Abstract
Small-group settings have been the object of intense research on their potential to boost cognitive development. Indeed, the quality of small-group discussions has led to impressive learning outcomes ranging from the promotion of critical thinking, to the promotion of social skills. Guidance is necessary, though. Research has shown that scaffolding—which is characterized by a progressive fading out, results in the appropriation of practices and norms instilled by the teacher to autonomous students in collaborative reasoning discussions. So far, research has focused on small groups taken out of the school, to the laboratory, and with instructors who are experts in their guidance. The following chapter presents a study in schools, in which working separately with small groups in consecutive activities, is part of the pedagogical approach. The teachers who participated in the study were inexperienced in scaffolding argumentation. The teachers participated in an 8-week long in-service program in which they reflected on their guidance of small-group discussions on texts around moral dilemmas. We show that the quality of guidance and of discussions progressively improved. We also show that these improvements have an epidemic effect in terms of both the guidance of the teacher and of the discussions in a whole-class context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all (pp. 170–186). New York: Guilford.
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S.-Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school (papers and reports on child language development no. 17). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.
Chinn, C., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. (2001). Patterns of discourse during two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 75, 265–272.
Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I., Kuo, L., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.
Kim, I.-H., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.
Kong, A., & Pearson, P. D. (2003). The road to participation: The construction of a literacy practice in a learning community of linguistically diverse learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 85–124.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Developing thinking and writing through dialog. Bronxville: Wessex Press.
Li, Y., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I., et al. (2007). Emergent leadership in children’s discussion groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 75–111.
Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 94–112.
Measurements in Effective Teaching: Final Reports (2013). Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.
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, 283–297.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., 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(3), 740–764.
Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children’s talk in classroom discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 113–136.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
Pollack, I., Segal, A., & Lefstein, A. (Eds.) (2015). Pedagogy in Israel: Activity and discourse in classrooms. Be’er Sheva: Laboratory for the Study of Pedagogy, Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Reznitskaya, A. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I.-H., & Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Learning to think well: Applications of argument schema theory. In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 196–213). New York: Guilford.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
Rodgers, E. (2004). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 501–532.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., et al. (2009). A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom communities. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 203–222). London: Routledge.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk: Sharpe.
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.
Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 19–40). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
Zhang, J., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Language-rich discussions for English language learners. Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwarz, B.B., Cohen, I., Ophir, Y. (2017). The Epidemic Effect of Scaffolding Argumentation in Small Groups to Whole-Class Teacher-Led Argumentation. In: Arcidiacono, F., Bova, A. (eds) Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59083-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59084-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)