Content uploaded by Mariona Corcelles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mariona Corcelles on Jun 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corcelles
writin
g
in
10.17239
/
Contact:
M
Marionac
s
Copyri
g
h
t
No Deriv
a
Lear
coll
a
edu
c
Marion
Universi
t
Abstract:
writin
g
in
learnin
g
c
13 teams
durin
g
o
n
selected
o
inte
g
ratin
g
and com
p
writin
g
(
u
interactio
n
argument
a
dynamics
)
interactio
n
abstract i
d
to their
e
problema
t
importan
c
discussed
throu
g
h c
o
Keyword
s
learnin
g
,
s
Seuba, M., & C
a
secondary edu
c
/j
owr-2015.07.
0
M
ariona Corcell
s
@blanquerna.
u
t
: Earli | This arti
a
tive Works 3.0
nin
g
p
h
a
borati
v
c
ation
a Corcelles
t
at Ramon Llu
This study inve
s
secondary edu
c
c
ommunities in
participated in
t
n
e collaborativ
e
o
n the basis of
g
construction
s
p
uter screen rec
o
u
sin
g
Camtasi
a
n
(types of
t
a
tion and conc
e
)
and the qualit
y
n
was related t
o
d
eas into more
c
e
xperiences, 2)
t
ize their own
c
e of a structu
r
as well as the
o
llaborative wri
t
s
: collaborative
s
econdar
y
educ
a
a
stelló, M. (201
5
c
ation. Journal
o
0
1.07
e
s Seuba, Univ
e
rl.edu
cle is published
Unported licen
s
h
ilosop
h
v
e writi
Seuba &
M
l
l | Spain
s
ti
g
ated student
s
c
ation. A philos
o
w
hich writin
g
w
t
he course. In t
h
e
ar
g
umentativ
e
their output (hi
s
trate
g
y for coll
o
rdin
g
s of both
g
a
and Atlas-ti
t
alk; evidence
e
ptualization; r
e
y
of individual
a
o
text quality.
C
c
oncrete and a
p
to use these p
h
ideas and prov
r
ed context of
l
need to train
s
t
in
g
.
writin
g
, ar
g
u
m
a
tion
5
). Learnin
g
phi
o
f Writin
g
Resea
r
e
rsitat Ramon Ll
d
under Creative
s
e.
h
ical t
h
n
g
in s
e
M
ontserrat C
a
s
’ practice of p
h
o
phy course w
a
w
as used as an
e
h
is study, a sub
s
e
writin
g
acti
v
ig
h and mediu
m
aborative writi
n
g
roups’ discour
s
software). An
a
of philosoph
eg
ulation of th
e
a
nd collaborati
v
C
ollaborative w
r
p
propriate phil
o
h
ilosophical co
v
ide ar
g
uments
learnin
g
to pro
s
tudents to dev
e
m
entative writin
g
losophical thin
k
r
ch, 7(1), 157-2
0
ull, Císter, 34,
B
Commons Attri
h
inkin
g
e
conda
a
stelló
ilosophical thin
a
s developed fol
e
pistemic tool.
4
s
ample of six st
u
v
ity were anal
y
m
quality) and
b
ng
. Data collec
t
s
e and writin
g
a
c
a
lysis focused
ical competen
e
collaborative
w
v
e texts. Results
r
itin
g
helped th
e
sophical conce
p
ncepts in their
to support the
m
mote critical t
h
e
lop efficient p
e
g
, writin
g
in t
h
k
in
g
throu
g
h col
0
0. http://dx.doi
B
arcelona, 0802
2
bution-Nonco
m
throu
gh
ry
kin
g
throu
g
h c
o
lowin
g
the rati
o
4
5 students or
ga
u
dents workin
g
y
zed. These
g
r
o
b
ecause both f
o
t
ed included a
u
c
tivity durin
g
c
o
on collaborati
v
ces – proble
m
w
ritin
g
activity
indicate that qu
e
students: 1) t
o
p
ts usin
g
exam
p
own discourse
m
. From these
r
h
inkin
g
throu
g
h
e
er discussion f
o
h
e disciplines,
p
laborative
.or
g/
2
| Spain –
m
mercial-
h
o
llaborative
o
nale of the
a
nized into
in 2 teams
o
ups were
o
llowed an
u
dio, video
o
llaborative
v
e writin
g
m
atization,
and
g
roup
u
ality of the
o
transform
p
les related
and 3) to
results, the
writin
g
is
o
r learnin
g
philosophy
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 158
1. Introduction
Philosophy plays a crucial role in improving critical thinking, one of the most important
challenges in 21st century education (UNESCO, 2011), but teaching students to think
philosophically, and hence critically, is not easy. From a sociocultural approach
(Daniels, 2001; Vygostky, 1986; Wertsch, 1991), learning the discipline of philosophy
is not only about memorizing concepts but also, and primarily, about participating in
cognitive activities related to what has been called philosophical thinking. These
cognitive activities are linked to problematization, argumentation and
conceptualization and have been defined by Tozzi (2012; 2008) as the philosophical
core competences. Consequently, from this perspective, the main purpose of teaching
philosophy in secondary education is to enable students to formulate questions and
problems (problematize), to reflect on philosophical concepts (conceptualize) and to
defend their own opinions (argue).
These cognitive competences are also present in writing, especially in
argumentative writing, which is one of the main tools used by philosophers to exercise
their profession. Moreover, collaborative writing has been shown to be effective for
learning (Onrubia & Engel, 2009; Yarrow &Topping, 2001; Vygotsky, 1986). However,
few studies have focused on analyzing how students' specific interaction, developed
during the construction of a joint text, promotes critical thinking and reflection on the
text as an object of learning. This was the aim of this study, which focused on
analyzing how collaborative writing enhances students’ practice of the philosophical
core competences, and thus, their philosophical thinking.
Collaborative writing has been defined as an activity that involves the creation of a
joint text by two or more co-authors who share decisions and responsibilities in relation
to the processes of planning, textualization and revision of the text (Allen, Atkinson,
Morgan, Moore & Snow, 1987). In collaborative writing conditions, relationships
between participants are symmetrical in roles and previous knowledge, and they have a
high degree of reciprocity and mutuality (Damon y Phelps, 1989; Van Steendam,
Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh & Sercu, 2014). In contrast to individual writing,
collaborative writing allows writers to externalize their ideas regarding what should be
included in the text and how to include it, and it requires discussion to reformulate
these ideas on a shared basis adapted to the specific communicative writing situation.
Therefore, the collaborative writing process could be described as an interdependent,
dynamic and recursive process that demands continuous dialogue and cooperation
between coauthors to reach agreement, not only on the contents and on the rhetorical
and formal aspects of the text, but also on the aspects concerning the roles and
responsibilities of all members (Mattunen & Laurinen, 2012; Milian, 1999; Lowey,
Curstis & Lowry, 2004; Saunders, 1989). From a post-Vygotskian sociocultural
perspective, this dialogic complexity is one of the most interesting elements of
collaborative writing, since the resulting dialogue and the resolution of tensions shared
159 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
by different voices are the main mechanisms to create new meaning and to promote
learning (Daniels, 2001; Wertsch, 1991).
However, achieving cooperation and peer learning in a collaborative writing
activity is not always easy. It is well known that, on many occasions, students can
develop false cooperation through a parallel construction strategy, in which the final
document is only a juxtaposition of individual parts (cut and paste, and puzzle
strategies) rather than the result of an integrating construction strategy, in which the
control of the writing process and the responsibility are shared and distributed evenly
among the group members who cooperate to achieve a common goal (Onrubia &
Engel, 2009).
Studies focused on cooperative learning have identified five essential elements for
an effective cooperation (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) that teachers may take into
consideration to promote peer learning through collaborative writing: First, positive
interdependence inside the group – sharing goals is indispensable for the team to
achieve success. Secondly, individual accountability – division of tasks and roles during
writing processes increases motivation and involvement. Thirdly, promoting interaction
– setting a place and time, in virtual or non-virtual contexts, for group communication
and for mutual scaffolding is essential. Fourthly, enhancing the appropriate use of social
skills – effective cooperation is based on skilled teamwork, it is important to teach how
to cooperate inside a group. Finally, promoting deep processing within the group –
setting time for group reflection is essential to improve their effectiveness.
Research has also indicated that the quality of peer-to-peer conversation is also
relevant for learning. As Mercer (1996; 2007) noted, although language is a potential
tool for collective thinking, only in some cases will it help students to construct shared
knowledge. Based on observational studies of group activities development, he
identified three archetypal forms of talk, which involve different ways of thinking:
exploratory talk, in which the ideas of peers are questioned and argued for a critical
construction of knowledge; cumulative talk, in which speakers use repetitions,
confirmations and elaborations to build new knowledge in an unquestioning way; and,
disputational talk, which is characterized by disagreement, non-constructive criticism
and individual decisions impeding the process of shared construction of knowledge.
Only exploratory talk seemed to entail an integrating construction strategy – one that
required cooperation among participants and had a greater impact on writing to learn
results (Onrubia &Engel, 2009).
Regarding collaborative writing, research has addressed different issues. On one
hand, some studies focused on showing its effectiveness on individual text-quality
(Nixon & Topping, 2001; Olry-Louis & Soidet, 2008;O’Donnell, Dansereau & Rocklin,
1987; Storch, 2005; Yarrow & Topping, 2001). On the other hand, another important
group of studies has demonstrated its impact on improving the metalinguistic activity of
learning to write (Daiute, 1986; Giroud, 1999; Guitierrrez, 2008; Milian, 1999; Storch,
2005; Wiggleswortth & Storch, 2012). In this area, studies have shown that a high level
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 160
of interaction among group members and a collaborative and mutually supportive
relationship are frequently related to better text quality (Dale, 1994; Storch, 2002).
Regarding argumentative collaborative writing in virtual contexts, the study of
Noroozi, Weinberger, Biemans, Mulder and Chizari, (2012) highlighted the relevance
of the scripts that prompt learners to paraphrase, criticize, ask meaningful questions,
construct counterarguments and propose arguments for improving knowledge
construction in asynchronous discussions. On the other hand, in synchronous
discussions, the study of Erkens, Jaspers, Kanselaar and Prangsma, (2005) showed that
coordination and planning on a meta-level and on a content level is crucial for better
argumentative text quality.
Finally, fewer studies have focused on collaborative writing as a tool for learning a
discipline in non-virtual contexts. In science learning, Keys (1994) has shown
improvement in students’ reasoning and understanding of disciplinary concepts
triggered by a collaborative pair writing activity during the academic year. Other
studies, also in science learning in secondary education, have revealed that interaction
between students only became critical when demand was based on ambiguous and
complex tasks, and that critical knowledge construction was enhanced when
participants had symmetry in roles, similar previous knowledge and a close personal
relationship (Arvaja, Häkkinen, Eteläpelto & Rasku-Puttonen, 2000; Arvaja, Häkkinen,
Rasku-Puttonen & Eteläpelto, 2002). Similarly, Marttunen and Laurinen (2012) showed
that students had difficulties in producing evaluative comments on their own, others’ or
the group’s activities, and in relating new knowledge to previous experiences writing a
collaborative essay in psychology after writing an individual text, and within a group
that lacked structured interaction. Therefore, task design and peer interaction structures
have proven to be important issues to promote learning through collaborative writing.
However, we have not found any study focused on learning a discipline such as
philosophy through collaborative writing, except for Corcelles and Castelló (2013),
which focused on students’ perceptions regarding collaborative writing as an epistemic
tool to learn philosophy. Despite the fact that students perceived their participation in a
collaborative writing environment positively, their use and level of philosophical
thinking through collaborative writing remained unexplored. This is the focus of the
present study which has the following two objectives:
1. Analyzing how interaction during collaborative writing contributes to learning
philosophical thinking. This means evaluating:
The types of talk developed during collaborative writing;
the practice of the philosophical core competences (problematization,
conceptualization and argumentation) during collaborative writing;
the regulation of the collaborative writing activity;
group dynamics: individual participation, writing turns and teamwork satisfaction.
2. Relating interaction characteristics to the quality of the joint and individual
argumentative texts.
161 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
2. Learning context and writing activities
The study was carried out within the subject of Philosophy in the first year of post-
compulsory secondary school (aimed at sixteen-year-olds). Philosophy is part of the
mandatory curriculum in secondary education in Spain, both for Arts and Sciences
students. The classroom was organized as a learning community in which stable teams
of 3 or 4 students worked together throughout the academic year. Students’ abilities
and attitudes towards writing, philosophy and teamwork were assessed through an ad-
hoc questionnaire at the beginning of the course. Based on these results, heterogeneous
teams were formed by the teacher. The content of the curriculum course was organized
into four blocks. The first was an introduction to the characteristics of the discipline of
philosophy. The second addressed the problem of human evolution and the human
mind. The third one was focused on the problems of reality, science and knowledge,
and the last one on the tensions between individuals and society.
The teacher was trained by researchers during one year (prior to the intervention) to
transform the classroom into a learning community and to implement collaborative
writing activities. Researchers collected data from the entire academic course.
Data analyzed in this study belongs to the third block of content – focused on the
issues of reality, science and knowledge – since at that point students were already
familiar with collaborative writing and other related activities. More specifically, the
sequence of activities during each block was the following:
Writing an individual argumentative text related to the block content. This text was
used to collect the student’s previous knowledge on the content and on the
argumentative genre.
Collective classroom activities consisting of analysis of readings, videos and debates
on the block content. Group discussion on the features of philosophical argumentative
texts, analysis of models, negotiation of a planning guide to write and revise
argumentative texts.
Writing a collaborative argumentative text to be published in the school journal.
Students were free to select their topic of writing and the only restriction was that it
should be clearly related to the course block of content. To help teams to develop their
texts, a planning guide was provided (see Appendix A). This activity was developed
across seven sessions having different purposes: Planning (2 sessions); Textualization (2
sessions); Co-evaluation (1 session); Peer-Revision and teacher-Revision (1 session);
Presentation (1 session). In this last session, each team shared the text with the learning
community before publishing it in the school journal. The last 15 minutes of the
planning 2 and presentation sessions were devoted to group self-evaluation in order to
improve teamwork effectiveness.
At the end of the collaborative writing activity, students rewrote their initial
individual argumentative text (without using the planning guide), trying to improve their
previous text.
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 162
3. Method
The study was developed in a natural classroom environment, and a multiple case
analysis design was adopted to understand the interaction during collaborative writing
and its relationship with text quality.
3.1. Participants
The secondary school was located in a medium socio-economic status neighborhood in
Barcelona. The philosophy teacher and 45 students in the eleventh grade, organized
into 13 teams (two classes), participated in the activity. For this study, two teams (6
students) were selected to be analyzed. Both teams had a positive attitude towards
philosophy and liked team-work. The age of the students was between 16 and 17 years
old. The teams were chosen based on the following criteria:
Type of collaborative writing strategy: Both teams used an integrating construction
strategy during the collaborative writing activity in the third block. In-class
observations revealed that all team members cooperated in writing, thus their final
text was not a juxtaposition of individual contributions.
Different outputs (medium –high): Teams differed in writing perceptions, writing
abilities, previous knowledge, team dynamics and final text quality.
T1 was formed by one boy (A1) and two girls (A2 and A3). A1 and A2 had negative
perceptions about writing; they described themselves – in an initial questionnaire – as
poor writers. The third member had a positive perception, she described herself as a
good writer who likes to write, especially argumentative texts. Regarding their writing
ability and previous knowledge, initial individual text scores were 13 (A1), 17 (A2) and
21 (A3) out of 40 and the collaborative text they wrote during the second block
obtained 15 out of 40 score. They had some problems in group dynamics during the
first and second block due to lack of communication, although at the beginning of the
third block they declared they had already overcome these problems. For the second
collaborative text, which is our focus of analysis, they chose to write about “bioethics
and science” (see Appendix E) and obtained a medium score (25 out 40).
T2 was formed by 2 boys (B1, B2) and 1 girl (B3) who had a more positive
perception about writing than T1. Even though B1 and B3 did not perceive themselves
as good writers, they enjoyed writing, especially argumentative texts. B2 perceived
himself as a good writer and enjoyed writing argumentative texts too. Regarding writing
abilities and previous knowledge, their initial individual text scores were 30 (B1), 18
(B2) and 15 (B3) out of 40, higher than T1. Regarding their first collaborative text, they
obtained a medium score, 20 out of 40. They were very satisfied with the team’s
dynamics and organization. They did not have any relational conflicts and all the
members enjoyed writing and discussing ideas together. For the second collaborative
text, they decided to write about “mind manipulation” (see Appendix E) and obtained a
higher score (38 out 40) than in their first text.
163 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
3.2. Instruments and data collection procedures
We used the following instruments and data collection procedures:
Group Interviews: Two parallel group interviews were conducted in each team, at the
beginning and at the end of the activity, in order to collect information about group
dynamics (roles, participation, and involvement), team’s satisfaction with the learning
context and the writing activities. Interviews lasted between 20’ and 45’ and were
audio registered.
Planning guide (PG): As mentioned, students discussed and agreed on using a PG to
help them in collaborative writing (see Appendix A). Students were prompted to
identify a controversial issue and the philosophical question that emerged from it,
describe its relevance in everyday life situations, and analyze conflicting points of view
(first problematization section, questions 2-5). The second section of the PG asked
students to identify and define the philosophical concepts related to the problem they
had chosen (conceptualization section, questions 6-7). The third section focused on
clarifying students’ thesis and building arguments, counterarguments and examples.
Finally, students had to think about their conclusions and about how to keep readers
thinking on the issue (argumentation section, questions 8-13). Moreover, students had
to take into account the audience, the attractiveness of the title and to look for a picture
illustrating their text (questions 1, 14 and 15). Students were encouraged to reflect on
those issues before and during their writing.
Individual and collaborative written texts: The initial and final individual texts of each
participant (N= 12), and the collaborative text of each team (N= 2) were also collected.
Individual questionnaire: A final questionnaire (N=6) with three open-ended questions
was developed to collect information regarding individual perceptions of teamwork,
philosophy learning and levels of satisfaction regarding individual and collaborative
writing activities.
Camtasia software: All the screen computer activity and the interaction of participants
in audio and video during collaborative writing activity in each team were registered
through Camtasia (12 hours in total).
Atlas-ti: This qualitative data-analysis software was used to analyze the interaction and
interview transcripts from the audio and video recordings; the open-ended questions of
the individual questionnaire and the written texts; and to identify the conversational
turns.
One researcher attended every class lesson of the third block (30 hours) to observe the
selected teams and to guarantee the appropriateness of data collection.
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 164
During collaborative writing, each team was equipped with only one laptop with
Internet connection. To promote cooperation between peers, each team member
performed a role (coordinator, secretary, spokesperson and supervisor) and during
writing they were asked to switch writing turns every 10-20 minutes.
We excluded from the analysis the co-evaluation session since it was focused on
peer assessment (not on collaborative writing), and the presentation, which was not a
writing session. However, the revision activity that each team performed after receiving
the comments of their peers and the teacher was included as it was part of the teams’
writing activity.
3.3. Data analysis procedure
Analyses were performed according to different dimensions derived from the study
objectives.
Analysis of the quality of peer interaction
Based on the transcripts of team conversations, a four-step analysis was developed to
find out about the characteristics of peer interaction.
First, conversational turns in which the teacher intervened (teacher mediation
category) were differentiated from those between peers (peer conversations).
Secondly, a qualitative analysis of peer conversations was developed using Mercer’s
types of talk categories: exploratory, cumulative and disputative (Mercer, 1996; 2012)
(Atlas-ti). Two independent judges analyzed 60% of the transcripts (3 sessions) and
their level of agreement was 86% (Cohen’s Kappa’s: 0.74). Because the level of
agreement was adequate, the two judges independently rated the remaining transcripts
and afterwards they mutually revised each other's categorization. The few doubtful
cases were discussed until consensus was reached. Finally, the number of
conversational turns for each type of talk was quantified.
Thirdly, a second categorization of peer conversations was performed to find out
their aim (Atlas.ti was also used in this second categorization). In this case, categories
were related to the three philosophical core competences (Tozzi, 2008; 2012):
problematization (conversations aimed to formulate philosophical questions or to
analyze a philosophical problem); argumentation (conversations aimed to elaborate
their thesis, the arguments or the conclusion), and conceptualization (conversations
aimed to define philosophical concepts). Through the analysis, two additional
categories emerged: organization, referred to the situations in which students were
talking about organizational aspects such as searching for information or team
organization, and out of task, which described the turns in which students were talking
about other topics not related with the philosophy task. In this case, the level of
agreement of the two independent judges was 82% (Cohen’s Kappa’s: 0.78). Again,
after qualitative analysis, the number of conversational turns related to each category
was quantified.
165 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Finally, we focused on the content of peer conversations, and its relation to the written
text. On one hand, we described the particular problems, arguments and concepts used
by each group in oral conversation, and on the other hand, we identified which of
these problems, arguments and concepts also appeared in the written text at the end of
each session.
The regulation of the collaborative writing activity
After analyzing peer interaction, data categorization regarding team’s activity during
collaborative writing (transcripts from audio, video and screen recordings) was
integrated in a template describing the sequence of activities followed by each team, as
well as the text elaborated and the correspondent use of the planning guide in every
writing session. The sequence of activities was categorized according to the sections
prompted by the Planning Guide referred to the philosophical competences. Besides
this qualitative analysis, time spent in each sequence was also recorded for each group.
Group dynamics
Within this dimension, individual contributions to team work were analyzed through
the number of conversational turns of each member in each session and the time
employed by participants in the writing turn. We also took into consideration the
students’ teamwork satisfaction based on the content analysis of the group interviews
and individual questionnaires (using Atlas-ti software).
Text quality analysis
Individual and collaborative texts were assessed through a rubric (1-to-5 Likert scale) –
adapted to the philosophical argumentation – which evaluated, on one hand, the
existence and appropriateness of a clear and relevant problem, question, thesis,
arguments, counterarguments and conclusions, the use of philosophical concepts and,
on the other hand, the coherence and the cohesion of the text (see Appendix B). The
two authors analyzed all texts independently. The degree of agreement was 84.3%
(Cohen’s Kappa’s: 0.8). The few doubtful cases were discussed until consensus was
reached. The researchers’ assessment was compared with the teacher’s assessment,
which considered the concepts learned and the quality of philosophical reasoning
according to criteria of his own. The sequence established by the teacher (high to low
quality) correlated with the sequence of researchers in 100% of the cases.
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 166
4. Results
4.1 Quality of peer interaction
4.1.1 Types of talk during collaborative writing
Cumulative talk was predominant in both teams (T1 76.1% and T2 61.1%) (see Figure
1). In T2 exploratory talk accounted for 38.9%, and no instance of disputational talk
(0%) was observed, whereas in T1 exploratory talk accounted for only 11.6% and
disputational talk for 12.3%.
Distribution of types of talk during sessions in T1 revealed that cumulative talk was
more frequent during planning 2, textualization 2, and revision sessions (see Figure 2).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Exploratory Cumulative Disputational
T1
T2
Figure 1. Types of talk by teams (percentages of turns).
167 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Figure 2. Types of talk in T1 every session.
The following excerpt is an example of cumulative talk during conceptualization in
which T1 members were jointly, but not critically, defining the concept of bioethics:
(Textualization 1- T1)
43 A: It’s very important...
44 R (Writer Turn): ... ethics or bioethics?
45 Q: Yes, but of course,… ethics is within bioethics ... Nowadays...
46 A: … it’s very important for human beings... bioethics?
47 Q: Bioethics is the ethics that apply to science.
48 A: Ok, write bioethics...
Disputative talk in T1 was higher in planning 1, first textualization and in revision
sessions (sees Figure 2). Content analysis revealed that it was generated due to conflicts
in writing styles. Repetitive criticisms focused only on particular compositional aspects
impeded progress in philosophical content, as it can be observed in the two following
examples:
(Textualization 1- T1)
66A: This sentence doesn't make sense.
67Q: Of course. That’s because it’s not inserted in the text above but when it’s
be….
68 A: No, no ... it’s not. It doesn't make sense on its own.
69 Q: Why?
70 A: Because the sentence is strange.
71 Q: No. It’s correct.
72 A: It doesn't make sense.
73 Q: Why not?
74A: Because it’s strange.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Plan 1Plan 2Text 1Text 2 Rev
Conversational turns
T1 Exploratory talk
T1 Cumulative talk
T1 Disputational talk
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 168
75 R: No, you should put a full stop.
76 Q: OK, because it lacks a full stop and things like that but it’s correct...
77 R: Go ahead... you know?
78 Q: Ok.
79 A: But (reading) “in making decisions”?
80 R: … and (reading) “accurate decisions”? No, No ... I don't like it.
81A: It has to be: "What does bioethics have to do with taking decisions such as
choosing life or death ...
82 R: …of a person”
83 Q: But is that, they are "accurate decisions"
84A: No.
85 Q: Yes, because they are specific.
86A: But this sentence doesn't make sense!
87 Q: Yes, it makes sense.
88A: No, it doesn't.
89 Q: YES, It does!
90A: NO, it doesn’t!
91Q: YES, it does! (Laugh)
(Revision - T1)
113 Q: You are always criticizing my way of expressing things!
114 R: What have you written here?
115 A (writer turn): … because we said that it was not legitimate. How do we
write “legitimate”? With a single “l”?
116 R: Yes.
117 Q (writer turn):… because we said that it was not legitimate ... in the case
of a person that ...
118 A: This sentence doesn't make sense.
119 Q: Shut up just a moment A! I haven't finished yet! Oh! She’s so annoying
... and the teacher says that the text is pretty good. I've written the most, dude!
... (read) “…in the case of a person who was clinically alive” … Is that correct?
Exploratory talk in T1 was higher in planning 1, first textualization and revision sessions
(see Figure 2). In the following example, we observed how, using exploratory talk,
students formulated a philosophical question (problematization), which, in turn,
generated a definition of the concept of paradigm (conceptualization), and finally a
reformulation of the first philosophical question (problematization).
169 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
(Planning 1- T1)
67 Q (writer turn): Should science break the paradigms of bioethics?
68 R: That’s… but the paradigms of science are... what?
69 Q: Paradigm was... like...
70 R: Like standards?
71 Q: No, as a framework ... I know that... When you are arguing about
something and then you get a new question that’s not from that area but is
transferred to another thing. That’s breaking a paradigm, you know?
72 A: No, but then the question is the other way around. Should bioethics break
the paradigms of science?
Regarding T2, although cumulative talk was the highest, exploratory talk was also
developed in every session, especially during the textualization process (see Figure 3).
No disputational talk was found in this team. Thus, T2 showed evidence of a more fluid
talk (not disputative) in their writing process with a more critical conversation focused
on the philosophical content (higher exploratory talk).
Figure 3. Types of talk in T2 every session.
The following three examples illustrate the practice of philosophical core competences
for critical knowledge construction through exploratory talk. The first example refers to
argumentation and shows how T2 members were discussing and critically arguing
different points of view about the philosophical problems of “perception of reality”:
(Planning 2- T2)
223 N (Writer turn): We perceive more or less the same …
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Plan 1Plan 2Text 1Text 2 Rev
Conversational turns
T2 Exploratory talk
T2 Cumulative talk
T2 Disputational talk
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 170
224 C: No, each one perceives what each one perceives and that’s it. We are
not going to go into this point.
225 N: No, each one perceives what each one perceives right? because there
are some things that people perceive as the same.
226 C: Ah! And how do you know that? Are you inside my head?
227 N: Ok. What do you see over there? I see a stove.
228 C: Ok, but maybe the stove’s color that you perceive is not the same I
perceive.
229 N: But the color doesn’t matter… what we perceive is the same!
230 C: Ah! But if the color isn’t the same we don’t perceive the same! Maybe
for you…
231 M: No, but when we’re talking about reality we don’t talk about objects,
we’re talking more about concepts and interpretations...
232 N: Ok, but there’re a lot of things that we perceive more or less “the same”.
233 C: But that isn’t proved!
234 N: But we can’t say what really depends on the individual, or on the point
of view of each subject…
The second example refers to an exploratory talk in which T2 members struggled with
problematization and argumentation. Students were wondering about the meaning of
“types of manipulation” and illustrated it with an everyday example:
(Textualization 1- T2)
102 N: We could discuss types of manipulation.
103 M: Yeah? And what are “types of manipulation”?
104 N: For example... “Don’t cry! You’re not a girl!”
Finally, the third example is about argumentation. Students were discussing an example
of the unconsciousness of mind manipulation. Then, they critically reflected on the
concept of freedom and they realized that they were also manipulated by society.
(Textualization 2- T2)
316 C: Ok. Then write this: “They don’t realize that they are being
manipulated”, in other words, they can’t see that they are being manipulated.
317N: Yeah. They’re not conscious.
318 C (Writer turn): “They’re not conscious that they are subject to
manipulation…”
319 N: They’re not aware and they can’t decide whether it’s correct or not…
320 C: No! But … They can’t decide whether it’s correct or not because they
don’t know that they’re being manipulated… But… we can’t either! We are also
being manipulated!
321 N: For this reason! "They’re not aware that they’re being manipulated and
are not capable of judging whether they’re acting rightly"
171 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
322 M: I would write this here...
323 C: But if you’re not aware of something, then you’re not aware… you don’t
know… we don’t know!
4.1.2 Practice of the philosophical core competences (problematization,
conceptualization and argumentation) in collaborative writing
To present the results of content analyses of peer conversations in relation to the written
texts and the philosophical core competences, we will first focus on the concepts used
in each team (conceptualization), then on problems defined and discussed
(problematization), and finally on the arguments (argumentation) developed during
collaborative writing.
Conceptualization
T1 decided to write about bioethics and science in a case of euthanasia, and content
analysis of the oral conversations and written text showed that during the writing
process students used and defined philosophical concepts previously discussed in the
classroom such as: philosophical question, bioethics, paradigms, morals, ethics,
science, ethical imperative, perspectivism, parameters, moral legitimacy and self-
determination (see Table 1). In their text (see Appendix C) these students included a
definition of bioethics as “the field of philosophy that is concerned with human
behavior such as for example the fact of choosing life or death of a person”, and a
definition of science as “stable knowledge that must be approximate to reality”. Most of
the concepts discussed orally were included in their collaborative text.
T2 decided to write about the problem of mind manipulation. During writing they
used and defined philosophical concepts previously discussed in the classroom such as
(see Table 1): mind, reality, limits of perception, knowledge and truth, but they also
introduced other concepts from their previous knowledge, such as: hierarchical systems
of citizen classification, types of social manipulation, freedom, human history, social
rules, society, ideology, doctrines and social media, as observed in the following
example extracted from their text: “From the beginning of human history, there have
always been individuals who have manipulated others for their own profit. In ancient
times we can find cases in which these circumstances occur, for example the Romans
imposed a hierarchical system in which people were classified according to class
principles”. Not all the concepts discussed orally were included in their collaborative
text.
Problematization
T1 began with a general philosophical problem, the limits of science. They
reformulated the philosophical question 6 times until they got the definitive version for
their text (Does bioethics have to break the paradigms of science?). During planning 2,
they focused on a more concrete problem related to life in a vegetative state, and they
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 172
Table 1. Conceptualization during collaborative writing process
T1 “Bioethics and
science”
T2 “Mind manipulation”
Planning 1 Philosophical question
Bioethics
Paradigm
Manipulation
Creative mind
Planning 2
Ethics, bioethics and
science
Morals
Ethical imperative
Perspectivism
Parameters
Mind
Reality
Limits of perception
Knowledge
Reason
Manipulation
Arbitrariness of language
Illusions of rationalism
Rationalism and irrationalism
Textualization 1 Bioethics
Paradigms of science
Parameters of science
Science definition
Human history
Types of social manipulation
Hierarchical systems of citizens
classification
Textualization 2
Bioethics definition Social rules
Ideology
Doctrines
Reality perception
Society
Manipulation
Social media
Revision Morally legitimate
Self-determination
Reality and truth
Existence of truth
Limits of perceptions
Manipulated society
Freedom
Society permanent manipulation
Political and social media
Limits of freedom
Underlined text means it appeared in oral conversations and in written text (see Appendix C).
The rest consists of conversation extracts.
173 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Table 2. Problematization during collaborative writing process
T1 “Bioethics and science” T2 “Mind manipulation”
Planning 1
LIMITS OF SCIENCE
Must bioethics or science have
limits?
Must science have limits?
Do we have to break the
paradigms of science?
How is science related to real
life?
Does science have to break the
paradigms of bioethics?
Does bioethics have to break the
paradigms of science?
LIMITS OF PERCEPTION OF REALITY
Why are there different interpretations
of reality?
Is what we see reality?
Is rational knowledge the only thing
that gives us a proper picture of
reality?
Is the perception of reality equivalent
to knowledge?
What relationship exists between
reality and knowledge?
Is what we observe real?
Do we exist or are we in a dream? Are
the dreams real?
What restrictions does reality have?
What restrictions does the mind have?
What restrictions does the mind have
in the perception of reality?
Planning 2 LIFE IN A VEGETATIVE STATE
Do people in vegetative states
think?
PERCEPTION OF REALITY: One
reality or multiple realities?
Textualization 1 RELEVANCE AND
FUNCTIONALITY OF
BIOETHICS
Does bioethics have to break the
paradigms of science?
What reasonable aspects does
bioethics have to contradict the
parameters of science?
Should bioethics and science go
together?
Is bioethics an instrument to
measure the degree of disability
of a person?
PRESENT AND HISTORICAL SOCIAL
MANIPULATION OF THE HUMAN
MIND
Are we free?
Can we freely make our own
decisions?
Are we all being manipulated by
society?
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 174
T1 “Bioethics and science” T2 “Mind manipulation”
Textualization 2
EUTHANASIA: CASE OF
ELUANA
Pro_euthanasia: Eluana’s father’s
position
Against euthanasia: the
Vatican's position
MANIPULATION BY SOCIETY
Who is manipulating us?
Can society influence people and
affect their perception of reality?
Revision EUTHANASIA: CASE OF
ELUANA
Against euthanasia: Vatican's
position
Pro-euthanasia: Eluana’s
father’sposition
CONSCIOUSNESS OF MIND
MANIPULATION: PROBLEM OF
FALSE FREEDOM
Does freedom really exist?
To what extent are we conditioned by
the society’s manipulation?
“We can make choices but all the
options are previously manipulated by
society, so we are not free. They make
us feel as if we are free but we aren’t”
Remark: No underline means it is extracted from conversations.
The underline means it appeared in oral conversations and in written text (see Appendix C).
formulated a new philosophical question derived from this problem (Do people in
vegetative states think?) (see Table 2). In the first textualization session, they discussed
the relevance and the functionality of bioethics (What reasonable aspects does
bioethics have in order to be able to contradict the parameters of science? Should
bioethics and science go together? Is bioethics an instrument to measure the degree of
disability of a person?). They included in their text the first question and a reflection
about the relevance of bioethics (see Appendix C).
In their second textualization, they decided to reorganize the text and to start
describing a case of euthanasia, which they had found in a newspaper. During this
session and the next one, they focused on describing the two opposite perspectives (pro
and against) of this euthanasia problem, as we can observe in this excerpt extracted
from their text (see Appendix C):
“Recently, in “la Vanguardia” newspaper a case was published about an Italian
woman called Eluana who was in a persistent vegetative state for 17 years. The
controversy arose when her father wanted to disconnect her from the machines
that kept her alive. He insisted that the wish of Eluana, in those circumstances,
would have been to be disconnected. In contrast, the Vatican, and a large part
of the government of Berlusconi, were against the decision of Eluana’s father,
175 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
they said that it was not morally legitimate since this was a person who was
clinically alive.”
T2 began the planning session with a general philosophical problem, the limits of our
perception of reality. As we can see in Table 2, they had some difficulties in finding a
philosophical question because they needed to reformulate it 10 times until they
reached a consensus (What restrictions does the mind have in the perception of
reality?). In session 2, they focused on discussing the problem of the perception of one
or multiple realities, which lead them to reformulate and precise their topic. When
starting to write in session 3, they focused on a more concrete philosophical problem:
present day and historical social manipulation of the mind. They formulated new
philosophical questions, more closely related to their experiences and a new topic (Are
we free? Can we freely make our own decisions? Are we all being manipulated?).
During the second textualization session, they continued analyzing the problem of
social mind manipulation (Who is manipulating us?), reformulated the previous
question and included it in their text (Can society influence people and affect their
perception of reality?). In the revision session, they formulated more critical questions
related to our consciousness of mind manipulation (Does freedom really exist?) and
reflections about their experience of false freedom in the consumer society (“We could
make choices, but all the options are previously manipulated by society, so we are not
free. They make us feel as if we were free, but we aren’t”). They included a second
philosophical question at the end of their text (To what extent are we conditioned by
society’s manipulation?).
Argumentation
During the planning time, in session 2, T1 discussed the relevance of the problem and
formulated a first generic thesis: “We believe that bioethics should be taken into
account in some fields of science and biotech research and in the decision to keep
someone alive when they have a terminal illness”, which afterwards, in first
textualization, was included in their text (see Table 3).
In this second planning session, students cited examples from their experiences
related to the generic problem of the limits of science in contemporary world
(transgenic research; abortion; euthanasia; a film on a person in a vegetative state), two
of which were included in their text. In the first textualization, they began with an
introduction using transgenic research and persistent vegetative state as examples to
reflect on the role of bioethics in contrast to the role of science. Then, they decided to
focus on the specific problems of euthanasia, describing in their text the Eluana’s case
as an example of a person in a persistent vegetative state. They reflected on the
relevance of a dignified death letter, but they did not introduce it in their text. Finally,
only at the end of the revision session did students begin to think about their personal
opinions about the problem. They reformulated the first thesis and wrote a more
concrete one: “We believe that everyone has to have self-determination over their life
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 176
and death, so we agree with Eulana’s father’s decision because it respects what his
daughter would have wanted, not to continue with these living conditions”. T1 had
little time to argue their thesis and less to conclude their text.
Table 3. Argumentation during collaborative writing process in T1 “Bioethics and science”
T1 Thesis Examples Conclusion
Plan 2 “We believe that bioethics should be
taken into account in some fields of
science such as the decision to keep
someone alive when they are in a
persistent vegetative state or
transgenic research.”
Transgenic research
Abortion
Euthanasia
Vegetative state
A film about a person
in a vegetative state
Text 1
Transgenic research
Euthanasia
Terminal illness
Vegetative state
Dignified death letter
Text 2
Eluana Case
Rev “We believe that everyone has to
have self-determination over their
life and death, so we agree with
Eulana’s father's decision because it
respects what his daughter would
have wanted, not to continue with
these living conditions.”
Eluana Case
Remark: The underline means it appeared in oral conversations and in written text (see Appendix
C). No underline means it is extracted from conversations.
In T2 we can observe a different pattern regarding argumentation (see Table 4). They
positioned themselves earlier regarding the problem, and they had more reformulations
of their thesis (four times during the collaborative composition process). In planning 2,
their position was related to an individual approach to the problem of limits of
perception of reality: “The way of seeing reality depends on the condition of the
person”. Students’ examples were related to this subjective way of perceiving the
philosophical problem (personal experiences, death or depression affects your
perception of reality). In the first textualization session, they developed more examples
(civil war, religious education, slavery, racism, manipulation of the media) which helped
them to reformulate a new thesis more focused in a social way on the problem (“We
argue that manipulating the mind is a conditioned way of seeing reality”), and built up a
first conclusion (“People may have different viewpoints depending on the type of
manipulation to which they are subjected”). They began to write with an introduction
about the problem of social mind manipulation, illustrating it with two examples:
Rome's hierarchical system of citizen classification and the discrimination against
177 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
women in history. During textualization 2, they discussed new examples of social
manipulation in the contemporary world (Nazism, the manipulation on TV, press, and
the internet) which helped to redefine their position in their text: “We believe that there
are always a few people who force others to act in a particular way, but they do not
realize the manipulation to which they are also subject”; and in the oral conversation:
“We are all being manipulated”. In the revision session, they introduced a new example
of manipulation on TV regarding the Iraqi war and a second thesis: “Although we think
we are free to choose, in reality this is not so”, with an example of the false freedom in
consumer society. At the end of the revision session students reformulated the previous
conclusion to a more assertive position: “We are all being manipulated by our
politicians and society”; and they wrote in their text: “In conclusion, and after deep
reflection, we believe that we are free, but within a framework in which we can’t
choose freely. This framework is limited by what our society allows.”
Thus, T2 had a clearer recursive process characterized by more reformulations of the
thesis, examples and conclusion, which helped them to defend their opinion with
sufficient arguments and to reach a coherent conclusion.
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 178
Table 4. Argumentation during collaborative writing process in T2 “Mind manipulation”
T2 Thesis Examples Conclusion
Plan
2
“The way of seeing reality depends on the
condition of the person”.
Personal experiences and feelings influence
your perception of reality.
Death in the family affects your mind.
Depression affects your perception of reality.
Text
1
“We argue that manipulating the mind is a
conditioned way of seeing reality”
Civil war
Religious education
Social manipulation: slavery, racism.
Manipulation in media: TV, press, internet.
Rome's hierarchical systems of citizen
classification
Discrimination against women in history
“People may have different viewpoints
depending on the type of
manipulation to which they are being
subjected”
Text
2
“We believe that there are always a few people
who force to others to act in a particular way,
but they do not realize the manipulation to
which they are being subjected.”
“We are all being manipulated”
Discrimination against women in history
Manipulation in the media: TV, press, the
internet.
Nazism: Hitler’s Children.
Rev "Although we think we are free to choose, in
reality this is not so”
Manipulation in the media: TV
The Iraqi war
False freedom in the consumer society
“We are all being manipulated by our
politicians and society”
“In conclusion and after deep
reflection we believe that we are free,
but within a framework in which we
can’t choose freely. This framework is
limited by what our society allows.”
The underline means it appeared in oral conversations and in written text (see Appendix C). No underline means it is extracted from conversations
179 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Distribution of the conversational turns among each category of philosophical
competences
The number of conversational turns related to each category of philosophical
competences revealed that 32.7% out of them fell in the category of argumentation,
23.5% in problematization and 7.7% in conceptualization (see Table 5). Moreover,
11% of the turns were categorized as organization (searching for information and team
organization). Only 2% were categorized as out of task. The percentage of teacher
mediation was 23.3% of the total turns.
Table 5. Frequencies and percentage of students’ conversational turns by groups (5 sessions)**
Speech turns Plan 1 Plan 2 Text 1 Text 2 Rev Total % Global %
Conceptualization
Philosophical concepts
219
7,7
T1 945 6 7 10 77 6,9
T2 491 23 18 6142 8,2
Problematization
Philosophical Question
Analysis problem
668 23,5
T1 27 121 11 60 5,3
T2 97 27 86 210 12,2
T1 72 28 64 55 65 284 25,3
T2 42 11 17 28 16 114 6,6
Argumentation
Thesis
Arguments
Conclusion
930 32,7
T1 23 26 47 96 8,5
T2 64 3159 226 13,1
T1 32 14 78 124 11,0
T2 39 237 42 93 411 23,9
T1 2 2 0,2
T2 30 41 71 4,1
Organization*
Off task
Teacher mediation *
T1 10 26 53 68 157 14,0 312 11,0
T2 8 28 13 106 155 9,0
T1 3 9 12 1,1 56 2%
T2 11 23 10 44 2,6
T1 21 65 28 55 143 312 27,8 662 23,3
T2 13 142 82 66 47 350 20,3
* Organization: referred to the turns in which students were talking about organizational aspects
such as searching for information or team organization. Off task: turns in which students were
talking about other topics not related with the philosophy task. Teacher mediation refers to the
turns in which the teacher intervened.
** Intercoder reliability = 82% agreement (Cohen’s Kappa’s: 0.79).
Regarding conceptualization both teams used and defined philosophical concepts
related to their topic (T2: 8.2%; T1: 6.9%), especially in the second planning session.
Regarding problematization most of the turns of T1 were used to describe the two
opposite perspectives in front of the problems of euthanasia (25.3%), while T2 used
more turns in formulating philosophical questions (12.2%). Finally, in argumentation,
conversational turns were higher in T2, especially in searching for examples (23.9%)
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 180
and in elaborating their thesis (13.1%) (see Table 5). Fewer turns were related to
conclusion (4.1%), especially in T1 (0.2%).
4.1.3 Regulation of the collaborative writing activity
Observations during the collaborative process of writing (see Table 6) showed that T1
did not adjust their text to the characteristics of argumentative texts. Students started to
write the text without having finished the planning guide, and they scarcely used it
during textualization to modify or develop it further and to adjust to the genre
characteristics. They finished their activity five minutes early in each session – except
for the planning 1 and revision session – and, at the end of the process, they did not
have enough time to elaborate their arguments, nor to reach a conclusion and a final
philosophical question.
On the other hand, T2 followed the structure prompted by the planning guide and
regulated their activity in order to adjust their text to the characteristics of
argumentative texts. They used the planning guide during the planning, textualization
and revision sessions. This helped them to detect contradictions between previous and
new ideas, promoted awareness of topic progression in their discourse and prompted
reformulations to specify these new ideas in the written text, as we can see in the
following example of T2 interaction:
(Textualization 2 –T2)
381 M: Now, we have to write our thesis.
382 C (writing turn): Ok (she takes the planning guide) I'll read aloud what we wrote in
the planning guide: “The way of seeing reality depends on the condition of the person”.
383 N: No, but now we have another one, because there is no debate emerging from that
question.
384 C: Oh, but listen for a minute! We agreed to write that thesis during the planning…
385 M: Yes, but we have changed our philosophical question and it has changed
everything!
386 C: Ah! Ok! Now, do we want to defend that the way to perceive reality depends on
the type of manipulation we are being subjected to?
387 N: Yes, because after working with the examples and conclusions, we have changed
our previous ideas and we have said: Hey! It’s a new paradigm! (He’s really excited)
388 M: Yes! (He’s really excited) Write this (to C): We believe that there are always a few
people who force to others to act in a particular way, but they do not realize the
manipulation to which they are being subjected.
389 C: Yes! (She’s really excited). We are all being manipulated!
They spent more time than T1 in planning, textualization and revision (exceeding 5
minutes after the end of the class in almost every session).
181 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Table 6. Regulation of the collaborative processes of writing
Session
purpose Min. Team 1 Min. Team 2
Written text
Planning 1
00:00 -
00:28
PG*:Problematization
00:00 -
00:28
PG*: Problematization
Planning 2 00:00 -
00:40
PG: Conceptualization and argumentation (thesis and
arguments).
00:00 -
00:40
PG: Conceptualization and argumentation
(thesis and arguments)
Textualiza-
tion 1 00:00 -
00:40
T*: They started textualization (introduction) without
finishing the PG. They use the PG only as a reminder the
title, the philosophical question and the relevance of the
problem.
00:00 -
00:13
PG: Argumentation (examples and
conclusion)
00:13 -
00:50
T*: Textualization (introduction). They used
recursively the PG to regulate their text.
Appendix C
yellow
highlight
Textualiza-
tion 2 00:00 -
00:40
T: Textualization (introduction) without using the PG. 00:00 -
00:50
T: Textualiation (introduction, thesis,
arguments) using the PG recursively.
Appendix C
green
highlight
Co-
evaluation
Each team evaluated a draft of another team using a guide in which they had to provide some suggestions for text improvements (the
criteria were the same as the ones in the evaluation rubric –see Appendix B-). Teacher revised the texts for the next session.
Revision 00:00-
00:03
R*: They read the suggestions given by peers and the
teacher.
00:00-
00:09
R*: They read the suggestions given by
peers and the teacher.
Appendix C
no highlight 00:03-
00:50
T: Textualization (introduction and thesis) without using
PG. They didn't have time for arguments, a conclusion
nor a picture for their text. 00:09-
00:50
T: Textualization (arguments, examples,
conclusions and final problematization)
using the PG recursively. They finished the
text.
* PG = Planning Guide / T*= Textualization / R*= Revision
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 182
4.1.4 Group dynamics: individual participation, writing turns and teamwork
satisfaction
Results regarding individual participation, based on the number of individual
conversational turns during collaborative writing (see Figure 4), showed that students in
T2 produced more turns (1723 turns) than in T1 (1124 turns), which evidenced a higher
implication of T2 members. The total number of teacher conversational turns was
similar in both teams.
Figure 4.Total Individual conversational turns.
Regarding the writing turns, observations of the writing process during textualization
and revision sessions showed that all members collaborated in the writing turns,
although they did not follow the 15-20 minutes request for each team member, and
some spent more time than others in writing (see Figure 5). In T1, the writing turn was
dominated by two members (A1 and A2). The member A3 – who spent the least time
in writing – was also the one who participated the least in conversational turns (see
Figures 4 & 5). Thus, the interaction in T1 was asymmetrical.
In contrast, in T2 each member employed a similar time in the writing turn (see
Figure 5). Member B1 – who participated the least in the conversational turns (see
Figure 4) – was the one who spent more time in the writing turn. Thus, the interaction
in T2 was more symmetrical.
420
295
257
152
1124
470
564
538
151
1723
A1
A2
A3
Teacher-T1
Total turns T1
B1
B2
B3
Teacher-T2
Total turns T2
183 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Figure 5. Total time spent (in minutes) of each member in the “writing turn”.
Regarding teamwork satisfaction, the answers of T1 in the final group interview
evidenced they were satisfied with the group: “All of the members were involved in the
task and we have solved the problems we had before” (10A1). However, they also
recognized some difficulties in achieving deep reflection and developing their personal
opinion, as illustrated by this excerpt: “We have to improve the thesis and conclusions”
(63A3). “We need more reflection and personal opinion”(64A2).
Answers to the final individual questionnaire show positive impressions about
teamwork: “The team helps you to write a better text. All that you learn you can express
in it” (A1); “Learning in a team is easier, it helps you to defend your ideas” (A2) or “You
can exchange information and learn from opinions contrary to yours” (A3). Also,
focused on the problems in achieving agreement: “The greatest difficulties are
coexistence and to achieve agreement” (A1) or “It is not easy to work with all the peers
and to achieve 100% of agreement. I felt uneasy with a team member because we had
too many arguments” (A2), and a disconformity in the way the teacher formed the
teams: “It would be better if students had made the teams, not the teacher” (A3).
Answers of T2 in the final group interview revealed they were also very satisfied
with their team’s dynamics: “It was a pleasant working environment, all the team
members were involved”(14B2); “We like to write and to debate our ideas together”
(20B1). As difficulties, they highlighted discussions and time regulation: “We debate
too much, it’s difficult to keep one's time” (56B3).
In the individual questionnaire we found only positive impressions about their team
work, emphasizing that they had learned to argue their opinions in a nice atmosphere:
“In my team I have learned to argue my opinions” (B2); “I felt total freedom to express
my opinions, I could reflect and debate about interesting topics. I liked to discuss with
my peers, it was fun and you could learn different ways of thinking” (B1); and
58 min.
55 min.
17 min.
66 min.
46 min.
38 min.
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 184
“Collaborative learning motivated me. I learned to argue conflictive ideas and to defend
them in front of my peers, thus, I learned to convince my peers” (B3).
5. Quality of the individual and collaborative writing
Regarding the final quality of the collaborative text both teams obtained the highest
score (see Figure 6) in the dimensions of problematization, conceptualization and
thesis, but in the dimensions of argumentation, counter argumentation, coherence and
cohesion T2 had a higher score. Therefore, T2 had a higher global score (38/40) than
T1 (25/40). Comparing the first and second collaborative texts, both teams improved
their writing and text score (T1from 15 to 25/40; T2 from 20 to 38 /40).
Figure 6. Collaborative text final quality in T1 and T2.
Regarding the quality of individual texts (see Figure 7) all the students obtained higher
scores in the final text than in the initial one.
012345
Problematization
Thesis
Arguments
Counterarguments
Conclusion
Conceptualization
Cohesion
Coherence
Collaborative text score
T2
T1
185 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Figure 7. Individual initial and final text quality in T1 and T2 members.
6. Discussion
In this study we looked at how collaborative argumentative writing contributes to the
practice of philosophical thinking in a structured learning context in which writing was
used to learn philosophy.
Both teams used an integrating construction strategy during the collaborative
writing activity and results illustrated that students were able to problematize by means
of formulating and reformulating complex philosophical questions. There was evidence
of a topic progression from an abstract initial problem (bioethics and science / limits of
perception) into a more specific one, both contextualized and closer to the students’
lives (euthanasia case /social mind’s manipulation). Results also showed evidence of
students’ appropriation and use of philosophical concepts in their own discourse.
Despite the differences within and across teams, the students tried to argue their point
of view with examples related to their everyday lives. Mediation of the teacher was
low; they cooperated and were involved in this authentic and highly demanding task.
At the end of the block, all the students perceived their learning through the
collaborative writing activity as positive and they had improved the quality of the
collaborative and individual text, thus providing evidence of learning the philosophical
genres and philosophical discourse.
However, as previously mentioned, results also revealed certain differences
regarding how interaction was developed during the collaborative writing activity,
which may have affected the writing process and the quality of the final collaborative
text, an issue that should be confirmed in further studies with more groups and a
different research design.
First, we observed differences regarding the regulation of the collaborative writing
activity. Students in T1 – which obtained a medium score in the final collaborative text
– evidenced problems in adjusting their activity to the demand. They did not have
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Initial Final
Individual text quality score
T1
T2
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 186
enough time to elaborate their arguments and conclusions. They started textualization
without finishing the planning guide and they scarcely used it during the writing
process; therefore, during writing they did not revert back to the initial plans in order to
create or maintain an overall representation of the written text. By contrast, students in
T2 – who obtained a higher score – developed a complete outline before starting
textualization and used it in each session to be aware of their aims, decisions and to
regulate their activity adjusting to topic, genre characteristics and communicative
situation. This supports the claim regarding the relevance of planning and the use of
guides to help students to regulate their writing processes in collaborative contexts
(Erkens et al., 2005; Noroozi et al., 2012).
Secondly, results can also be related to the quality of types of talk, use and level of
philosophical competences and team’s dynamics during collaborative writing.
Students in T2 evidenced a higher and more symmetrical participation during all
the writing activity. They created a more positive atmosphere in which all team
members enjoyed writing and discussing with peers, and they used more exploratory
and non-disputative talk, which resulted in more constructive discussions. As Mercer
(1996) noted, although cumulative talk is essential to build new knowledge, only
exploratory talk allows critical thinking development. Such positive team dynamics
could also account for students' higher involvement in task in terms of participation and
time spent. Moreover, students in T2 had a higher use and level of philosophical
competences. They reformulated their philosophical question, thesis, arguments and
conclusion several times. Not all the ideas discussed orally finally appeared in the
written text, which evidenced a rich and non-lineal interaction between oral and
writing discourse during collaborative writing. The ideas outlined in the guide could
have helped students in T2 to confront the dialogical tensions between their previous
and new knowledge, and between attempted and written text (Camps & Milian, 2000).
In contrast, participation in T1 was more asymmetrical (dominated by one or two
members) and their team’s dynamics were not as positive, proven by their pattern of
interaction, which was characterized by a higher cumulative talk – with low
controversy and argumentation – higher disputational talk – with disagreement and
non-constructive criticism – and less exploratory talk – less constructive criticism.
Furthermore, the results of T1 evidenced less use and level of philosophical
competences. They had less reformulation of ideas during their writing process, and
poorer practice of argumentation. Since most of the ideas discussed in the oral
conversation also appeared in their written text, T1 students seemed to have had a
more lineal transition between oral and writing discourse.
Previous research on collaborative learning also related symmetrical interactions
and a close relationship to critical knowledge construction when students have to
confront a complex demand (Arvaja et al. 2000 and 2002; Storch, 2002). We have
offered evidences of how reformulations of dialogic tensions between oral and written
text promoted critical thinking and reflection on the text as an object of learning, which
in turn is related to sociocultural assumptions regarding the benefits of the dialogic
187 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
complexity of collaborative writing to create new meaning and to promote learning
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1991; Daniels, 2001;
Wertsch, 1991).
The aforementioned issues seem even more relevant if we take into consideration
that T2 members had a more positive attitude towards argumentative writing and their
previous knowledge, and their initial writing scores were slightly higher than those of
T1. Future studies should look deeper into the relationship between these variables,
exploring the relationship between individual prior knowledge and attitudes and the
quality of interaction during collaborative writing in order to confirm these results.
We do not want to finish the discussion without acknowledging several limitations
of the study. First, although 45 students participated in the activity, only two groups
were analyzed. We attempted to understand the dynamics of a highly demanding
collaborative writing activity, and expected to develop consistent inferences and deep
explanations; this approach requires being cautious, since results could vary in different
contexts and with different teams. However, evidence found can act as reasonable
assumptions to design future studies, and the analysis of regularities and variability in
different contexts can help us to advance in our knowledge of how collaborative
writing works and how it impacts learning. Secondly, we developed deep content
analysis of each group to explain how the interactions developed during the
collaborative writing process could be related to the appropriation of philosophical
thinking. However, this impeded the microanalysis of collaborative composition
processes. Similarly, we did not analyze teacher scaffolding and did not take into
account other related aspects of school culture related to writing. Future studies could
address, and more precisely explain, how these issues relate to peer interaction and text
quality during collaborative writing.
Finally, several educative implications can be derived from these findings. First, the
relevance of presenting an authentic, situated and highly demanding task (publishing
the student’s philosophical reflections in the school journal) in a structured
collaborative context of learning which, according to cooperative research (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009), implied establishing roles, writing turns, a structured activity, a
planning guide, time in class for peer interaction and group self-evaluations. A task with
these characteristics has demonstrated it can enhance cooperation in collaborative
writing, thus the use of an integrating construction strategy. Similarly, promoting the
students’ use of artifacts such as planning guides during all of the writing process might
improve students' regulation of writing and text quality in collaborative writing, as it
has been demonstrated in individual writing (Castelló & Monereo, 1996; Nixon &
Topping, 2001). Secondly, the study shows that students in both teams cooperate to
write collaboratively their text, but our results suggest that it might be important to help
students to develop a certain type of discussions, in which exploratory talk is promoted
in order to enhance the quality of interactions during collaborative writing and, in turn,
learning and text quality. Lastly, teaching how to write and using writing as a tool to
practice philosophical thinking (problematization, conceptualization and
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 188
argumentation) can be an opportunity to create a more active and participatory learning
context (Dysthe, 1996). Students can express their own opinions about contemporary
society and connect philosophical theory with their everyday lives using argumentative
writing. It also represents a chance to break the classical view of philosophy as an
abstract and theoretical material removed from the real-life problems of students in
secondary education (Corcelles & Castelló, 2013). The use of planning guides and the
development of structured collaborative learning environments can help teachers to use
writing in their discipline to create meaningful and active contexts in which students
learn to think in and from the discipline.
