Review by: Rapanta, Chrysi (2009-05-01)

The chapter begins with a brief but consistent overview of what argumentation is and how it can be analyzed. During collaborative problem-solving, argumentation occurs basically under three conditions: a) when more than one solutions is proposed, b) when a single proposed solution is not mutually accepted or c) when the interlocutors attribute different epistemic statuses to the same solution. According to the author, the epistemic status is defined by the extent to which an interlocutor is willing to accept a solution. This diversity creates 2 levels of problem areas: one is the task domain problem and the other the interlocutory problem. On the first level, the main question is: ‘Which of the solutions for a specific problem, with their associated epistemic statuses, should be chosen?’. On the second level, the main question is: ‘How can epistemic statuses of solutions be transformed, so as to decide which solution to prefer?’. The reviewed chapter focuses on the second level question, to which the author gives a double answer: First, the transformation can be done by argumentation and second, by negotiation of meaning.

Although he does not neglect the formal-rhetorical perspective on argumentation, the author states that for the specific case of collaborative problem-solving argumentation should be mainly seen as a discursive and dialogical activity. In his point of view (which is based on the informal logic perspective), argumentation is a dialogical or dialectical game in which the interlocutors a) establish specific types of relations between the solutions being discussed and other sources of knowledge, b) produce arguments and/or counter-arguments according to certain ground rules and c) make explicit their theses and roles in relation to the solutions and meanings discussed.

The negotiation of meaning is an essential part of the argumentative interaction in co-operative problem-solving interactions. Those mainly consist of three spaces: the [i]problem space[/i], where two or more solutions appear, the [i]dialectical space[/i], where each solution becomes a thesis by being connected to a source of knowledge, and the [i]meaning space[/i], where the meaning of theses, arguments, and even the original problem can be negotiated. All these three spaces are part of an ongoing dialogue with each other. This, consequently, forms the base of collaborative learning.

In the second and main part of the chapter, the readers are introduced to CONNECT, a CSCL (computer-supported collaborative learning) environment for collaborative critical comparison and text writing via the Internet. The use of CONNECT with students is arranged in three main phases. First, students produce individual problem solutions before coming together to collaborate. Second, students reflect on their individual texts by getting the chance to compare them with other students’ texts and by expressing their attitude towards both their own and the other’s proposals. The interface of CONNECT permits to do that in a quite structured and interactive way that prepares the ground for the main collaborative activity of writing a new text based on the individual ones. Baker describes the analysis of the recorded log files of the pre- and post-discussion interactions between secondary school students working on a physics task. Comparing students’ attitudes before and after discussion, the author identifies three main categories of change: no expressed change, strengthening in epistemic value and weakening in epistemic value. The main goal of the analysis is which type of argumentation sequences are associated with which kind of attitude change. In order to do that, each dialectical move is analyzed concerning three aspects, namely type of content (pro, contra, non-commitment), speech act category (interrogatives, assertive and exclamatives) and pragmatic character (attacks, defenses, attacks on attacks). According to the author, this kind of thorough but reductionist analysis provides an understanding of how collaborative learning occurs or does not occur. A main result of the analysis is that there is a general tendency that attitudes towards problem solutions weaken (i. e. students become more uncertain about the quality of a solution). This finding is explained with the specifics of collaborative learning situations: There, new knowledge is supposed to be co-constructed; therefore, students most probably will not adopt firm attitudes about the knowledge to be constructed, but rather stay uncertain and volatile.

In comparison to most of Baker's articles, this chapter is quite difficult to understand as it takes for granted a number of ‘heavy’ notions elaborated in previous works of the author and his colleagues. Also, it is difficult to understand where the focus of the chapter is, as at least three main concepts are treated: argumentative interactions, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning tools and learning. Furthermore it is quite ambiguous – at least in this writing – how the author defines learning. Also, the terms collaborative and cooperative learning lack distinction and are used alternatively without further explanation. Finally it should be mentioned that the focus is not on the co-elaboration of scientific notions itself but rather on the way co-elaboration in general is managed. Besides these remarks, Baker’s work is always enlightening in the ill-defined issues treated, where so far there are no clear answers.