Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
Breakdowns in elaborating new technologies 263
the discussion in subsequent activities (Schwarz, 2009). In order to help teachers
in promoting productive collective argumentation we developed the Digalo tool
in the EC- funded DUNES project (IST- 2001- 34153) for facilitating (a- )synchronous
discussions by graphically representing argumentative moves and structures.
Typically, discussants would communicate through the progressive construction of
an argumentative map. This map includes boxes with different shapes that represent
argumentation functions (e.g. explanation, question, claim, argument, etc.) and
arrows that help discussants make visible their reference to previous interventions
(agreement, opposition or simple reference). After the first version of the tool was
experienced, which showed the potential of the tool for deepening and broadening
the space of debate, a group of teachers began designing argumentative activities in
classrooms with technological tools. These teachers met regularly with the researchers,
designers and educators of our group to discuss and reflect on their practices in
their classes. These meetings can be considered as a setting of a cross- boundary lab
(Engeström, 2001) for the further development of the Digalo graphical tool and
for defining the appropriate way to actually introduce these tools in classrooms.
Collective reflection helped the design research team make argumentative knowhows
explicit. We highlight in this chapter the bilateral consequential transitions
(Beach, 1999) teachers underwent to cope with the ongoing demands of their
peers. The design research meetings focused on the following issues:
1 The evaluation of arguments written by students
2 The evaluation of e- discussions
3 The appropriateness of synchronous e- discussions in classroom activities
4 The role of the teacher in synchronous discussions
5 The introduction of the notion of “argument” in classes and its implication
for the way knowledge is considered by students.
For these issues, we could trace the evolution of teachers’ norms and beliefs underlying
new argumentative practices through discussions in the design research team.
It appeared though that collective work was far from being smooth and led to
several serious breakdowns. We limit ourselves to the description of the breakdowns
that occurred when discussing how to evaluate written arguments.
How to trace changes in teachers’ beliefs and
actions
Teachers are in charge of instilling societal norms, values, and knowledge. By
elaborating exams and evaluating performance according to agreed tools, they
convey the norms and values. By leading discussions in lessons, evaluating and
validating explanations produced by students, they decide whether “knowledge is
correct or not.” Pre- service and in- service teacher programs are generally aimed at
reproducing the norms, values, and knowledge agreed upon by society. Programs
aimed at challenging and changing these agreed constructs induce two layers, the