Conservation and Conversation Types: Forms of Recognition and Cognitive Development
Saved in:
| Title: | Conservation and Conversation Types: Forms of Recognition and Cognitive Development |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Psaltis, Charis, Duveen, Gerard |
| Source: | British Journal of Developmental Psychology. Mar 2007 25(1):79-102. |
| Availability: | British Psychological Society. St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7DR, UK. Tel: +44-116-254-9568; Fax: +44-116-227-1314; e-mail: enquiry@bps.org.uk; Web site: http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 24 |
| Publication Date: | 2007 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Violence, Interpersonal Relationship, Interaction, Cognitive Development, Cognitive Processes, Pretests Posttests, Children, Task Analysis, Interpersonal Communication, Recognition (Psychology), Conservation Education, Evaluation Methods |
| DOI: | 10.1348/026151005X91415 |
| ISSN: | 0261-510X |
| Abstract: | While the productive role of social interaction between peers in promoting cognitive development has been clearly established, the communicative processes through which this is achieved is less clearly understood. Earlier work has established that different types of conversation become established between children as they work together on a problem, and that these types have different implications for the progress of a non-conserver. The paper focuses on the forms of recognition that emerge within these different conversation types. It reports further analyses of a study in which 226 6.5- to 7.5-year-old children were presented with a Piagetian task of conservation of liquid. Conservers and non-conservers were asked to discuss in pairs their conflicting answers and agree upon a joint response. Cognitive progress was assessed by pre- to post-test gains. Analyses of the conversational moves made by each of the participants to the conversation indicates that both non-conservers and conservers not only make characteristic contributions, but that these contributions vary across the conversation types, and hence also relate differentially to the non-conserver's progress. More detailed qualitative analyses of the different conversation types provide insights into the ways in which different forms of recognition emerge through these interactions. These results are discussed in relation to a socio-cognitive account of development. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2011 |
| Accession Number: | EJ940058 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHn_PYinUnmPoBIm8T6ibESAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDwG70iNOHh_OPlOvwIBEICBmsa9yHc3vzL6i2huqCz8zKgUkU7vIst80OQrXkOV1W_hITS2jkXjzXRE9-lpwFqJYsgRNoRi0jaVPWeDaou0wCWuRRV5QGtqrQ8oY6Yo-PUYmxUlPkIvCXDDO2ZhWNe1072jD05flmqlRtK0dq_mdq7Ekw36k7g0NeadCBDfvEqY1O8BHy7e_aY_s5NtxKyU71OZvI8EaclSYJo= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0024371251;99e01mar.07;2019May29.11:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0024371251-1">Conservation and conversation types: Forms of recognition and cognitive development. </title> <p>While the productive role of social interaction between peers in promoting cognitive development has been clearly established, the communicative processes through which this is achieved is less clearly understood. Earlier work has established that different types of conversation become established between children as they work together on a problem, and that these types have different implications for the progress of a non‐conserver. The paper focuses on the forms of recognition that emerge within these different conversation types. It reports further analyses of a study in which 226 6.5‐ to 7.5‐year‐old children were presented with a Piagetian task of conservation of liquid. Conservers and non‐conservers were asked to discuss in pairs their conflicting answers and agree upon a joint response. Cognitive progress was assessed by pre‐ to post‐test gains. Analyses of the conversational moves made by each of the participants to the conversation indicates that both non‐conservers and conservers not only make characteristic contributions, but that these contributions vary across the conversation types, and hence also relate differentially to the non‐conserver's progress. More detailed qualitative analyses of the different conversation types provide insights into the ways in which different forms of recognition emerge through these interactions. These results are discussed in relation to a socio‐cognitive account of development.</p> <p>Conversations between children have long been recognized as providing a productive forum for stimulating cognitive growth. Following the original research of [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>], the focus for much of the subsequent research on the relations between social interaction and cognitive development has been on establishing a link between specific features of conversational interaction and cognitive progress for the interlocutors (see also [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref8">53</reflink>]). While this body of work has encompassed both Piagetian and Vygotskyian orientations, they have tended to emphasize different aspects of the socio‐cognitive process that leads from interaction to development.</p> <p>The paradigm of socio‐cognitive conflict, initiated in Geneva and emerging from both the early and late Piagetian work, emphasized the conflict of perspectives between children, whether they were at the same or different developmental levels ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]). A number of studies demonstrated that in interactions between conservers and non‐conservers, the conservers were more likely to persuade their partners than <emph>vice versa</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]). Characteristically, these experiments produced fairly brief interactions among the children, yet they also reported that the original non‐conservers were also likely to retain the gains made during the interaction on delayed post‐tests. In addition, these studies have also reported evidence of reorganization in children's thinking as a consequence of interaction, either through generalization to other tasks or through the appearance of novel arguments in the post‐tests (i.e. use of arguments that had not been heard during the interaction itself).</p> <p>Within the Vygotskyian perspective, the emphasis has been more on the process rather than the outcome, an emphasis which has also led to a greater reliance on more ethnographic forms of research. In looking at interactions between more and less capable peers, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>], for instance, suggested that verbalization of reasoning by both partners was a condition under which cognitive growth is more likely to occur during peer collaboration, and specifically that the more competent partner had to verbalize their reasoning and the less advanced child had to accept it. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>] identified three styles of interaction. The first was a parallel form in which there was no exchange. The second was an associative form in which children tried to exchange information but did not attempt to coordinate their roles. Finally, there was a 'cooperative' form, in which both children constantly monitored each other's work and played coordinated roles in carrying out the task. Cooperative interaction was associated with the most advanced cognitive operations in reaching solutions to the task. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>] introduced the idea of <emph>transactive discussions</emph> (defined as an exchange of speech acts in which the speaker re‐presents or actively operates on the reasoning of a co‐discussant) and Kruger, in a series of studies, reported that transactive discussions in both peer and mother‐daughter moral discussions was positively related to moral reasoning development ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]). Other research has also found that transactive discussions form a significant element in developmental progress resulting from collaborative interactions among children ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref26">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>The general picture emerging from this research is that in asymmetric interactions conservers are able to persuade their non‐conserving partners, resulting in developmental progress for the non‐conserving partner. A number of suggestions have been made that have linked this developmental progress to the interactional or behavioural style of the conserver. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>] reported that conservers were more likely to be assertive and to produce counter‐arguments in both the pre‐tests and the interaction. They claimed that a belief in conservation is typically held more firmly and with greater confidence than a belief in non‐conservation, which they saw as compatible with the Piagetian argument of equilibration and necessary knowledge (cf. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref28">51</reflink>]) and the implicational nature of operational structures.</p> <p>Miller and Brownwell's proposal suggests that it is not simply the contents of the conserver's arguments, but the way in which these are communicated through conversational or argumentative styles that is decisive for the construction of new knowledge. A second thread of argument has elaborated this position by considering these interactions between children as instances of social influence processes, and in particular, by relating them to features of [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref31">38</reflink>] genetic model of social influence. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>] linked the style of conservers with [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref34">37</reflink>] discussion of behavioural styles, arguing that what Moscovici described as the behavioural style of <emph>consistency</emph> was very close to the argumentative style of the conserver who, because of their operational grasp of the task, was more likely to provide constant support for their argument throughout the discussion. Other researchers ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]) have also suggested that these interactions between children be considered from the point of view of Moscovici's model of social influence processes, a connection that has also reflected the relationship between Moscovici's work and Piaget's theory (cf. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]). In Moscovici's theory, the capacity for minorities to generate change by influencing majorities is viewed as a function of the behavioural styles that they adopt. In his research, Moscovici was able to investigate the impact of different styles by operationalizing them in the ways in which his adult confederates interacted in experimental groups. However, the form of conversational interactions among children cannot be directly manipulated, and the identification of different styles has to be made from the analysis of observational records of children's spontaneous conversational interactions. Nevertheless, Moscovici's work is relevant both for its general theoretical orientation of considering cognitive change as a function of behavioural style, and for the way in which his descriptions of various cognitive styles can also aid the analysis of children's conversational interactions.</p> <p>To some degree, Moscovici's discussion of behavioural styles can be seen as related to [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref38">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref39">44</reflink>] distinction between social relations of cooperation, which foster the emergence and resolution of conflicts of centration and thus provide the context in which the child is able to reconstruct knowledge, and social relations of constraint in which knowledge is not reconstructed but simply accepted because of the prestige of the source. Piaget defines the relation of cooperation as 'reciprocity between autonomous individuals' ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref40">44</reflink>]). Piaget also emphasises the importance of reflection for cognitive development, which he sees as linked with relations of cooperation, and notes 'reflection is not spontaneous to individuals' (p. 234) but rather arises through social interaction, since the conscious realization of the methods and procedures of one's actions are less fruitful when an individual's action is not reflected in that of others; that is, when cooperation does not complete pure individuality (cf. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reflection is also central to Moscovici's account of the process of minority influence, where it was related specifically to the style of consistency, and could also be enhanced by fairness. Indeed, Piaget's descriptions of cooperation can be seen as a combination of the styles of consistency and fairness, and a feature of both Piaget's and Moscovici's proposals are that these forms of social relations are characterized by the absence of dogmatism and the importance of reciprocity and mutual respect (see [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). In the case of [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>], such respect is not willingly given by the majority to the minority, but rather has to be earned by the minority through the particular <emph>behavioural style</emph> that creates conflict, while not becoming rigid. In this sense, both cooperation and the styles of consistency and fairness are interactional forms in which there is a recognition of the conversational partner as a thinking, autonomous subject rather than a more instrumental recognition of the partner through the assertion of an asymmetrical status or power.</p> <p>The theme of social recognition also provides an important link with recent research arising from the Vygotskyian orientation, which has emphasized the co‐construction (cf. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref44">54</reflink>]) of knowledge and social relations by conversational partners through processes of meta‐communication in social interaction ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]), and which carries similar characteristics to Moscovici's notion of behavioural style that 'by spinning a web of rules and meanings, it transforms every information, every attitude, and every sign into an action directed towards or against someone or something' ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]). Co‐construction also implies mutual reciprocity in which the agency and autonomy of the other is recognized.</p> <p>While there is a rich vein of theoretical ideas here that seeks to relate features of the conversational interaction to developmental outcomes, relatively little empirical research has addressed these issues although there have been some efforts to link issues of awareness of the interlocutor as a thinking subject ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>]) and a better understanding of the other in argumentation ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]). However, this work emphasized the development of such awareness and skill <emph>per se</emph>, rather than the relation between the role of such awareness and recognition for the cognitive development of the partners.</p> <p>Indeed, understanding how and why some conversations lead to progress while others do not remains an open question, although recent work has suggested that the exploration of conditions of interaction that involve asymmetries of status as well as knowledge can provide clearer insights into the dynamics of identities and recognition. Such dynamics structure the formation of different conversational forms and behavioural styles, which, in turn, are differentially linked with cognitive progress. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]), for instance, have demonstrated the significance of social identities in structuring conversations between children. In their work, pairs of children who had initially given different responses to one of Piaget's moral judgment stories were observed working together on the same problem. Where girls took the autonomous position, they had to deploy a wider range of arguments with their heteronomous partners to persuade them (especially when they were boys), and hence these conversations also took considerably longer to arrive at an agreed solution.</p> <p>However, while this research was able to examine the dynamics of the conversations, the design did not include post‐tests so that it was not possible to relate conversational features to developmental outcomes. In later work ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref51">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref53">57</reflink>]), this question was addressed using a conservation of water task and included both control groups and post‐tests to assess developmental outcomes. While this study again found an influence of social identity on the form of the interaction between children, the link between different gender combinations in the pairs and developmental progress for the non‐conserver was not strong. However, a clearer link was found between the type of conversation established within a pair and developmental outcome. Four conversation types were identified: <emph>non‐conserving</emph>, where the non‐conserver was able to persuade their conserving partner; <emph>no resistance</emph>, where the non‐conserver simply accepted the conserving argument of their partner without stating their own point of view; <emph>resistance</emph>, where the non‐conserver supported their own view within the conversation before accepting the argument of their partner; and <emph>explicit recognition</emph>,1 where the original non‐conserver gave some explicit recognition of conservation within the conversation itself. Developmental progress was more commonly a feature of <emph>resistance</emph> and especially <emph>explicit recognition</emph> conversations, which were also notable as the only conversation type strongly linked to the appearance of novel arguments in the post‐test. While the gender composition of the pairs influenced the type of conversation that was established, it did not determine it. Rather, gender seemed to operate as a structural parameter for the interaction, but only one parameter among others, so that conversations could develop in a variety of ways. Some of this variability can be related to the complex forms in which gender figures in these conversational exchanges. We need to consider both the identification made by a child and the way in which they are identified by their partner. Social identity in this sense needs to encompass both identification and recognition (cf. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]). But recognition can come in different forms, which may or may not be congruent with the identities claimed which makes the emergence of resistance to particular positionings possible.</p> <p>Some of the interest in exploring these conversation types further is precisely that they embody different forms of recognition of the non‐conserver. Recognition, in this sense, emerges from the interaction between the children, and in presenting further analyses of this material in this paper, we first of all examine the contributions of each of the participants to the conversation, and the relation of these contributions to the progress of the non‐conservers. Secondly, we present a more detailed qualitative analysis of the different conversation types in order to explore at greater depth the various ways in which different forms of recognition emerge through the conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-2">Method</hd> <p>This study used a pre‐test, interaction, post‐test design (with a control group who did not participate in the interaction phase), characteristic of what [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>] described as the first generation of studies of social interaction and cognitive development. Children were pre‐tested on a conservation of water task, and subsequently combined into pairs according to their answers. Each pair was composed of a non‐conserver and a conserver, and, following the modification of this design introduced by [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>], this variable was crossed with gender to produce four pair‐types: male conserver and female non‐conserver (Mf), male conserver and male non‐conserver (Mm), female conserver and female non‐conserver (Ff) and female conserver and male non‐conserver (Fm). These conversations were videotaped and transcribed for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-3">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in this study were 226 children (120 male, 106 female). All were in the first grade of formal education (age range 6.5–7.5 years) and were drawn from five urban and suburban Greek‐Cypriot primary schools in Nicosia, Cyprus. On the basis of their pre‐test performance, children were combined into pairs for the experimental phase of the study. There were 168 children (84 pairs) who participated in the experimental phase, and children who had been assessed as non‐conservers in the pre‐test but did not participate in the interaction phase formed the control groups.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-4">Procedure</hd> <p>In the first pre‐test phase, all participants were required to give an independent response to a question about the conservation of the amount of liquid (Piaget's conservation of continuous quantity task; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The students had in front of them a jar, two identical glasses (A and B) and a tall glass (C), which was the transformation glass. Glasses A and B were 9 cm in diameter and 9 cm high, while the transformation glass was 6 cm in diameter and 16 cm high.</p> <p>The experimenter gave Glass B to the child and kept Glass A for himself. Then he said:</p> <p>This glass is yours and this is mine. The glasses as you can see are the same. What I would like us to do is to pour the same amount of water in our glasses because I would like us to have equal amount of water in our glasses to drink. I will take the jar and fill your glass up to the point of the water in my glass; you tell me when to stop so that we have the same amount of water!</p> <p>When the child said 'stop', the experimenter replied:</p> <p>Okay, so we have the same amount of water. We are going to pour your water in this glass (C).</p> <p>Then the experimenter poured the child's water in Glass C and said:</p> <p>I have a question for you. Is the water in this glass (A), my glass, equal with the water in that glass (C), your glass, or does one of the glasses have more water in it?</p> <p>Whatever the answer was – 'equal' or 'more in my glass' or 'more in your glass' – the experimenter demanded an explanation by saying 'Could you explain to me why you think so?'</p> <p>The second, social interaction, phase involved the combination of two participants into a conversation pair and took place on the same day as the pre‐test. Each pair consisted of participants who had given different independent responses in their pre‐tests. In this interaction phase, the children had in front of them the same material as for the pre‐test, and were asked the same question about whether the amount of water was equal, unequal or the same after the transformation. Each gave their answers to the experimenter in the presence of the other child. The sequence of asking the conserver and the non‐conserver for their answers was counterbalanced. The experimenter stressed the fact that their opinions differed and asked them to discuss the matter, reach an agreement and give a joint answer. The experimenter then withdrew from the room and asked the children to call him back when they had reached agreement with the following words 'I will now leave the room to let you discuss. Once you agree on an answer, please call me back'. The interactions were video‐recorded to allow transcription.</p> <p>The third and final phase consisted of a post‐test identical to the pre‐test, which took place a month after the first and second phase. All of the children who participated in the interaction phase, as well as those in the control groups, were assessed in the post‐test. Again, they were asked to give a reason for their answer. In addition, the children were also asked whether they had practised anything similar to this problem with their parents or anybody else since the day that the interaction had taken place. This question was aimed at detecting any intervention by parents during the period between the interaction and the post‐test, and enabled us to exclude from our analyses those children who reported any such experiences of practice. Following this procedure, the final sample for analysis was reduced to 70 pairs of children who participated in the experimental phase. The 14 pairs excluded were more or less evenly distributed across the four pair types, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) = 0.657, <emph>p</emph> =.883.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-5">Dependent variables</hd> <p>Two sets of measures were constructed, one to measure possible outcomes in terms of progress for the non‐conservers and the other to capture aspects of the behavioural style of the partners in the conversations.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-6">Outcome measures</hd> <p>Two measures were used. Firstly, a binary index of <emph>global progress</emph> indicating whether or not non‐conservers gave a conserving answer in the post‐test. Secondly, a binary index of <emph>progress with novelty</emph>, which coded whether or not children who showed global progress, also made use of a novel conservation explanation (identity, compensation, reversibility) in the post‐test; that is, an explanation that they had not been exposed to by the conserver during the interaction (cf. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-7">Conversational features</hd> <p>The videotaped conversations of the pairs were transcribed in the original greekcypriot dialect spoken by the children, and all of the analyses were undertaken in this language (the examples in the Appendix and the text are translated into English). Three continuous variables were derived from these transcripts.</p> <p>The first was the <emph>time taken</emph> for the pair to agree upon an answer, and the second, the <emph>total number of words</emph> said by each child. The third measure was a more refined index created through a detailed coding of the content of the transcripts of the discussions based on the use of a coding frame, which identified 18 broad conversational moves derived from a content analysis of the corpus of the discussions (see Appendix for a description of the moves and examples). Each utterance in the transcripts was assigned to one of the 18 mutually exclusive and exhaustive codes, except where the utterance contained more than one of these moves, in which case multiple codes were assigned to it (cf. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the basis of the conversational moves, the final measure, the <emph>percentage support for original position</emph>, was constructed which aimed at quantifying the density of argumentation and dedication to one's original view (given in the pre‐test) throughout the conversation. In the case of non‐conservers, this was derived by summing the moves in each transcript coded as (a) arguments of inequality (conversational Moves 6 to 8), (b) rebuttals and disclaimers of equality (conversational Moves 10 to 11) and (c) questions assuming non‐conservation (conversational Move 16). This sum was then divided by the total number of moves coded for each partner in order to create a percentage of the moves devoted to supporting their original position. For conservers, the index was created by taking the sum of Moves 1 to 5, 9 and 12 and dividing by the total number of moves coded in the conserver's speech.