Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Denison, C. (2014). Ethical dilemmas for classroom discussion: The daily dilemma #29. Good Character.com. Retrieved from http://www.goodcharacter.com/dilemma/dilemma29.html.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, L. (2009). Harriet the spy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman, and Haidt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Johnson, D. W. (1975). Cooperativeness and social perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney, J. (2013). Diary of a wimpy kid. New York, NY: Amulet Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, 16, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (No. 18). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

  • Lourenço, O. (2014). Domain theory: A critical review. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nucci, L. (2009). Nice is not enough: Facilitating moral development. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palacio, R. J. (2012). Wonder. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of children. London: Routledge & Kegan-Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • QSR International Pty Ltd. (2015). NVivo qualitative data analysis Software (Version 11).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripken, C., Jr., & Cowherd, K. (2012). Supper-sized slugger. New York, NY: Disney Book Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachar, L. (1987). There is a boy in the girls’ bathroom. New York, NY: Yearling Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, V. E. (2000). Bat 6. New York, NY: Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Studies, Ohio State University, 145A Ramseyer Hall, 29 W. Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Tzu-Jung Lin & Seung Yon Ha

  2. Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Wei-Ting Li & Yu-Ru Hong

  3. Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ying-Ju Chiu

  4. Program of Learning Sciences and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chin-Chung Tsai

Authors
  1. Tzu-Jung Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung Yon Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Ting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ying-Ju Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu-Ru Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chin-Chung Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tzu-Jung Lin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Chinese version of the three sample essays

Appendix: Chinese version of the three sample essays

Essay 1


如果我是大衛的話我會先確認是誰做的, 如果不是布蘭登我就會通知校長有人寫了這份貼文, 如果是布蘭登的話我就會先勸他刪除這份貼文, 如果他不肯我就會告訴他如果被人發現會有什麼後果, 他還是認為很好玩不想刪除的話,我會立即告發他, 雖然一定會影響到我的人際關係, 但是我們應該做對的事, 這和我沒有關係, 但是這是正義的舉動我們應該做正義的事, 可是我也有可能直接不理這張照片當作沒有發生過, 因為我不想得罪我珍貴的好友大家都說薩曼紗是老師的馬屁精, 他就是一個非常討厭的人, 我不會認為這是對的, 但我會保密因為我跟他不熟也不是朋友。

Essay 2


我覺得大衛應該要告訴校長這則訊息,這樣可以防止讓他的那些同學繼續傳那種貼文, 這實在很沒品德,而且傳這張照片的「那個人」, 如果是別人傳他的照片, 我想看到照片時一定也很難過,妳讓別人難過很簡單, 但是讓他人開心很難, 即使妳很瞭解他, 妳會覺得他的外表看起來很開心, 內心呢?妳有沒有想過, 搞不好他的內心是刺痛、很難的, 妳想像不出來的痛,所以我們要多多為人著想, 不要去看那些不好的東西, 為人處世, 不可以袖手旁觀, 就能共享友情天地!

Essay 3


我認為大衛應該跟老師和師長門說有關於這則貼文的事情, 因為布蘭登和其他人把薩曼紗的照片塗滿螢光色, 還在社群上面嘲笑他, 還用下流的語言文字去污辱他, 而且薩曼紗並沒有對他們做什麼讓他們不舒服的事情, 這樣也代表布蘭登和其他人是惡意要限制他人的自由, 就像逼迫他人一定要照他的方法做一樣, 根據憲法的自由權這部份,他們都已經犯法了, 薩曼紗有參與和個人的自由和隱私權,他可以想要做什麼就做什麼, 重要的是他並沒有妨礙到他人, 布蘭登和其他人應該事先想到「這樣做,別人會不會不舒服」, 而他們也該要想到將心比心, 要好好對待他人, 他人也就會好好對待妳, 可是他們並沒有想到那麼多, 他們只覺得好玩就好,好笑就好, 不用顧慮到其他人, 所以他們不但做出了語言罷凌、妨礙自由權、侵犯隱私權等罪。

我認為大衛該舉發他們, 而大衛不該因為怕會沒有朋友, 就把最重要的事情放在一旁都不說, 等到真的有一天有人去舉發了, 這樣大衛也就變成共犯, 這樣雙方都沒有好處, 也算是「兩敗俱傷」了, 所以大衛應該要儘早去舉發這則貼文。

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, TJ., Ha, S.Y., Li, WT. et al. Effects of collaborative small-group discussions on early adolescents’ social reasoning. Read Writ 32, 2223–2249 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09946-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09946-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation