1. Comments to Wegerif and Andriessen Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia University of Oslo

2. Comments  Levels of understanding/explanation:  Ontogenesis  Micro genesis  Sociogenesis  Phylogenies  Frames of interpretation

3. Comments….  Wegerifs paper  Quality e-dialogues  What are they and how can we support them  Theoretical and “programmatic” paper and,  Educational model

4. Comments….  Formal and normative models of dialogue/argumentation  Idealized accounts  Lack of empirical basis  Four types of dialogues: inquiry, instruction, conversation, debate

5. Comments….  Types of talk  Exploratory talk and higher order skills And …  Playful talk (wegerif)  Improvisation (holland, rasmussen)

6. Comments….  “The big idea of dialogic education is that development in the direction of dialogue considered as an end in it self lies teaching and learning higher order thinking”

7. Comments….  Higher order thinking  Meta-cognitive strategies  Self-regulation  In dialogues – location ? Origins' – development?

8. Comments….  Problems:  Dialogical essentialism?  A-historical dialogues  Constitution of dialogues  The history of the dialogical activities  The institutional aspects  Agents history

9. Comments….  “Evidence” for the claim  Empirical analysis of CSCL environments  The designed environment is not the only resources that actors draw on  Crook studies – Oslo/Göteborg/CHAT studies

10. Comments  Dialogue as micro-genesis is constituted by – socio-genesis and ontogenesis

11. Comments  What about higher order thinking  Reflexive dialogue  Do they constitute themselves  Deep cognitive socialization and institutional frames  Meta-communication, framing, perspectives, etc

12. Comments  Designing for dialogues  Categories  Sentence openers  Alternatives  Teacher roles

13. Comments - conclusion  Higher order thinking in micro-genesis is constituted by – socio-genesis and ontogenesis  Level of explanation of what’s going on in dialogues…

14. Comments….  Andriessen et als paper  Computer supported collaborative learning  Knowledge acquisition  Argumentation  Knowledge advancements'

15. Comments…  Key findings:  Students tend to focus solutions rather than processes – even if the problems to be solved are open and complex  Students tend to divide subtasks between rather than working together  Students feel stuck by constraints rather than to overcome them  Students use provided information and task structure as given not as negotiable or discussible  Very sensitive to design features…

16. Comments…  The KP-lab design principles  Where do they come from – theoretical ideas and models of learning and knowledge advancements  Models of …..

17. Comments…  What about the empirical analysis  Testing of hypothesis or empirical analysis of data based on middle level or intermediate concepts

18. Comments…  Analytic concepts sensitive to the study of practice  Not only based on concepts from the theory

19. Comments…  Whats’ the relationship between models of learning and the empirical analysis?  Illustration and examples – versus full scale analysis  Problem: idea of a match

20. Comments…  Conclusion  Theory/approaches  Design principles  Empirical accounts  Question: what types of generalizations