Comments to Wegerif and Andriessen

1. Comments to Wegerif and Andriessen Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia University of Oslo

2. Comments • Levels of understanding/explanation: • Ontogenesis • Micro genesis • Sociogenesis • Phylogenies • Frames of interpretation

3. Comments…. • Wegerifs paper • Quality e-dialogues • What are they and how can we support them • Theoretical and “programmatic” paper and, • Educational model

4. Comments…. • Formal and normative models of dialogue/argumentation • Idealized accounts • Lack of empirical basis • Four types of dialogues: inquiry, instruction, conversation, debate

5. Comments…. • Types of talk • Exploratory talk and higher order skills And … • Playful talk (wegerif) • Improvisation (holland, rasmussen)

6. Comments…. • “The big idea of dialogic education is that development in the direction of dialogue considered as an end in it self lies teaching and learning higher order thinking”

7. Comments…. • Higher order thinking • Meta-cognitive strategies • Self-regulation • In dialogues – location ? Origins' – development?

8. Comments…. • Problems: • Dialogical essentialism? • A-historical dialogues • Constitution of dialogues • The history of the dialogical activities • The institutional aspects • Agents history

9. Comments…. • “Evidence” for the claim • Empirical analysis of CSCL environments • The designed environment is not the only resources that actors draw on • Crook studies – Oslo/Göteborg/CHAT studies

10. Comments • Dialogue as micro-genesis is constituted by – socio-genesis and ontogenesis

11. Comments • What about higher order thinking • Reflexive dialogue • Do they constitute themselves • Deep cognitive socialization and institutional frames • Meta-communication, framing, perspectives, etc

12. Comments • Designing for dialogues • Categories • Sentence openers • Alternatives • Teacher roles

13. Comments - conclusion • Higher order thinking in micro-genesis is constituted by – socio-genesis and ontogenesis • Level of explanation of what’s going on in dialogues…

14. Comments…. • Andriessen et als paper • Computer supported collaborative learning • Knowledge acquisition • Argumentation • Knowledge advancements'

15. Comments… • Key findings: • Students tend to focus solutions rather than processes – even if the problems to be solved are open and complex • Students tend to divide subtasks between rather than working together • Students feel stuck by constraints rather than to overcome them • Students use provided information and task structure as given not as negotiable or discussible • Very sensitive to design features…

16. Comments… • The KP-lab design principles • Where do they come from – theoretical ideas and models of learning and knowledge advancements • Models of …..

17. Comments… • What about the empirical analysis • Testing of hypothesis or empirical analysis of data based on middle level or intermediate concepts

18. Comments… • Analytic concepts sensitive to the study of practice • Not only based on concepts from the theory

19. Comments… • Whats’ the relationship between models of learning and the empirical analysis? • Illustration and examples – versus full scale analysis • Problem: idea of a match

20. Comments… • Conclusion • Theory/approaches • Design principles • Empirical accounts • Question: what types of generalizations