</p> <p>Inter‐rater reliability for the codes was determined by randomly selecting 20 of the transcribed conversations (23% of all the pairs) for coding by a second judge. Inter‐rater percentage agreement for acceptances, rebuttals and disclaimers ranged from 72% to 100% with a mean agreement of 93%. For questions, it ranged from 65% to 100% with a mean agreement 87% and for the 'other' category it was 100%. Cohen's kappa was very high (κ = 0.79, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-8">Conversation types as modalities of recognition</hd> <p>Analyses were also performed at a more molar level by taking the whole conversation as the unit of analysis. By avoiding the fragmented picture given by focusing on individual conversational features, this approach enabled the sequential exploration of modalities of recognition based on a coding scheme defined by three criteria. The first criterion of distinguishing modalities of recognition was the joint response given by each pair, which by itself, indicated that some kind of recognition was given by the yielding partner to the other in the form of accepting that the other's original viewpoint was correct and one's own original position was wrong irrespective of the motives behind the yielding. The first criterion partitioned the conversations into those that ended in a conserving joint solution (<emph>conserving</emph> in Figure 1, which as expected included the vast majority [84%] of the conversations) and the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> conversations. The very low number of non‐conserving conversations did not allow any meaningful application of further criteria and further partition between them, but the 11 cases (16% of the corpus of the conversations) were examined in detail to explore issues of recognition.</p> <p>Graph: 1 The coding frame for conversation types.</p> <p>The second criterion applied to the conserving conversations (59 in number) was whether the recognition of the conserving position by the original non‐conserver took a more explicit form; that is, whether they went beyond mere agreement with the conserving position, as a joint answer, in the last turn of the conversation. As indicators of <emph>explicit recognition</emph>, we took expressions of the <emph>a‐ha moment</emph> such as, 'Oh, now I understand!', 'I see, you are right!' (Move 17 in the Appendix) or moments where original non‐conservers appropriated and used conservation arguments themselves, either elaborated arguments or unelaborated general assertions (Moves 1 to 5). Usually, expressions of the <emph>a‐ha moment</emph> accompanied the use of elaborated or unelaborated conservation arguments. We identified 18 such <emph>explicit recognition</emph> conversations.</p> <p>The remaining 41 conversations where no <emph>explicit recognition</emph> was present were further divided according to the final criterion of whether non‐conservers had at least brought their original position into the open before submitting to the conserver's point of view. As support for the non‐conserving position, we took the Moves 6 to 8, 10 to 11 and 16 in the Appendix. There were 14 instances of what we termed <emph>no resistance</emph> and 27 instances of <emph>resistance</emph> where the non‐conserver gave some explicit support for their position. The application of all three criteria thus provided the basis for comparisons between four conversation types (<emph>non‐conserving, no resistance, resistance</emph> and <emph>explicit recognition</emph>).</p> <p>Inter‐rater agreement for the four conversation types was excellent (Cohen's κ = 0.82, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001) and was determined by randomly selecting 18 out of the transcribed conversations (25% of the total of 70 conversations) for coding by a second judge.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-9">Results</hd> <p>The focus of interest here is to characterize the different forms of recognition emerging within these conversations among peers, and subsequently to consider how these may be linked to cognitive progress. Our analysis is primarily descriptive, but it begins with some quantitative analysis of variations among the four conversation types and of the use of specific conversational moves. Subsequently, we turn to a more qualitative analysis of conversations in order to explore forms of recognition as they occur within the complex interplay of these interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-10">Conversation types</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0024371251-11">Profile of conversation types</hd> <p>Global progress varied across the conversation types, from 0% in the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> type, through 50% in <emph>no resistance</emph> and 41% in <emph>resistance</emph> to 89% in <emph>explicit recognition</emph> (for the control group, the proportion of children showing progress on the post‐test was 16%). When we examine the content of these different conversation types, a simple indicator of the variation among them is the average time taken by the pairs to arrive at agreement about the task, shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>A one‐way ANOVA was significant, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>, 66) = 6.02, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, and <emph>post hoc</emph> Bonferroni tests (<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05) showed that <emph>no resistance</emph> took significantly less time than <emph>resistance</emph> and <emph>explicit recognition</emph>. Something of the nature of the different length of the conversation types can be identified through analyses of the contributions of each of the two partners to the conversation as a whole. Table 2 presents analyses of the average number of words spoken by each partner and of the percentage support for their original position.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>A 4 (conversation type)×2 (number of words of non‐conserver vs. number of words of conserver) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, to take into account the non‐independence between the two partners, revealed a main effect for both conversation type, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>, 66) = 4.32, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01, and for the repeated factor, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>, 66) = 21.48, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, indicating that conservers (<emph>M</emph> = 34.39) spoke more than non‐conservers (<emph>M</emph> = 20.32). A significant interaction effect, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>, 66) = 9.32, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, however, showed that this difference varied across the conversation types. Analysis of simple main effects revealed that conservers talked significantly more than non‐conservers in the <emph>resistance</emph> and <emph>no resistance</emph> conversation type (Table 2), but not in the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> and the <emph>explicit recognition</emph> type where the discussions were more balanced resulting in no significant differences.</p> <p>A similar two‐way ANOVA was performed on the more refined measure of percentage of support for original position (see Table 2) after an arcsine transformation was applied on the percentages.2 There was again both a main effect of the repeated factor, (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>, 66) = 28.74, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001; mean for conservers = 0.62, mean for non‐conservers = 0.39) and a significant interaction, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>, 66) = 30.05, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001. Analysis of simple main effects revealed that conservers supported their original position more than non‐conservers in the <emph>resistance, no resistance</emph> and <emph>explicit recognition</emph> conversation types, while in the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> type, it was the non‐conserver who supported their position more than the conserver.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-12">Conversational moves</hd> <p>The analyses so far have employed a global measure of the conversation as a whole, but it is also possible to explore the specific conversational moves within the conversations made by both non‐conservers and conservers.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-13">Moves by non‐conservers</hd> <p>A first analysis simply compared the presence or absence of specific conversational moves, during the interaction, according to whether or not the non‐conserving partner made progress on the post‐test (see Table 3). Non‐conservers who used the <emph>compensation argument, acceptance of equality argument</emph> or <emph>a‐ha moments</emph> were <emph>more</emph> likely to make progress than non‐conservers who did not. Indeed, while some non‐conservers who did not use these conversational moves made progress, every child who did use one of these conversational moves made progress. On the contrary, non‐conservers who used the <emph>general assertion of inequality</emph> were <emph>less</emph> likely to make progress than non‐conservers who did not, although, as the table indicates, some non‐conservers who used this conversational move nevertheless made progress.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In Table 4, the use of <emph>acceptance of equality argument</emph> and <emph>general assertion of inequality</emph> is broken down according to conversation type.3 It is important to note that both moves are unequally distributed in the four conversation types, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) = 19.94, <emph>p</emph> =.0001 for <emph>general assertion of inequality</emph> and χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>) = 11.97, <emph>p</emph> =.007 for <emph>acceptance of equality</emph>. Further pairwise comparisons of the proportions of use/no use in each conversation type with Fisher's tests and the relevant Bonferroni adjustments (<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05) reveal that the use of <emph>general assertion of inequality</emph> was used significantly more often in the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> type than in both the <emph>no resistance</emph> and the <emph>explicit recognition</emph> type. <emph>Acceptance of equality</emph> was significantly more likely to be used in the <emph>no resistance</emph> than the <emph>non‐conserving type.</emph> The results from Tables 3 and 4 read in conjunction suggest that the use of compensation argument by non‐conservers during the interaction is one of the stronger indicators of progress as it reveals that a process of co‐ordination of perspectives is taking place during the interaction. The <emph>a‐ha</emph> expressions also seem a spontaneous and non‐contrived form to signal understanding at this age and is a good indicator of re‐claiming a knowledge handicap that exists at the beginning of the interaction. On the contrary, the link between mere acceptance of an equality argument and progress seems less robust as it can also indicate compliance. Finally, it is worth commenting that an unelaborated general assertion of inequality, which indicates a form of argument that [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>] called <emph>primitive</emph>, is clearly linked with a conversation type where none of the non‐conservers showed any progress (see [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref71">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-14">Moves by conservers</hd> <p>It is also interesting to examine the link between the use of specific conversational moves by conservers and progress made by their non‐conserving partners on the post‐test. Again, a first analysis compared progress by the non‐conserver with the presence or absence of each of the conversational moves by the conserver. Of the 18 conversational moves, 2 proved to be significant.</p> <p> <emph>Other argument</emph> (Move 5 in the Appendix) is a form of counter‐argument that drew the non‐conserver's attention to a discrepancy between the visual appearance of the water levels in the glasses and the underlying reality of conservation, made after the non‐conserver expressed his or her non‐conserving position, by saying 'it looks more but it isn't' or 'it makes no difference if it is higher'. The use of such arguments made progress for the non‐conserver <emph>more likely</emph> (see Table 5). Specifically, the odds for the partners of conservers who made use of such arguments to make progress were 4.95 times the odds of those whose partners did not use these arguments, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) = 6.99, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>The distribution of the use of this argument was notably uneven across the conversation types, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>) = 9.05, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.054 (see Table 6). As Table 6 indicates, the use of such arguments was almost wholly confined to <emph>resistance</emph> and <emph>explicit recognition</emph> conversations (resistance + explicit recognition vs. non‐conserving + no resistance, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) = 8.70, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01), suggesting that such an argument was more likely to be used in more open and less constrained discussions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>The use of <emph>procedural questions</emph> (Move 15) also indicated a tendency to benefit the non‐conserver. However, as this category was somewhat heterogeneous, the largest subset of this category was extracted and treated as a conversational move on its own. These were <emph>question to evaluate the other's general understanding</emph>, and, as Table 5 indicates, the use of such questions was very clearly linked to progress by the non‐conserver. Out of 11 non‐conservers whose partner used this type of procedural question, only 1 failed to make progress, odds ratio = 14.58, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) = 9.36, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01. Again, the distribution of the use of this type of question varied across the conversation types, although in a non‐significant manner (Table 6), and interestingly, found almost exclusively in the <emph>no resistance</emph> and <emph>resistance conversation types</emph>. Since all but one of the non‐conservers exposed to this kind of question made progress, we can safely conclude that it was used as a strategic resource for conservers when their partners did not explicitly recognize conservation, which led non‐conservers to some implicit reflection and co‐ordination of perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-15">Qualitative analysis</hd> <p>A more qualitative approach provides a better understanding of the richness of each conversation type, as well as a clearer sense of how the particular conversational features of the conservers identified as significant often contributed to the establishment of modalities of recognition.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-16">Non‐conserving</hd> <p>A more detailed examination of the 11 transcripts of the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> discussions revealed that 8 out of 11 of these discussions were very short. The majority of the conservers, 6 out of 11, did not support their original position even once. However, the vast majority of them, 9 out of 11, regained their conserving level in the post‐test, suggesting that such discussions were largely the re‐establishment of a relation of social constraint between the two partners introduced by factors related to other sources of asymmetry such as gender or academic reputation (in fact, the majority of the non‐conservers who won the argument, 7 out of 11, were considered academically stronger students in comparison to their partners by their teachers, and girl conservers were twice as likely as boys to submit to the non‐conserver's view).</p> <p>A revealing symptom of the constraint prevailing in these conversations is that in some of them, the non‐conserver moved to force an ending to the conversation by underlining the need for agreement. In the examples of <emph>non‐conserving</emph> discussions that follow, this urgency for premature closure can be seen in Turn 8 in Example 1 and Turn 5 in Example 2. In another case, the non‐conserver used the experimenter as an epistemic authority to win the argument from the start by saying, 'I told Mr. Charis that they have equal and he told me I was right!' (although this statement was inaccurate either because the child misunderstood the experimenter's reactions as verification of his position or because he chose to lie in order to convince his partner).</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-17">Example 1: In Mf 5 dyad: Non‐conserving</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 C: This is bigger ... my glass is bigger.</item> <p></p> <item> 2 N: Yes, but mine is smaller than yours.</item> <p></p> <item> 3 C: The water is equal!</item> <p></p> <item> 4 N: No ... This is more</item> <p></p> <item> 5 C: The water here is equal with yours because if we pour it in there it will be the same.</item> <p></p> <item> 6 N: It isn't ... This is small</item> <p></p> <item> 7 C: Yes but the glass is bigger...</item> <p></p> <item> 8 N: That means that the water is more ... Do you agree? ... Do we agree? ... (long pause).</item> <p></p> <item> 9 EXP: What did you agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 10 N: That his glass is bigger and he has more ...</item> <p></p> <item> 11 EXP: Do you both agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 12 C: Yes.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024371251-18">Example 2: In Ff dyad: Non‐conserving</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 N: This has more right?</item> <p></p> <item> 2 C: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 3 N: This has more ... that glass has less because is smaller.</item> <p></p> <item> 4 C: Yes but ... this glass is narrower.</item> <p></p> <item> 5 N: This has more ... should we call him?</item> <p></p> <item> 6 C: Okay, call him...</item> <p></p> <item> 7 N: Come!</item> <p></p> <item> 8 C: What did you agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 9 N: This is more</item> <p></p> <item> 10 C: ... more.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024371251-19">No resistance</hd> <p>Constraint is also characteristic of the <emph>no resistance</emph> conversations, although this time, it is exercised by the conserver. As can be seen in Example 3, conservers do not leave much space for the non‐conserver to be given any kind of recognition, except a kind of <emph>instrumental recognition</emph> as the conserving child seeks to find agreement in order to meet the requirements of the task set by the experimenter. In this type of conversation, it is nearly always the conservers who initiate the discussion and then in a condensed and consistent manner support their view. Two discursive features are notable in Turn 3 in Example 3. First, the conserver frames the conversation in a highly structured way in which the non‐conserver's contribution is anticipated, as though they were simply being asked to fill in the conversational slots generated by the conserver. This type of conversation occurred most frequently between male conservers and female non‐conservers (cf. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>]), suggesting that gender asymmetry contributes to the establishment of this form of constraint.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-20">Example 3: In Mf dyad: No resistance</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 C: Wasn't this (water in Glass C) equal a while ago, when he poured it?</item> <p></p> <item> 2 N: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 3 C: This is a tall glass and that's why they are equal should we call him?</item> <p></p> <item> 4 N: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 5 C: (opens the door and calls the experimenter back)</item> <p></p> <item> 6 EXP:(experimenter comes back to the room) what did you agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 7 N: Equal</item> <p></p> <item> 8 C: Equal.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024371251-21">Resistance</hd> <p> <emph>Resistance</emph> is a less constrained conversation type than the previous two since, by definition, the non‐conservers support their original non‐conserving position. Nevertheless, as Table 2 indicates, the difference in contribution between the two partners is quite large. In fact, 77% of the conservers in this conversation type support their conserving view more than three times during the course of the conversation, indicating the extended character of the conflict, which also results in longer conversations (see Table 1). What kind of conflict emerges in these conversations and how is it resolved? Generally, in these conversations, it is indeed a socio‐cognitive conflict ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]) that emerges in which different points of view are clearly expressed. In these conversations, the conserver also provides some clearer invitation for the non‐conserver to reflect on the problem, indicating there is also a clearer recognition of the non‐conserver as a thinking agent. Both of these features can be seen in Example 4, where the conserver can also be observed introducing more elaborated conserving arguments in Turn 11 in response to the non‐conserver's repeated assertion of inequality, until the original non‐conserver agrees on conservation.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-22">Example 4: In Fm dyad: Resistance</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 C: They are equal. They are equal! I say they are equal, equal</item> <p></p> <item> 2 N: No they are not!</item> <p></p> <item> 3 C: They are equal!</item> <p></p> <item> 4 N: But yours is here (points to the level of water)</item> <p></p> <item> 5 C: equal</item> <p></p> <item> 6 N: and mine [is</item> <p></p> <item> 7 C: [equal</item> <p></p> <item> 8 N: Here! (points to the level of the water in the transformation Glass C)</item> <p></p> <item> 9 C: But they are equal! Equal! We had both glasses and they were equal</item> <p></p> <item> 10 N: Mine is up to here and yours is up to here (points to the level of water in Glass C and Glass A)</item> <p></p> <item> 11 C: But they are the same! It's just that the glass is bigger and it can take more, that's why</item> <p></p> <item> 12 N: Okay, should we tell him?</item> <p></p> <item> 13 C: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 14 N: Come!</item> <p></p> <item> 15 EXP: What did you agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 16 N: Equal</item> <p></p> <item> 17 C: Equal.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024371251-23">Explicit recognition</hd> <p>As Table 2 indicates, the contribution of each partner to this type of conversation is more balanced, although as one would expect, the original non‐conserver shows much less support for their original position. In fact, three variants of this type of conversation could be identified. In a few, 4 out of 17, the non‐conserving child actually began the conversation by adopting a conserving position, presumably due to spontaneous progress between the pre‐test and interaction phases. In 6 conversations, explicit recognition came after the non‐conserving child had not only been exposed to a conserving argument, but had also resisted it at least once by supporting their original position, a type illustrated in Example 5.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-24">Example 5: In Mm dyad: Explicit recognition</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 C: What should we do? Should we say the same? That we have the same?</item> <p></p> <item> 2 N: No, I have more, you have less.</item> <p></p> <item> 3 C: But, this is taller and that is wider ... it's the same...</item> <p></p> <item> 4 N: It's the same thing ....</item> <p></p> <item> 5 C: No ... this is short, its small...</item> <p></p> <item> 6 N: That is small, but is wider ... If we put it in here, it will be the same! That means it's the same!</item> <p></p> <item> 7 C: Should we say that it's the same?</item> <p></p> <item> 8 N: Okay</item> <p></p> <item> 9 EXP: Did You agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 10 C: Yes, it's the same water</item> <p></p> <item> 11 N: Yes.</item> </ulist> <p>In this example, questioning by the conserver invites the non‐conserver to take responsibility for the task and provides an opportunity for reflection. The initial resistance of the non‐conserver fades as the conserver re‐states their argument. By Turn 6, the non‐conserver has taken advantage of the opportunity for reflection by providing a clear argument for conservation, leading to agreement with their partner.</p> <p>Finally, in seven conversations, explicit recognition came after the non‐conserver was exposed to a conservation argument by their partner. In Example 6, the turn‐by‐turn construction of the joint solution is mostly controlled by the conserver. The conservation argument is skilfully built. The non‐conserver contributes to the building of the argument by answering the questions of the conserver who asks questions that draw the non‐conserver into reflection. Here there is clearly recognition of N as a thinking subject by C, who is looking for recognition of their own arguments. In Turn 8, N explicitly recognizes conservation (it might be argued that this is beginning to happen from Turn 4). It is worth noting that it is N in Turn 10 who decides to close the discussion, a strategy that may also be an effort by N to regain some measure of control over a conversation in which they had earlier accepted their partner's point of view.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-25">Example 6: In Fm dyad: Explicit recognition</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1 C: This glass (Glass C) had the same water with that one (Glass B) right?</item> <p></p> <item> 2 N: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 3 C: This glass (Glass B) had equal water with that one (Glass A) right? As we have said here, it's the same when we poured it in here (Glass C) should we have more?</item> <p></p> <item> 4 N: No ... so the glass is bigger</item> <p></p> <item> 5 C: Yes, only the glass is bigger</item> <p></p> <item> 6 N: Yes</item> <p></p> <item> 7 C: Therefore, is it more in here or are they equal?</item> <p></p> <item> 8 N: Equal, it looks more because the glass is bigger</item> <p></p> <item> 9 C: Yes!</item> <p></p> <item> 10 N: Okay</item> <p></p> <item> 11 C: Come! (calls the experimenter)</item> <p></p> <item> 12 EXP: What did you agree?</item> <p></p> <item> 13 N: Equal</item> <p></p> <item> 14 C: Equal</item> <p></p> <item> 15 N: It's just that her glass (Glass C) is bigger.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0024371251-26">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this paper has been to introduce the idea of recognition as a mechanism of cognitive development. It could be argued that a central feature of conversation around an object in a subject‐object‐other triangle is the construction of identity as the dual process of being recognized and identification ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]). We identified conversational types and more refined conversational features that are linked with different dimensions of recognition. The latter can be shown to be related to the Piagetian distinction between relations of cooperation and relations of constraint.</p> <p>Before turning to the detail of different types of conversation, it is worth considering the general effect of these kinds of conversations. As in earlier work (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref82">39</reflink>]), this research has shown the effectiveness, for some children at least, of participating in such interactions, even though the interactions themselves may be relatively brief. Such brevity was not only a feature of the earlier research, but also of more recent work in this field (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref83">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref84">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]), and may be related to the nature of the task and the instructions set by the experimenter. In these studies, the experimental design scaffolds the conversation and may facilitate a clear focus for the children, especially when there is an explicit instruction for the children to reach a joint agreement. In more naturalistic observations of children interacting with one another, discussions are characteristically more diffuse and longer. However, it is not the length of a problem‐solving session that makes it a better or worse arena for cognitive progress, but rather the nature and structure of the microgenetic process, which contributes to the stability of newly acquired knowledge and the possible emergence of novelty. In this study, as with the earlier research, the crucial evidence is not the immediate benefit for children, but the longer‐term development assessed by the delayed post‐test. It may well be that what is developmentally productive is not so much the concrete experience of the interaction itself, though this is no doubt important, but the opportunity that this experience provides for continued reflection after the interaction or the enhancement of possibilities for new encounters with relevant objects once recognition has been granted by the other during the interaction. In their work [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref86">20</reflink>] also report what they describe as <emph>incubation</emph> effects, in which progress may appear in the period following interaction rather than being immediately apparent.