Advertisement

Deliberative emotional talk

  • Benzi SlakmonEmail author
  • Baruch B. Schwarz
Article

Abstract

High-quality talk about issues that raise high-intensity emotions in the public sphere is timely needed. Still, researchers committed to the fostering of high-quality types of school talk generally disregard the role of emotions. We show that this disregard is not accidental and that it conveys a customary reluctance in schools to consider the handling of emotions as they pertain to cognition. We argue that helping students regulate emotions in social interactions and in discussions that raise high-intensity emotions is an important educational purpose, and we show that discussions about controversial issues provide a suitable context for this purpose. To support the emergence of high-quality talk that involves strong emotions, we adopted a design-based research approach and developed a new Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) tool, the Hot Discussions Platform (HDP). The functionalities of HDP are crucial for the emergence and guidance of high-quality talk that involves strong emotions, and they describe a novel professional development (PD) approach to the enhancement and moderation of this kind of talk. In the in-service PD course, teachers are prepared to design, moderate, and analyze discussions about controversial issues. Group assignments in the course and personal interviews revealed that the teachers that underwent this program reported on a very rich list of practices and beliefs about the emotional labor involved in designing and moderating discussions about controversial issues. The study provides an existence proof of a kind of talk that combines compliance with argumentative-critical standards and an eagerness to express and regulate strong emotions. We call this general kind of talk deliberative emotional talk. We conclude by reflecting on future research and technological developments to be invested into studying forms of deliberative emotional talk and support its emergence.

Keywords

Emotions CSCL Deliberation Dialogue 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Carolyn P. Rose, Kobi Gal, Adam Lefstein, Gidi Dishon, Efrat Firer, Avi Segal, Michael Sronim, Gal Benedek, Barak Menachem, and Noa Shapira for their invaluable support in developing the project. The authors would also like to deeply thank the anonymous reviewers. Your contributions and sensitive reading helped us refine our ideas and improve the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 26992017) and the NSF (grant no. 033909).

References

  1. Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchette, I., & Nougarou, F. (2017). Incidental emotions have a greater impact on the logicality of less proficient reasoners. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(1), 98–113.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561–595.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1995). Conflict between incompetence and influence of a low-expertise source in hypothesis testing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457–462.Google Scholar
  9. Caffi, C., & Janney, R. W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(3–4), 325–373.Google Scholar
  10. Calcagni, E., & Lago, L. (2018). The three domains for dialogue: A framework for analysing dialogic approaches to teaching and learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 1–12.Google Scholar
  11. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.Google Scholar
  12. Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2015). The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109–116.Google Scholar
  13. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633.Google Scholar
  14. Damásio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
  15. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.Google Scholar
  16. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of logical operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 367–383.Google Scholar
  17. Duncan, S., & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1184–1211.Google Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  19. Gindi, S., & Erlich, R. R. (2018). High school teachers’ attitudes and reported behaviors towards controversial issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 58–66.Google Scholar
  20. Grize, J. B. (1996). Logique Naturelle et Communications. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  21. Grize, J. B. (1997). 1990. Ophrys: Logique et langage.Google Scholar
  22. Halperin, E. (2015). Emotions in conflict: Inhibitors and facilitators of peace making (Vol. 2). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575.Google Scholar
  26. Hochshild, A. R. (1983/2012). The managed heart. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California press.Google Scholar
  27. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.Google Scholar
  28. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.Google Scholar
  29. Israel’s Ministry of Education (2016). Meaningful Learning National Program: Educational Discourse on Controversial Issues. Retrieved from: http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/9/9-2/HoraotKeva/K-2016-4-2-9-2-3.htm. Accessed 17 April 2019
  30. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H., & Perkel, D. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and Geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge & London: The MIT press.Google Scholar
  31. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.Google Scholar
  32. Kashti, O. (2014, January 22). ORT director general: IDF morality must not be challenged. Haaretz, retrieved from: https://www.haaretz.com. Accessed 17 April 2019
  33. Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86.Google Scholar
  34. Law, N., Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., & Rose, C. P. (2017). Fostering targeted group practices as a core focus for CSCL task and technology design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  35. Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2013). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Smørdal, O. (2009). Joint designs for working in wikis: A case of practicing across settings and modes of work. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 207–230). Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Mancini, P. (2015). Why it is time to redesign our political system. European View, 14(1), 69–75.Google Scholar
  39. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar
  40. McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445.Google Scholar
  42. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
  43. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.Google Scholar
  44. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.Google Scholar
  45. Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulation in cognitive development. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Newton, D. P. (2018). Emotions: can’t think with them, can’t think without them. In L. Kerslake & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Theory of teaching thinking (pp. 38–52). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Nosek, B. A., & Hansen, J. J. (2008). The associations in our heads belong to us: Searching for attitudes and knowledge in implicit evaluation. Cognition & Emotion, 22(4), 553–594.Google Scholar
  48. Pain, S. (1989). La fonction de l'ignorance. Bern, Frankfurt/M., New York, Paris: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  49. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  50. Piaget, J. (1954/1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  51. Plantin, C. (2004). On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Emotion in dialogic interaction: Advances in the complex (pp. 265–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  52. Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours émotionné [the good reasons of emotions: Principles and method for the study of emotional discourse]. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Plantin C. (2017). L’émotion communiquée. In N. Tersis and P. Boyeldieu (eds), Le langage de l'émotion: variations linguistiques et culturelles. Paris, Peeters.Google Scholar
  54. Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156.Google Scholar
  55. Price, V. (2009). Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence. In T. Davies & P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 37–58). Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
  56. Radford, L. (2015). Of love, frustration, and mathematics: A Cultural-historical approach to emotions in mathematics teaching and learning. In B. Pepin & B. Rösken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs and affect to dynamic systems: (exploring) a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 25–49). NY: Springer. Advances in Mathematics Education Series.Google Scholar
  57. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues. UK: McGraw-hill education.Google Scholar
  58. Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., & Clarke, S. N. (2018). Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. In Geneva, Switzerland: The international academy of education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations educational. Scientific and: Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Google Scholar
  59. Roth, W. M. (2007). The ethico-moral nature of identity: Prolegomena to the development of third generation cultural-historical activity theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1–2), 83–93.Google Scholar
  60. Rummel, N. (2018). One framework to rule them all? Carrying forward the conversation started by Wise and Schwarz. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 123–129.Google Scholar
  61. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442.Google Scholar
  63. Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2016). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schwarz, B. B., & de Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 297–313.Google Scholar
  65. Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A., & Gal, K. (2018). Orchestrating the emergence of conceptual learning: A case study in a geometry class. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 189–211.Google Scholar
  66. Skop, Y. (2014, May 26). Controversial Teacher Adam Verete Fired Due to Budget Cuts. Haaretz, retrieved from: https://www.haaretz.com. Accessed 17 April 2019
  67. Skop, Y., & Kashti, O. (2014, Jan 30). Israeli teacher Won't be fired for expressing ‘leftist’ opinions, School Rules. Haaretz, retrieved from: https://www.haaretz.com. 17 April 2019
  68. Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). “Wherever you go, you will be a polis”: Spatial practices and political education in CSCL discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 184–225.Google Scholar
  69. Solli, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Hillman, T. (2018). Rendering controversial socioscientific issues legible through digital mapping tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13, 391–418.Google Scholar
  70. Stahl, G. (2015). Conceptualizing the intersubjective group. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 209–217.Google Scholar
  71. Stahl, G., Cress, U., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2014). Dialogic foundations of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 117–125.Google Scholar
  72. Towne, W. B., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2012). Design considerations for online deliberation systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115.Google Scholar
  73. Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science-Cambridge, 17(6), 476.Google Scholar
  74. Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: how dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.Google Scholar
  75. Venturini, T., & Latour, B. (2010). The social fabric: Digital traces and qual-quantatitive methods. Retrieved from www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/publications/Venturini_LatourThe_Social_Fabric.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2019
  76. Ward, A., Ross, L., Reed, E., Turiel, E., & Brown, T. (1997). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Values and Knowledge, 103–135.Google Scholar
  77. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  78. Wegerif, R. (2017). Introduction. Education, technology and democracy: Can internet-mediated education prepare the ground for a future global democracy? Civitas educationis. Education, Politics, and Culture, 6(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  79. Wells, C. (2015). The civic organization and the digital citizen: Communicating engagement in a networked age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467.Google Scholar
  81. Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 237–268.Google Scholar
  82. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research and practice. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook on research in science education (Vol. 1-II, pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.School of EducationThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations