How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate?

Abstract

The objective of the research presented here was to study the influence of two types of instruction for using an argumentation diagram during pedagogical debates over the Internet. In particular, we studied how using an argumentation diagram as a medium of debate compared to using an argumentation diagram as a way of representing a debate. Two groups of students produced an individual argument diagram, then debated in pairs in one of the two conditions, and finally revised their individual diagrams in light of their debate. We developed an original analysis method (ADAM) to evaluate the differences between the argumentation diagrams constructed collaboratively during the interactions that constituted the experimental conditions, as well as those constructed individually before and after debate. The results suggest a complementary relationship between the usage of argumentation diagrams in the framework of conceptual learning. First, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram to represent their debate were less inclined to take a position in relation to the same graphical element while collaborating. On the other hand, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram alongside a chat expressed more personal opinions while collaborating. Second, the instructions given to the participants regarding the use of the argumentation diagram during the collaborative phase (either for debate or for representing a chat debate) have a significant impact on the post-individual graphs. In the individual graphs revised after the collaborative phase, participants who used the graph to represent their debate added more examples, consequences and causes. It follows that a specific usage for an argumentation diagram can be chosen and instructions given based on pedagogical objectives for a given learning situation. © 2007 International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC.