Advertisement

Talking About Reasoning: How Important Is the Peer in Peer Collaboration?

  • Stephanie D. Teasley
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 160)

Abstract

Using data from two studies of scientific reasoning, this chapter explores whether transactive discussion is the basis of productive peer collaborations and questions what role the partner plays in the apparent effectiveness of this type of discussion. In the first study, dyads who engaged in transactive discussion showed more improvement than dyads who did not have transactive discussions. In the second study, both dyads and children working alone showed improvement related to talk in general. However, dyads produced more transactive types of talk and showed a more complex understanding of the problem that they generated more quickly. Having a partner was not a necessary or sufficient condition for producing transactive talk but increased likelihood that it would occur. The data from these studies suggest that the value of peer collaborations may be that the presence of a partner provides a natural context for elaborating one’s own reasoning.

Keywords

Scientific Reasoning Evidence Generation Private Speech Evidence Evaluation Green Olive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2, 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, M. W. (Ed.). (1985). New directions for child development: Peer conflict and psychological growth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the development of features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399–410.Google Scholar
  4. Bivens, J. A., & Berk, L. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the development of elementary school children’s private speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 443–463.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, A. R. (1961). Cognitive tuning a factor affecting impression formation. Journal of Personality, 29, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347–367.Google Scholar
  7. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, J. H., Stasser, G., Spitzer, C. E., & Holt, R. W. (1976). Changes in group members’ preferences during discussion: An illustration with mock juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1177–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaz, R. M., (1992). Methodological concerns in the study of private speech. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to s elf-regulation (pp. 55–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (Eds.). (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self- regulation . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, S., & Gauvain, M. (1992). Social and cultural influences on children’s collaborative interactions. In L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social contexts (pp. 155–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauvain, M., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Collaborative problem solving and children’s problem solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 25, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giles, H., & St. Clair, R. N. (Eds.). (1985). Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., & Fay, A. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test “bad” hypotheses. In J. Schräger & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of discovery and theory information. San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar
  18. Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruger, A. C. (1992). The effect of peer and adult-child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 191–211.Google Scholar
  20. Kruger, A. C., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults. Developmental Psychology, 22, 681–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D., & Brannock, J. (1977). Development of the isolation of variables scheme in experimental and “natural experiment” contexts. Developmental Psychology, 13, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Laughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Light, P., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1989). Social context effects in learning and testing. In A. Gellantly, D. Rogers, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Cognition and social worlds (pp. 99–112). Oxford, England: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published, 1932).Google Scholar
  25. Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E. DeCorte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: A publication of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. (Vol. 1, pp. 71–82). Oxford, England: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC: APA Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in networked organizations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 3, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teasley, S. D., & Resnick, L. B. (1993). Social influences and cognitive change: Peer collaboration in a causal reasoning task. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  32. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tudge, J. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63, 1364–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162–179). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The process of cognitive tuning in communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie D. Teasley
    • 1
  1. 1.Colaboratory for Research on Electronic Work (CREW)University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations