CONTEXT OF ARGUMENTATION WITH A ROLE-PLAYING BOARD GAME - AN ACTIVITY THEORY PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

The study of technology-supported argumentation has foregrounded its epistemic aspect in terms of processes of reasoning. We report a qualitative case study that takes a different line of inquiry, centered on the question: How might the context of argumentation be characterized from the perspective of Activity Theory? We posit Activity Theory (AT) as a potential interpretive framework, and use it to characterize the context of argumentation mediated by a role-playing board-game. Emergent findings suggest that argumentation was situated in a dialogic, participatory, collaborative, problem-solving activity. These findings are further synthesized and discussed to propose that the context of argumentation may be characterized as a game-based problem-solving context. This conceptualization is based on these preliminary claims: [1] Problems were created through the design of the game or arose due to cultural factors that influenced how players responded to the game. [2] There were three modes of problem-solving: collaboration, dialogic argumentation and role-playing. For the former two especially, distinct patterns are observed that suggest that they constitute cultural practices. [3] Emergent selves in terms of role-identities has three aspects: agency, social and ideology. These role-identities potentially constitute epistemic frames for argumentation. In conclusion, this paper suggests an alternative view of the interactions implicated in argumentation as practice inflected in praxis.