The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations
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)
- et al.
Software style and interaction around the microcomputer
Computers and Education
(1993) The use of computers to support learning in children with emotional and behavioural difficulties
Computers and Education
(1996)- et al.
Computer mediated interaction in asperger’s syndrome: the bubble dialogue program
Computers and Education
(2000) - et al.
Predicting quality in educational software: evaluating for learning, usability, and the synergy between them. interacting with computers
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
(1999) Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education
(2000)- et al.
Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning
(1988) Computers and the collaborative experience of learning
(1994)- et al.
Extending talk and reasoning skills
- et al.
Thinking together: a programme of activities for developing thinking skills at KS2
(2000) Using discussion in classrooms
(1994)
Investigating classroom talk
Characteristics of children’s talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software
Language and Education
Talking science: language, learning and values
Learning lessons: social organisation in the classroom
The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners
Multilingual Matters
Cited by (47)
Using chatbots for English language learning in higher education
2023, Computers and Education: Artificial IntelligenceThe rise of chatbots-new personal assistants in foreign language learning
2020, Procedia Computer ScienceManaging differences by focusing on communication qualities: Pupils learning mathematics in pairs at a computer
2015, Journal of Mathematical BehaviorCitation 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 TechnologyTHE THEORY OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: Towards a Dialogic Foundation for Design
2023, The Theory of Educational Technology: towards a Dialogic Foundation for DesignPlaying at conversation: Chatbots in Russian language teaching
2023, Dynamic Teaching of Russian: Games and Gamification of Learning