Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 2223–2249 | Cite as

Effects of collaborative small-group discussions on early adolescents’ social reasoning

  • Tzu-Jung LinEmail author
  • Seung Yon Ha
  • Wei-Ting Li
  • Ying-Ju Chiu
  • Yu-Ru Hong
  • Chin-Chung Tsai
Article

Abstract

This study examined the influence of small-group discussions on early adolescents’ social reasoning development. A total of 147 fifth-grade students (79 males and 68 females) from six classrooms in a public school in Taiwan participated in a pre-post control quasi-experimental study. Classrooms of students were assigned to either a 5-week collaborative social reasoning (CSR) condition or an active-control read-aloud (RA) condition. All students completed a social reasoning essay before and after the intervention. Students in the CSR condition generated more social knowledge, considered more possible solutions to the complex social-moral issue, and reflected on more cognitive perspectives of the story characters. Students in the RA condition generated more shallow interpretations and were more attuned to affective perspectives of the story characters. CSR students’ social reasoning tended to be more coherent, complex, and involve knowledge coordination. These findings lend support to the claim that CSR discussion is a productive vehicle for enhancing students’ social reasoning.

Keywords

Collaborative small-group discussion Dialogic inquiry Social reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Chiang Chin-Kuo Foundation and the Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the foundation. We would like to thank the research team and the many administrators, teachers, and children without whom this study would not have been possible.

References

  1. Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Bengtsson, H., & Arvidsson, Å. (2011). The impact of developing social perspective-taking skills on emotionality in middle and late childhood. Social Development, 20, 353–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00587.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, M. W., Gibbs, J. C., & Broughton, J. M. (1980). The relation of moral judgment stage disparity to developmental effects of peer dialogues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 26, 341–357.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23084042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen-Gaddini, M. (2012). Chinese mothers and adolescents’ views of authority and autonomy: A study of parent–adolescent conflict in urban and rural China. Child Development, 83, 1846–1852.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01823.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, C. K., & Lee, T. Y. (2010). Contributions of moral education lectures and moral discussion in Hong Kong secondary schools. Social Psychology of Education, 13, 575–591.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9127-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1163215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1999). ‘Superiority is in the eye of the beholder: A comment on Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham. Social Development, 8, 128–131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahl, A., & Kim, L. (2014). Why is it bad to make a mess? Preschoolers’ conceptions of pragmatic norms. Cognitive Development, 32, 12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damon, W. (1980). Structural-developmental theory and the study of moral development. In M. Windmiller, N. Lambert, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Moral development and socialization (pp. 35–68). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the processes of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347–367.Google Scholar
  13. Denison, C. (2014). Ethical dilemmas for classroom discussion: The daily dilemma #29. Good Character.com. Retrieved from http://www.goodcharacter.com/dilemma/dilemma29.html.
  14. Diazgranados, S., Selman, R. L., & Dionne, M. (2016). Acts of social perspective taking: A functional construct and the validation of a performance measure for early adolescents. Social Development, 25, 572–601.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzhugh, L. (2009). Harriet the spy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, M. W., Galinsky, M. J., Smokowski, P. R., Day, S. H., Terzian, M. A., Rose, R. A., et al. (2005). Social information-processing skills training to promote social competence and prevent aggressive behavior in third grade. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1045–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman, and Haidt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24, 167–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00251.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howe, A. (1990). A climate for small group talk. In M. Brubacher, R. Payne, & K. Rickens (Eds.), Perspectives on small group learning (pp. 101–118). Oakville, CA: Rubicon.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. W. (1975). Cooperativeness and social perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 241–244.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinney, J. (2013). Diary of a wimpy kid. New York, NY: Amulet Books.Google Scholar
  23. Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 630–646.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2025030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, 16, 53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2010). Developmental cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 593–602.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin, T.-J., Anderson, R. C., Hummel, J. E., Jadallah, M., Miller, B. W., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., et al. (2012). Children’s use of analogy during collaborative reasoning. Child Development, 83, 1429–1443.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01784.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, T.-J., Anderson, R. C., Jadallah, M., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., et al. (2015). Social influences on children’s development of relational thinking during small-group discussions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (No. 18). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  29. Lourenço, O. (2014). Domain theory: A critical review. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma, S., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., Zhang, J., Morris, J. A., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., et al. (2017). Instructional influences on English language learners’ storytelling. Learning and Instruction, 49, 64–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McVee, M. B. (2014). “Some are way left, like this guy, Gloria Ladson-Billings”: Resistance, conflict, and perspective taking in teachers’ discussions of multicultural education. Peace and Conflict: The Journal of Peace Psychology, 20, 536–551.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mischo, C. (2005). Promoting perspective coordination by dilemma discussion. The effectiveness of classroom group discussion on interpersonal negotiation strategies of 12-year-old students. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris, J. A., Miller, B. W., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Lin, T.-J., Scott, T., et al. (2018). Instructional discourse and argumentative writing. International Journal of Educational Research., 90, 234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulvey, K. L. (2016). Children’s reasoning about social exclusion: Balancing many factors. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 22–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Myyrya, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2010). Empathy, perspective taking and personal values as predictors of moral schemas. Journal of Moral Education, 39, 213–233.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057241003754955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nucci, L. (2009). Nice is not enough: Facilitating moral development. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  40. Nucci, L., Creane, M. W., & Powers, D. W. (2015). Integrating moral and social development within middle school social studies: A social cognitive domain approach. Journal of Moral Education, 44, 479–496.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1087391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59–92.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific predictors of peer acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1330–1342.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palacio, R. J. (2012). Wonder. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  45. Park, Y., & Killen, M. (2010). When is peer rejection justifiable? Children’s understanding across two cultures. Cognitive Development, 25, 290–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of children. London: Routledge & Kegan-Paul.Google Scholar
  47. QSR International Pty Ltd. (2015). NVivo qualitative data analysis Software (Version 11).Google Scholar
  48. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge journal of education, 39, 29–48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ripken, C., Jr., & Cowherd, K. (2012). Supper-sized slugger. New York, NY: Disney Book Group.Google Scholar
  51. Sachar, L. (1987). There is a boy in the girls’ bathroom. New York, NY: Yearling Books.Google Scholar
  52. Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, R. L., & Rose, A. J. (2011). The “cost of caring” in youths’ friendships: Considering associations among social perspective taking, co-rumination, and empathetic distress. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1792.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., & Morris, J. A. (2015). Social and cognitive development during Collaborative Reasoning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 63–76). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Perry, M., & Lin, T.-J. (2017). Emergent leadership in children’s cooperative problem solving groups. Cognition and Instruction, 35, 212–235.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1313615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills deficit’s view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tisak, M. (1993). Preschool children’s judgments of moral and personal events involving physical harm and property damage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 375–390.Google Scholar
  58. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 7–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & Tabatabai, D. (2013). Eye of the beholder: Investigating the interplay between inquiry role diversification and social perspective taking. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 144–192.  https://doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2013.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Johnson, N. C., Ing, M., & Zimmerman, J. (2019). Promoting productive student participation across multiple classroom participation settings. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Promoting academic talk in schools: Global practices and perspectives. Abingdon, OX: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  64. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolff, V. E. (2000). Bat 6. New York, NY: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  66. Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Li, Y., Lin, T.-J., et al. (2013). Children’s moral reasoning: Influence of culture and collaborative discussion. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 503–522.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T. J., et al. (2016). Improving children’s competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 194–223.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215618663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Applied Science and TechnologyNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Program of Learning Sciences and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning SciencesNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations