Elsevier

Computers & Education

Volume 43, Issues 1–2, August–September 2004, Pages 179-191
Computers & Education

The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Much recent educational research focuses on teaching and learning within classroom conversations. This raises the question of the role of ICT as a support for such conversations. The central argument of this paper is that the dual nature of computers, as machines (objects) which can be made to act as if they were people (subjects), allows them to play a potentially distinctive and valuable role within educational conversations. This role is to resource and, at the same time, to frame and direct, learning conversations amongst small groups of children. Evidence in support of this argument is provided through the findings of an empirical study. In the study preparation for group work at computers was combined with the use of principles for the selection and design of software in order to develop educational activities to support discussion within the science and maths curricula over one year. One hundred and nineteen children aged between nine and ten participated in the study. The evaluation included video-recording, transcript analysis and a matching control group who covered the same areas of the curriculum without the intervention. The qualitative findings show learning occurring in the talk of the children working around computers and the quantitative findings suggest that this approach can produce significant learning gains within the normal curriculum.

Introduction

Much recent educational research has emphasised the importance of conversations in the classroom (Alexander, 2000; Mercer, 1995, Mercer, 2000; Wells, 1999). This naturally raises the question of the role of ICT in supporting teaching and learning conversations. This paper will use the findings of a recent research project to offer one possible answer to this question. But first the argument will be made that the ambivalent ‘ontological’ nature of computers as objects that can be made to interact as if they were subjects, can be exploited to provide a distinctive educational role.

Section snippets

The ambivalent ontological status of computers

‘Ontological’ is a term from philosophy referring to the ultimate nature of being. Understanding the ontological status of computers helps to understand the distinctive way in which they enter into conversations. Everyday language distinguishes between two main categories of being: subjects and objects. Subjects are assumed to have agency and moral responsibility. We normally explain what they say or do in terms of psychological attributes such as thoughts, feelings and beliefs. So, for

The issue of control

In his influential book ‘Mindstorms’ Seymour Papert (1981) compared tutorial software, which he claimed was ‘programming children’, to his own vision of children ‘programming computers’. This contrast between computers as agents controlling children or tools that children can control has been very influential. It is implicit in the widespread classification of computer software as either a ‘tutor’ or a ‘tool’ (Crook, 1994; O’Shea & Self, 1983). On one side the computer is conceptualised as a

IRF interfaces and IDRF exchanges

In 1975 applied linguists John Sinclair and Malcolm Coulthard studied talk in classrooms from the point of view of structures of language use (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). One of the patterns they isolated, the I R F exchange structure, has since become almost universally accepted as ‘the essential teaching exchange’ (Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p. 143). I R F stands for Initiation, usually a question by the teacher, Response, by a student, and Feedback by the teacher. For example a classic IRF

The educational significance of IDRF

The suggested IDRF coding for some forms of computer supported discussion combines two very different kinds of interaction. The ‘IRF’ part refers to the user-computer interaction and the ‘D’ to the spoken pupil-pupil discussion. Where the discussion between pupils is ‘exploratory’ talk (Mercer, 1995), with children thinking together and trying out alternative ideas, then IDRF also combines two very different educational genres. Taking the IRF sequence alone, users appear passive and the

An empirical study of the IDRF exchange

A research team based at The Open University developed lesson plans and ICT activities for nine and ten year old children in three UK primary schools. This project had a particular focus on covering the mathematics and science curricula, however ICT-based activities in English and Citizenship were also included. There were 119 children in the experimental classes and 129 children in matching schools acted as controls, covering the same area of the science and maths curriculum but without our

Summary and discussion

The argument began with the claim that computers, considered as partners in dialogues, are essentially different from humans. This difference can be summed up as their ontological ambivalence – they are objects, machines, that can be programmed to act as if they were subjects, people. This means that the implicit claim in the literature that IRF interactions with computers have the same effect as IRF interactions with a human ‘tutor’ are not necessarily warranted. In practice students do not

Acknowledgements

This paper reports on work conducted by a research team including Neil Mercer, Claire Sams, Steve Higgins and Lyn Dawes. The research was made possible by the teachers and children of the Middle Schools in Milton Keynes who allowed us to work with them and by the Nuffield Foundation who provided the funding.

References (32)

  • A. Edwards et al.

    Investigating classroom talk

    (1994)
  • E. Fisher

    Characteristics of children’s talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software

    Language and Education

    (1992)
  • Hutinger, P., Rippey, R. (1997). How five preschool children with autism responded to computers (Available:...
  • J. Lemke

    Talking science: language, learning and values

    (1990)
  • H. Mehan

    Learning lessons: social organisation in the classroom

    (1979)
  • N. Mercer

    The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners

    Multilingual Matters

    (1995)
  • Cited by (47)

    • Using chatbots for English language learning in higher education

      2023, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
    • Managing differences by focusing on communication qualities: Pupils learning mathematics in pairs at a computer

      2015, Journal of Mathematical Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      A core of the methodical approach is the joint reflections between the pupils, the teacher and the researcher. Wegerif (2004) modified the IRF communication structure into an IDRF structure (Initiative, Discussion, Response and Feed-back). The IRF part is pupil-computer interaction, while the D part is pupil-pupil talk where pupils spend time discussing an issue rather than giving an immediate response to the computer's initiative.

    • Applications of chatbots in education

      2023, Trends, Applications, and Challenges of Chatbot Technology
    • THE THEORY OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: Towards a Dialogic Foundation for Design

      2023, The Theory of Educational Technology: towards a Dialogic Foundation for Design
    • Playing at conversation: Chatbots in Russian language teaching

      2023, Dynamic Teaching of Russian: Games and Gamification of Learning
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text