies in the use of a functional linguistic method of analysis which provides unique insights into how students use language to argue, insights that can inform teaching and learning both in school history (the context for this paper) and more generally. Our interest in language is based on the premise that it is central to the learning process – a premise supported by work in socio-cultural psychology and systemic functional linguistics. The most significant findings to emerge from the analysis were that (1) counter-argumentation was rare; and (2b) the more tentatively a claim is phrased the more likely it is that students will challenge or counter it.

[1]  Caroline Coffin,et al.  Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: a case study , 2003 .

[2]  C. Coffin,et al.  Using exchange structure analysis to explore argument in text‐based computer conferences , 2008 .

[3]  L. Lipponen Towards Knowledge Building: From Facts to Explanations in Primary Students' Computer Mediated Discourse , 2000 .

[4]  C. Coffin,et al.  Engaging Electronically: Using CMC to Develop Students’ Argumentation Skills in Higher Education , 2005 .

[5]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom , 2006 .

[6]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Patterns of female and male students' participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Sunyoung Joung,et al.  Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Caroline Coffin,et al.  The language and discourse of argumentation in computer conferencing and essays , 2007 .

[9]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2003 .

[10]  Hans van der Meij,et al.  Email use in elementary school: an analysis of exchange patterns and content , 2002, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[11]  C. Coffin,et al.  Patterns of debate in tertiary level asynchronous text-based conferencing , 2005 .

[12]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Content analysis: What are they talking about? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Miika Marttunen,et al.  Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments , 2001 .

[14]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[15]  Caroline Coffin Learning the language of school history: the role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum , 2006 .

[16]  S. Erduran,et al.  TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse , 2004 .

[17]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Culture of a collaboration in computer-supported learning: a finish perspective , 1998 .

[18]  C. Coffin,et al.  Argumentation in a Multi Party Asynchronous Computer Mediated Conference: A Generic Analysis , 2005 .

[19]  Selma Leitão,et al.  Analyzing Changes in View During Argumentation: A Quest for Method , 2001 .

[20]  Sandra Harrison E-mail discussions as conversation: moves and acts in a sample from a listserv discussion , 1998 .

[21]  G. Wells The Complementary Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a “Language-based Theory of Learning” , 1994 .

[22]  Selma Leitão,et al.  The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building , 2000, Human Development.

[23]  Mark Bullen,et al.  Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums , 2005 .