Comparing Words to Debate about Drinking Water: Textometrics for Argumentation Studies

ISBN: 9781848902114 1848902115 1848902123 9781848902121International audienceIn ten videotaped socio-scientific debates related to water,students from Mexico, the USA and France tend to focus on afew alternative positions. On the basis of Grize’s definition ofschematization, we followed their reasoning by studying howthey cast light on specific aspects of the discursive object“water”. Through textometrical analysis of debate transcripts,we specified 6 characteristics of “water” that are more or lessemphasized depending on the prevailing nationalargumentative scenario

Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: a Model

International audienceEducation and cognition research today generally recognize the tri-dimensional nature of reasoning processes as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, there is so far no theoretical framework articulating these three dimensions from a descriptive perspective. This paper aims at presenting a first model of how group emotions work in collective reasoning, and specifies their social and cognitive functions. This model is inspired both from a multidisciplinary literature review and our extensive previous empirical work on an international corpus of videotaped student debates. The cognitive function of emotions is defined in reference to the process of schematization (Grize 1996, 1997) and associated emotional framing (Polo et al. 2013). On the other hand, the social function of emotions refers to recognition-oriented behaviors that correspond to engagement into specific types of group talk (e.g. Mercer 1996), implying specific politeness rules or face-preservation systems (Brown and Levinson 1988). We believe that our multi-dimensional and multi-level approach to group reasoning, which mostly employs a linguistic perspective, can be applied to a diversity of contexts. We hope it will serve as a basis for further discussion on the role of emotions in reasoning among the interdisciplinary community of argumentation studies

Group Emotions: The Social and Cognitive Functions of Emotions

International audienceThe learning sciences of today recognize the tri-dimensional nature of learning as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, many computer-supported argumentation systems still fail in addressing the socio-emotional aspects of group reasoning, perhaps due to a lack of an integrated theoretical vision of how these three dimensions interrelate to each other. This paper presents a multi-dimensional and multi-level model of the role of emotions in argumentation, inspired from a multidisciplinary literature review and extensive previous empirical work on an international corpus of face-to-face student debates. At the crossroads of argumentation studies and research on collaborative learning, employing a linguistic perspective, we specify the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. The cognitive function of emotions refers to the cognitive and discursive process of schematization (Grize, 1996, 1997). The social function of emotions refers to recognition-oriented behaviors that correspond to engagement into specific types of group talk (e. g. Mercer in Learning and Instruction 6(4), 359–377, 1996). An in depth presentation of two case studies then enables us to refine the relation between social and cognitive functions of emotions. A first case gives arguments for associating low-intensity emotional framing, on the cognitive side, with cumulative talk, on the social side. A second case shows a correlation between high-intensity emotional framing, and disputational talk. We then propose a hypothetical generalization from these two cases, adding an element to the initial model. In conclusion, we discuss how better understanding the relations between cognition and social and emotional phenomena can inform pedagogical design for CSCL

Contraintes technologiques sur les enregistrements de corpus et analyse des cadres de participation

Cet article porte sur l'articulation des questions techniques aux questions analytiques dans la constitution de corpus pour l’étude de l’interaction. Il montre l’importance de l’adéquation entre le dispositif technologique de recueil des données et les exigences analytiques. Après un rappel des exigences des études interactionnelles quant à la nature et à la qualité des données, il se focalise sur l’analyse d’un phénomène – la reprise d’une contribution au cours de réunions successives et ses transformations dans les différents cadres participatifs – dans trois corpus complexes. Cette analyse permet de montrer différents problèmes de constitution de corpus de réunions pour l'étude de ce type de phénomène (durée, scissions, épisodes, etc.), et différentes solutions qui peuvent être adoptées pour les résoudre

The battle against re-innovation in science outreach and education

International audienc

The scientist in his role as ambassador for his profession: Studies on the participation of research scientist in outreach and informal education settings

International audienc

Séquence "Boite à Outils" - La dyslexie à l'Université : ressentis et caractéristiques.Dans Mazur-Palandre, A. & Niccolai, G.P. (Eds.) MOOC : Etudiants dyslexiques dans mon amphi : comprendre et aider

Cours en format MOOC, destiné aux enseignants de l’enseignement supérieur. Avec la collaboration de Raphaëlle Abadie, Nathalie Bedoin et Louis Maritaud

Etudiants dyslexiques dans mon amphi : comprendre et aide

Cours en format MOOC, destiné aux enseignants de l’enseignement supérieu

Cohering Without Converging: Students’ Use of Doxa, Norms and Values while Debating about SSI (Mexico, USA, France)

International audienc

Argumentation at the table-talk level of middle school students participating in scientific cafés

"Scientific café" refers to the public discussion of socially pertinent questions which have scientific content in an informal setting, typically a bar. This scheme has been adapted to middle and high school class settings. This paper presents an experimental organizational scheme which uses electronic voting. The scheme is evaluated with respect to student engagement and participation, as well as the relationship between the preliminary, private discussion in the small groups and students' public space interventions