References
Allen, N.J., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What Experienced
Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 1(2), 70-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105065198700100206
Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Eteläpelto, A. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative processes
during report writing of a science learning project: the nature of discourse as a function of task
requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 457-469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03172987
Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Rasku-Puttonen, H & Eteläpelto, A. (2002). Social Processes and
Knowledge Building During Small Group Interaction in a School Science Project.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2),161-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00313830220142182
Bakhtin, M. M (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: four essays. University of Texas Press.
Bereiter C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Castelló, M., & Monereo, C. (1996). Un estudio empírico sobre la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de
estrategias para la composición escrita de textos argumentativos. [An empirical study about
teaching and learning writing composition strategies for argumentative texts]. Infancia y
aprendizaje, 19 (74), 39-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021037096763000772
Corcelles, M., & Castelló, M. (2013). El aprendizaje de la Filosofía mediante la escritura y el
trabajo en equipo: percepciones de los estudiantes de Bachillerato. [Philosophy leraning
through writing and team working]. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 11(1), 150-169.
http://reined.webs.uvigo.es/ojs/index.php/reined/article/view/606
Daiute, C. (1986). Do 1 and 1 make 2? Patterns of influence by collaborative authors. Written
Communication, 3(3), 382-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088386003003006
Dale, H., (1994). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. Journal of
Educational Research, 87(6), 334–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1994.9941264
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education.
International journal of educational research, 13(1), 9-19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-
0355(89)90013-X
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London. RoutledgeFalmer
Dysthe, O. (1996). The Multivoiced Classroom: Interactionof Writing and Classroom Discourse.
Written Communication, 13(3), 385- 425.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013003004
Erkens, G., Jaspers. J., Prangsma, M. & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer
supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463-486.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038
189 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 365-388.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600
Giroud, A. (1999). Studying Argumentative Texts Processing through Collaborative Writing. In J.
Andriessen & P. Coirier, (eds.). Foundations of Argumentative Texts Processing. Amsterdam
University Press.
Gutiérrez, X. (2008). What Does Metalinguistic Activity in Learners' Interaction During a
Collaborative L2 Writing Task Look Like? The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 519-537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00785.x
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Keys, C. (1994) The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative
writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003-1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310912
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York.
Cambridge University. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ. Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Lowry, P., Curstis, A., & Lowry, M. (2004). Building a Taxonomy and Nomenclature of
Collaborative Writing to Improve Interdisciplinary Research and Practice. Journal of Business
Communication, 41(1), 66-99.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363
Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2012). Participant profiles during collaborative writing. Journal of
Writing Research, 4(1), 53-79.http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2012.04.01.3
Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: Participation and internalization models
of development. Human Development, 41, 326-349.http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000022595
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in classroom. Learning
and Instruction, 6, 359–389.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00021-7
Mercer, N. (2007). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of
thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(2), 137-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1i2.137
Milian, M. (1999). Interacció de contextos en el procés de composició escrita en grup. [Context
interactions during the composition process in group]. Doctoral Thesis. Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona. Retrieved from Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa. http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/
4682
Nixon, J. G. & Topping, K. J. (2001). Emergent writing: The impact of structured peer interaction.
Educational Psychology, 21(1), 41-58.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410123268
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M. & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating
argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL.
Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.01
O'Donnell, A.M, Dansereau, D.F, Rocklin, T., Lambiotte, J.G., Hythecker, V.I, & Larson, C.O.
(1985). Cooperative writing: Direct effects and transfer. Written Communication, 2(3), 307-
315.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074108838500200300
Olry-Louis I.& Soidet I. (2008). Collaborative writing devices, types of co-operation, and individual
acquisitions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(5), 585-608. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17405620701859563
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge
construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256-1265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.008
Prior, P. (2006). A Sociocultural theory of Writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S.Graham & J. Fitzgerald
(Eds.). Handbook of writing research. (pp. 54-66). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Saunders, W. (1989). Collaborative writing tasks and peer interaction. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 101–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90019-0
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 190
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Tozzi, M. (2012). Une approche par compétences en philosophie? ? [Is it possible a competency
based approach in philosophy?]. Rue Descartes, 1, 22-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rdes.073.
0022
Tozzi, M. (2008). Pensar por sí mismo: Iniciación a la pedagogía de la filosofia. [Thinking for
yourself: An introduction to philosophy pedagogy]. Proa:Madrid.
UNESCO (2011). Teaching philosophy in Europe and North America. UNESCO. Retrieved
fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002140/214089e.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Steendam, E. Rijlaarsdam, G.C.W., Van den Bergh, H.H., & Sercu, L. (2014). The mediating
effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instructional Science, 42
905-927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wigglesworth G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012
.09.005
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: the effects of metacognitive prompting
and structured peer interaction. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158514
191 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Appendix
Appendix A: Collaborative writing - Planning guide
AUDIENCE
• Who will the audience of your text be?
PROBLEMATIZATION
• Identify a problem or a problematic situation related to the contents studied in bloc
III.
• Think about everyday life situations related to this problem.
• Analyze the problem:
• Why is it a problem? Write the different points of view about the problem
and how these are in conflict.
• Nowadays, why is it important to think about this problem? Why is it
important for human life?
• What is the philosophical question that emerges from that problem? Is it a deep and
meaningful question?
CONCEPTUALIZATION (use of philosophical concepts)
• Which philosophical concepts studied in bloc I, II and III are related to this problem
and question? Identify them and make a list.
• From those identified which ones should you define in your text? (write the
definition)
ARGUMENTATION
• Thesis: Which idea/opinion do you want to defend in the text?
• Arguments: What are the arguments to defend this idea/opinion? Identify a
minimum of two.
• What examples make your arguments stronger?
• Think about counterarguments to convince people who may not agree
• What are your conclusions? (They must emerge from your arguments).
FINAL PROBLEMATIZATION
• Write a final question for the reader to continue thinking about the issue.
TITLE
• What would the title of your text be? (It must be attractive to the reader).
ILLUSTRATION
• Look for an attractive picture to illustrate the philosophical problem of your text.
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 192
Appendix B: Quality of argumentative philosophical texts rubrics
5
4
3
2
1
Problemati-
zation
Describe/ formulate a
relevant and very clear
philosophical problem and
question
Describe /formulate a
relevant and clear
philosophical problem
and question
Describe/ formulate a
relevant but confusing
philosophical problem and
question
Identify/ formulate a
non-relevant
philosophical problem
and question.
No philosophical
problem
No philosophical
question
Thesis The author’s point of view is
very clear, elaborated and
well explained.
The author’s point of view
is clear, elaborated but
could be better explained.
The author’s point of view
is quite confusing or quite
elaborated. It could be
better explained.
The author’s point of
view is very confusing or
very poor.
There is no thesis.
Arguments Arguments are:
Sufficient
Clear
Elaborated
Relevant
Coherent with thesis.
Strengthen the thesis
Very well explained
Arguments are:
Sufficient
Clear
Elaborated
Relevant
Coherent with thesis.
Strengthen the thesis
Could be better explained.
Arguments are:
Sufficient
Quite confusing
Could be better elaborated
Relevant
Coherent with the thesis
Could be better explained
to strengthen the thesis.
Arguments are:
Not sufficient
Very confusing
Poor
Not Relevant
Non-coherent with
thesis
No arguments
Counter-
arguments
There is a recognizable
alternative perspective
different from that of the
author. The author provides
strong and multiple
counterarguments for this
alternative perspective.
There is a recognizable
alternative perspective
different from that of the
author. The author
provides a strong
counterargument for this
alternative perspective.
There is a recognizable
alternative perspective
different from that of the
author. The author
provides a weak
counterarguments for this
alternative perspective
There is a recognizable
alternative perspective
different from that of the
author. The author
doesn’t provides any
counteraguments
There isn’t a
recognizable
alternative
perspective
different from that
of the author.
193 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
5 4 3 2 1
Conclusions
The conclusions:
Include the main ideas of
the text.
Is very clear and well
explained.
Coherent with the thesis
and arguments.
Promotes reflection in the
reader
The conclusions:
Include the main ideas of
the text.
Is clear but could be better
explained.
Coherent with the thesis
and arguments.
Promotes reflection in the
reader
The conclusions:
Does not include all the
main ideas of the text
Is quite confusing (it’s
necessary to infer how the
author reached the
conclusion).
Coherent with the thesis
and arguments.
Promotes reflection in the
reader
The conclusions:
Does not include all
the mail ideas of the
text.
Is quite confusing (it’s
necessary to infer how
the author reached the
conclusion).
No coherent with the
thesis and arguments
No conclusions.
Conceptuali-
zation
There aren’t any
conceptual mistakes.
Uses and relates
appropriately many
philosophical concepts to
analyze the problem and
defend their position.
There aren’t any
conceptual mistakes
Uses and relates
appropriately
philosophical concepts to
analyze the problem and
defend their position.
There are few conceptual
mistakes
Use but doesn’t relate
appropriately the
philosophical concepts to
analyze the problem and
defend their position.
There are a lot
conceptual mistakes.
Poor use of
philosophical
concepts.
Do not use
philosophical
concepts.
Cohesion Contains a variety of
appropriate connectors
which facilitate links
between paragraphs
Contains a variety of
connectors which
facilitate links between
paragraphs but some are
not appropriate.
Contains few or repetitive
connectors which facilitate
links between paragraphs.
Contains very few
connectors which
don’t facilitate links
between paragraphs.
No connectors
between the
paragraphs.
Coherence
All the ideas are organized
in a logical sequence.
Evidence of organized axis
of information.
The majority of the ideas
are organized in a logical
sequence. Evidence of
organized axis of
information.
Some ideas are organized
in a logical sequence.
Evidence of organized axis
of information.
Very few ideas are
organized in a logical
sequence.
No evidence of
organized axis of
information.
No logical
sequence of
ideas.
No evidence of
organized axis of
information.
Total score max 40
CORCELLES & CASTELLO LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING | 194
Appendix C: Collaborative texts
Textualization 1
Textualization 2
Revision
Team 1
La bioètica ha de trencar els paradigmes de la ciència?
Quins aspectes raonables té la bioètica per contradir els paràmetres de la ciencia?
Fa poc, en una notícia de la Vanguardia va sortir el cas d’una dona Italiana que es
deia Eluana i estava en estat vegetatiu des de feia 17 anys. La polèmica va sorgir quan
el seu pare va voler desconnectar-la de les màquines que la mantenien en vida. Ell
insistia que la voluntat de Eluana, arribats a aquells extrems, hagués estat ser
desconnectada.
En canvi el Vaticà, i gran part del govern de Berlusconi, estava en contra de la
decisió del pare d’Eluana, ja que deien que no era moralment lícit ja que es tractava
d’una persona que clínicament estava viva.
(La notícia la trobareu explicada més detalladament a la pàgina web:
http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20090209/53636694798/fallece-
eluana-englaro-despues-de-tres-dias-sin-ser-alimentada.html)
Aquest tema ens sembla d’actualitat ja que ens ajuda a reflexionar sobre la importància
que té la bioètica (àmbit de la filosofia que té a veure amb el comportament humà),
com per exemple el fet d’escollir la vida o la mort d’una persona. Hem de tenir en
compte les circumstàncies en que es troba la persona en qüestió, és a dir mesurar el
grau d’incapacitat d’aquesta persona.
Nosaltres creiem que cada persona ha de tenir autodeterminació sobre la seva vida
i mort, per això estem d’acord amb la decisió que va prendre el pare d’Eluana ja que va
respectar el que la seva filla hagués volgut (no continuar amb aquelles condicions de
vida).
La bioètica hauria de tenir en compte en alguns camps de la ciència com podria ser
la decisió de mantenir algú en vida quan està en estat vegetatiu o la investigació en
transgènics.
En altres camps, la ciència podria investigar fins que afectés o alterés la realitat o la
vida de l’ésser humà ja que la ciència ha de ser un coneixement estable que s’ha
d’aproximar a la realitat.
195 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
Team 1 (English translation)
Does Bioethics have to break the paradigms of science?
What reasonable aspects does bioethics have to contradict the parameters of science?
Recently, in “la Vanguardia” newspaper a case was published of an Italian woman
called Eluana who was in a persistent vegetative state for 17 years. The controversy
arose when her father wanted to disconnect her from the machines that kept her alive.
He insisted that the wish of Eluana, in those circumstances, would have been to be
disconnected.
In contrast, the Vatican, and a large part of the government of Berlusconi, was
against the decision of Eluana’s father, they said that it was not morally legitimate since
this was a person who was clinically alive.
(You can find a detailed explanation on this web page:
http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20090209/53636694798/fallece-
eluana-englaro-despues-de-tres-dias-sin-ser-alimentada.html)
This subject seems to be topical because it helps us to reflect on the importance of
bioethics (field of philosophy that is concerned with human behavior), as for example
the fact of choosing life or death of a person. We have to take into account the
circumstances in which the person in question is located, that is, to measure the degree
of disability of that person.
We believe that each person should have self-determination over their life and
death, which is why we agree with the decision that Eluana’s father took, since he
respected what his daughter would have wanted (not to continue with those living
conditions).
Bioethics should be taken into account in some fields of science such as the
decision to keep someone alive when they are in a persistent vegetative state or
transgenic research.
In other fields, science could investigate until affects or disturbs reality or human
life because science must be a stable knowledge that must be approximated to reality.
Team 2
UNA S
O
Des del
sempre
manipul
a
benefici
trobar
c
aquestes
romans
v
on es cl
principis
la dona
discrimi
n
devia c
educar e
ens hem
Pot una
condici
o
realitat?
Nosaltre
s
complei
x
que sot
m
manera
e
s’adone
n
lligats.
P
molt inf
l
de com
u
radio, l
a
l’interne
t
transmet
e
informe
n
consider
e
això co
m
Va ocó
r
govern d
guerra d
’
Tam
b
realitat
d’electr
o
O
CIETAT MAN
principi de
hi ha hagut
a
t a uns al
t
propi. A l’e
d
c
asos en els
circumstànc
i
v
aren imposa
r
assificaven le
s
clàssics. Però
fa cinquanta
n
ada per la so
c
omplir les
t
ls fills, cuidar
fet la següe
n
societat infl
u
o
nar així la
s
s
creiem que
x
en, ja que s
e
m
eten a uns
e
n concret, e
n
n
de la manip
u
P
er exemple
l
uenciats i m
a
u
nicació co
m
a
premsa i
a
t
. Concreta
e
n les notíci
e
n
sobre els es
e
n que poden
m
porta una m
a
r
rer el matei
x
e Bush no va
’
Iraq, ja que li
b
é creiem qu
e
això no és
o
domèstics i li
C
ORC
E
IPULADA
la història
h
individus q
t
res per obt
e
d
at antiga ja
quals es
d
i
es, per exe
m
r
un sistema j
e
s
persones se
g
no cal anar t
a
anys a Esp
a
c
ietat i estipul
t
asques dom
è
el marit, etc.
n
t pregunta fi
l
u
ir en les pe
r
eva percepci
ó
sí, aquests
c
e
mpre hi ha
u
a
ltres a actu
a
n
cara que aq
u
u
lació a la q
u
tots nosaltre
s
a
nipulats pels
m
ara la tele
v
a
mb menys
q
ment, qua
n
e
s a la telev
deveniments
q
tenir més au
d
a
nipulació per
x
als EEUU
q
permetre mos
t
era més profi
t
e
, encara qu
e
així. Per e
diuen que ag
a
E
LLES
&
C
ASTELL
O
h
umana,
q
ue han
e
nir un
podem
d
onaven
m
ple els
eràrquic
g
ons els
a
nt lluny
a
nya era
l
ava que
è
stiques,
Per això
losòfica:
rsones i
ó
de la
c
asos es
u
ns pocs
a
r d’una
u
ests no
u
al estan
s
estem
mitjans
v
isió, la
q
uantitat
n
ens
isió ens
que ells
d
iència i
r
manent.
q
uan el
t
rar a la pobla
t
ós que la gen
t
e
pensem qu
e
xemple, si
u
a
fi tots els ap
a
O
L
EARNING PHI
L
ció les imatge
t
desconeixes
e
e
nosaltres so
u
na persona
a
rells que fun
c
L
OSOPHICAL THI
N
s
dels soldats
m
e
l que estava
p
m
lliures d’e
s
entra a u
n
c
ionin amb u
n
N
KING
|
196
morts a la
p
assant.
s
collir, en
n
a botiga
n
a bateria,
197 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
ell sent la capacitat d’escollir, però en realitat està agafant allò que els propietaris de la
tenda han volgut.
En conclusió i després d’haver realitzat una profunda reflexió pensem que nosaltres
som lliures, però dins d’un marc en el qual no podem escollir amb total llibertat.
Aquest marc esta limitat per el que ens marca la nostra societat.
Per aquest motiu us plantegem la següent pregunta: Fins a quins límits estem
condicionats per aquesta manipulació de la societat?
Team 2
(
A MANI
From the
have al
w
manipula
ancient ti
given th
e
romans i
m
p
eople w
p
rinciple
s
b
ack, fif
t
discrimi
n
stipulate
d
chores, r
a
That is
w
p
hilosop
h
influence
of reality
?
We beli
e
since th
e
others to
these do
which th
e
are very
i
media su
c
a lesser
news on
events t
h
more au
d
manipula
the USA
not allo
w
dead sol
d
more pro
know wh
a
We a
l
example,
all the d
e
he/she is
(
English transl
a
PULATED S
O
beginning of
h
w
ays been in
d
ted others for
mes we can fi
n
e
se circumstan
c
m
posed a hiera
r
ere classified
a
s
. But we don
t
y years ago i
n
n
ated against
d
that she mu
s
a
ise children, c
w
hy we have
h
ical questi
o
people and a
f
?
e
ve yes, that t
e
re are alway
s
act in a part
i
not realize
t
e
y are linked.
F
i
nfluenced and
c
h as televisio
n
extent intern
e
television in
f
h
at somebody
d
ience, and thi
s
tion. The sam
e
when the Bu
s
w
the populati
o
d
iers in the Ira
q
fitable for the
m
a
t was going o
n
l
so believe tha
t
if a person go
e
e
vices that wo
r
actually gettin
g
C
ORC
E
a
tion)
O
CIETY
h
uman history
,
d
ividuals who
their own pro
n
d cases in whi
c
es, for exam
p
r
chical system
w
a
cco
r
ding to cl
a
'
t need to go
n
Spain wome
n
by society
w
s
t do the hou
s
are for husban
d
made the foll
o
o
n: Can s
f
fect their perc
e
h
ese cases ar
e
s
a few who
i
cular way, alt
h
t
he manipulati
F
or example, al
l
m
anipulated b
y
n
, radio, press,
a
e
t. Specificall
y
f
orms us abo
u
considers will
s
entails a per
m
e
thing happe
n
s
h administrati
o
o
n to see ima
g
q
war because
m
that people
d
n
.
t
, although we
t
e
s into an appl
k
with a batte
r
g
what the own
e
E
LLES
&
C
ASTELL
O
,
there
have
o
fit. In
ch are
p
le the
where
a
ssical
so far
n
were
which
s
ehold
d, etc.
owing
ociety
eption
e
true,
force
t
hough
i
on to
l
of us
y
mass
and to
y
, the
u
t the
l
have
m
anent
n
ed in
o
n did
g
es of
it was
d
id not
t
hink we are fr
e
l
iance store an
d
r
y, that person
e
rs of the shop
O
L
EARNING PHI
L
e
e to choose, i
n
d
somebody tel
thinks that th
e
have wanted t
h
L
OSOPHICAL THI
N
n
reality this is
n
l
him/her to c
h
y
are free to c
h
h
em to.
N
KING
|
198
n
ot so. For
h
oose from
hoose, but
199 | JOURNAL OF WRITING RESEARCH
In conclusion and after deep reflection we believe that we are free, but within a
framework in which we can’t choose freely. This framework is limited by what our society
permits.
For this reason, we ask the following question: To what extent are we conditioned by
society’s manipulation?
