Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games Andrew Ravenscroft Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI), London Metropolitan University, London, UK Abstract This paper will present a review of design-based research conducted over the past 10 years that has modeled and promoted students’ reasoning, conceptual change and argumentative dialogue processes and practices through designing a number of digital dialogue games. This line of work was inspired by some challenges and insights that emerged during projects dealing with conceptual change in science. Since then, the dialogical and pedagogical requirements for improved reasoning, knowledge development and conceptual understanding in a range of con- texts have been addressed through projects that have designed and evaluated intelligent and highly interactive dialogue game tools, such as CoLLeGE (Computer-based Laboratory for Language Games in Education), AcademicTalk and InterLoc (Collaborative Interaction through scaffolding Locutions). This article will review this line of work through justifying and describing the rationale for its trajectory before presenting ongoing work that synthesizes and operationalizes its findings and insights. The ongoing work emphasizes an inclusive and per- sonalized approach to learning dialogue that stimulates reasoning, collaborative thinking and the development of argumentative dialogue practices.This is arguably relevant to most learning contexts, and especially to contemporary science education. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the role of dialogue in learning in the digital age. Keywords argumentative practices, conceptual development, dialogue, reasoning. Introduction Dialogue is inextricably linked with thinking. Raven- scroft and Pilkington (2000) have argued that it is also well recognized that in many learning contexts, particu- larly in the sciences, students have alternative, everyday conceptions about the world – derived from their prior experience – that impede the development of improved understanding. Previous research has shown that these ‘alternative conceptions’ often require discussion and argumentation to bring about the belief revision and refinement of knowledge that leads to conceptual change and development (e.g. Pilkington & Parker- Jones 1996; Hartley 1998; Hartley & Ravenscroft 1999; Ravenscroft & Matheson 2002). These and similar studies have demonstrated that collaborative argumen- tation in which the tutor plays a facilitating inquiry and critiquing role, which in some respects is similar to a Socratic dialogue, is more effective than ‘conventional’ teaching in bringing about conceptual change. Although there has been some debate about the precise form which dialogue should take to facilitate conceptual development, research that has adopted dis- course analysis techniques (such as DISCOUNT, Pilk- ington 1999) has suggested how tutor–student talk can be effective. A range of studies (e.g. Pilkington et al. 1999; de Vincente et al. 1999) have shown that ‘suc- cessful’ exchanges are more likely to include question- ing, clarifying, challenging and justification moves. Accepted: 15 February 2007 Correspondence: Andrew Ravenscroft, Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI), London Metropolitan University, Room 204, Shoreditch Building, 35 Kingsland Road, London E2 8AA, UK. Email: a.ravenscroft@londonmet.ac.uk doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00232.x Original article © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1