</p> <p>The first two types of conversation we identified, <emph>non‐conserving</emph> and <emph>no resistance</emph>, are quite similar. Both seem to be instances in which one child is able to assert some form of authority in the conversation that constrains their partner. In both cases, the active partner asserts their authority by limiting the conversational space open to their partner, a move which also has the effect of limiting any recognition of the partner as an autonomous, thinking subject. It is one thing for authority to be asserted, of course, but the form of these conversations is also shaped by their partner's recognition of this authority, a recognition that confirms the active partner as a thinking subject. In this sense, the compliant partner returns what [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>] describes as a <emph>surplus meaning</emph> to the active partner, which stabilizes the social relation of constraint. In both cases, the active child tends to offer their partner only a kind of instrumental recognition; their assent is necessary to complete the task set by the experimenter and to bring the conversation to a close. The active partner appears able to mobilize some resource of authority, such as gender or academic reputation, which, while it may not be germane to the issue of conservation, is nevertheless persuasive in the conversational encounter. In the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> conversations, it is the non‐conserver who is able to exploit such asymmetries, while in the <emph>no resistance</emph> conversations it is the conserver. These structural asymmetries are linked to the asymmetry of recognition in the conversation, so that the active child acquires recognition as a thinking subject, while the more compliant child acquires only instrumental recognition. Interestingly, these conversation types seem to leave only limited residues for the participants. In the case of the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> conversations, most of the conservers regain their conserving status in the post‐test, while none of the non‐conservers shows progress. For the <emph>no resistance</emph> conversations, half of the non‐conservers remain non‐conservers in the post‐test. In the case of those non‐conservers who do show progress following a <emph>no resistance</emph> conversation, it was notable that novelty was almost entirely absent from their post‐test interview (see [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref88">47</reflink>]). Thus, even where children achieve some measure of progress through this conversation type, the form of recognition present in the conversational interaction seems to militate against a deeper engagement with the problem.</p> <p>Both of the other two types of conversations, <emph>resistance</emph> and <emph>explicit recognition</emph>, generate exchanges in which both partners achieve recognition as thinking subjects. For the original non‐conserver, participation in such forms of conversation is frequently a stimulus for reflection that leads to progress, and in the case of <emph>explicit recognition</emph>, often even to the point of constructing novel arguments in the post‐test. In short, compared with the more constrained conversations of the <emph>non‐conserving</emph> and <emph>no Resistance</emph> types, both of these conversation types seem to be more oriented towards social relations of cooperation ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref89">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref90">44</reflink>]). However, as well as this similarity, there are also some differences between these two types of conversations. In the <emph>resistance</emph> type, the lack of constraint allows both the viewpoint of the non‐conserver and the conserver to come into the open, so that an explicit socio‐cognitive conflict becomes possible. A form of mutual recognition as thinking subjects seems more likely in this conversation type but there is controversy over which of the two thinking subjects has the correct solution. The conflict in these conversations can escalate into dogmatism and what Piaget called <emph>primitive argument</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref91">41</reflink>]), thus reducing the prospects for cognitive progress ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>]). But they can also modulate towards a more constructive form in which the conserver's recognition of the non‐conserver as a thinking subject may promote reflection and cognitive progress. The role of the conserver in channelling the conversation in this direction is evident in their use of <emph>procedural questions</emph> such as 'do you understand?' or the of <emph>other arguments</emph> such as 'it looks more but it isn't'. These conversational moves function as acts of recognition that promote mutual respect while dogmatism retreats. In both these cases, the conserver addresses the non‐conserver as a thinking subject, rather than simply as an instrumental vehicle for the completion of the task. For the conserver, the path to bringing the conversation to a satisfactory conclusion following the non‐conserver's initial resistance lies through trying to influence the non‐conserver to arrive at an understanding of conservation. However, recognition in this conversation type often seems to be limited to the extent of socio‐cognitive conflict and amount of dogmatism and primitive argument involved, since slightly less than half of the original non‐conservers (41%) sustained the understanding of conservation in the post‐test, and very few of those who did so produced novel arguments ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref93">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the <emph>explicit recognition</emph> type of conversation is very close to an ideal form of cooperation and the sense of co‐construction that this implies. The fact that there is explicit recognition of conservation by the original non‐conserver creates a form of mutual recognition, which [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref94">48</reflink>] would call an inter‐subjectivity as a temporarily shared world where both interlocutors know that the other knows the same thing that they themselves know, or which [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>] described as the completion of the act. For this to happen, the conserving partner, during the course of the interaction, must give arguments contingent to those given by the non‐conservers, in order to demonstrate that they are taking into account the non‐conserver's point of view. Questions such as 'do you follow?' or 'do you understand?' show sensitivity to the other's participation and promote more 'central' rather than 'peripheral' participation ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref97">55</reflink>]) by providing a form of recognition to the original non‐conserver that he or she is a thinking subject that needs to contribute to the elaboration of the task. <emph>Explicit recognition</emph> is more likely to lead to progress and novelty than any of the other conversation types ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref98">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>As this summary suggests, the forms of recognition that emerge in these conversations are best understood as collective achievements in a dyadic interaction. Even where the forms of recognition that emerge are asymmetrical, with one child achieving recognition as a thinking subject while the other remains limited to a kind of instrumental recognition, the more compliant child is nevertheless also contributing to stabilizing this asymmetry of recognition. Where a more symmetrical form of recognition emerges, in which both children acquire recognition as a thinking subject, it does so both because the non‐conserving child supports their initial position and because the conserving child addresses their point of view.</p> <p>The present findings suggest that recognition is a central mechanism of psychological development as a social process (cf. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref99">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref100">46</reflink>]). In the transition from other‐regulation to auto‐regulation, it facilitates the non‐conserver taking responsibility for the task and assuming control over some of the problem space through their own agency and autonomy, which [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref101">42</reflink>] originally suggested as a feature of relations of cooperation. However, our analyses have indicated that such cooperation is better understood as the product of interaction, which is often achieved on the basis of an initial asymmetrical relation. The present findings turn our attention to the importance of exploring further the asymmetries in peer culture that might promote or hinder the particular forms of recognition embedded in different conversation types identified in the present paper. As well as gender, other asymmetries that might influence the formation of different conversation types include academic reputation, peer popularity and social class.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We are grateful to the schools, teachers and especially the children who agreed to participate in this study. This research was supported by a Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and Corpus Christi College research studentship awarded to Charis Psaltis. We would also like to thank Martyn Barrett and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a previous version of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0024371251-28">Appendix: The coding frame</hd> <p></p> <ref id="AN0024371251-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>1</sups>Recognition in the term explicit recognition refers to recognition of the other's representation of the task and not the social aspects of recognition that we also intend to explore in the present paper, although, of course, the two types of recognition are inextricably intertwined.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>2</sups>The untransformed means are reported in Table 2 and the text. Note that the same significant findings were found with and without the transformation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref41" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>3</sups>The use of compensation argument and a‐ha moments by non‐conservers are not included in the table as they are only found in the explicit recognition type.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>4</sups>More than 20% of the cells had expected frequencies of less than 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>5</sups>In Mf, the 'M' stands for the male conserver (C) and 'f' for the female non‐conserver (N). Similarly, for Mm, Ff and Fm, the capital stands for the conserver (C) and the lower case for the non‐conserver (N).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0024371251-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ames, G. J., Murray, F. B. When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict Developmental Psychology 18 894 – 897 1982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkowitz, M. W., Gibbs, J. C. Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 29 399 – 410 1983.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpendale, J. I. M., Müller, U. Social interaction and the development of rationality and morality: An introduction Carpendale, J. I. M., Müller, U. Social interaction and the development of knowledge 1 – 18 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 2004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, M., McBride, M. L. The education of reason: Cognitive conflict and its role in intellectual development Shantz, C. U., Hartup, W. W. Conflict in child and adolescent development 36 – 69 New York: Cambridge University Press 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doise, W., Mugny, G. The social development of the intellect Oxford: Pergamon 1984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Doise, W., Mugny, G., Pérez, J. A. The social construction of knowledge, social marking and sociocognitive conflict Flick, U. The psychology of the social 77 – 90 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Doise, W., Mugny, G., Perret‐Clermont, A. N. Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations European Journal of Social Psychology 5 367 – 383 1975.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref99" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Duveen, G. Psychological development as a social process Smith, L., Dockrell, J., Tomlinson, J. P. Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond 67 – 90 London: Routledge 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Duveen, G. Genesis and structure: Piaget and Moscovici Bushini, F., Kalampalikis, N. Penser la vie le social, la nature. Mélagnes en l'honneur de Serge Moscovici Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme 2001a.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duveen, G. Representations, identity, resistance Deaux, K., Philogene, G. Representations of the social 257 – 270 Oxford: Blackwell 2001b.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emler, N., Glachan, M. Apprentissage et developpement cognitif Mugny, G. Psychologie sociale du developpement cognitif 71 – 92 Bern: Peter Lang 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleiss, J. L. Statistical methods for rates and proportions New York: Wiley 1981.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fogel, A., Branco, A. U. Meta‐communication as a source of indeterminism in relationship development Fogel, A., Lyra, M., Valsiner, J. Dynamics and indeterminism in developmental and social processes 65 – 92 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman, E., Cazden, C. Exploring vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction Wertsch, J. Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garton, A. F. Social interaction and the development of language and cognition, essays in developmental psychology Hove, UK: Erlbaum 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garton, A., Pratt, C. Peer assistance in children's problem solving British Journal of Developmental Psychology 19 307 – 318 2001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie, A. (2004). Returning surplus: Constructing the architecture of intersubjectivity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glachan, M., Light, P. Peer interaction and learning: Can two wrongs make a right? Butterworth, G., Light, P. Social cognition: Studies in the development of understanding 238 – 262 Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, D. M., Tudge, J. R. H. Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning O'Donnell, A. M., King, A. Cognitive perspecitves on peer learning 39 – 65 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe, C., McWilliam, D., Cross, G. Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration British Journal of Psychology 96 67 – 93 2005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe, C., Tolmie, A. Productive interaction in the context of computer‐supported collaborative learning in science Littleton, K., Light, P. Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction 24 – 45 London: Routledge 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruger, A. C. The effect of peer and adult‐child transactive discussions on moral reasoning Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 38 191 – 211 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruger, A. C., Tomasello, M. Transactive discussions with peers and adults Developmental Psychology 22 681 – 685 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, D., Udell, W. The development of argument skills Child Development 74 1245 – 1260 2003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press 1991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leman, P. J., Duveen, G. Developmental differences in children's understanding of epistemic authority European Journal of Social Psychology 26 683 – 702 1996.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leman, P. J., Duveen, G. Representations of authority and children's moral reasoning European Journal of Social Psychology 29 557 – 575 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leman, P. J., Duveen, G. Gender identity, social influence and children's conversations Swiss Journal of Psychology 62 3 223 – 235 2003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, P., Littleton, K. Social processes in children's learning: Cambridge studies in cognitive and perceptual development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marková, I. A three‐step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue Marková, I., Foppa, C. The dynamics of dialogue 129 – 146 Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1990.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mead, G. H. Mind, self &amp; society. From the standpoint of a social behaviourist Chicago: Chicago Press (Original work published 1934) 1967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miell, D., MacDonald, R. Children's creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition Social Development 9 348 – 369 2000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, S., Brownell, C. Peers, persuasion, and piaget: Dyadic interaction between conservers and nonconservers Child Development 46 992 – 997 1975.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, J. B. Acquisition of conservation through social interaction Developmental Psychology 6 1 – 6 1972.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, J. B. Equilibration as cognitive conflict Developmental Review 3 54 – 61 1983.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moscovici, S. Social influence and social change London: Academic Press 1976.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moscovici, S. Towards a theory of conversion behaviour Berkowitz, L. Advances in experimental psychology 13 209 – 239 London: Academic Press 1980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moscovici, S. Social influence and conformity Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. Handbook of social psychology 2 347 – 412 New York: McGraw‐Hill 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perret‐Clermont, A. N. Social interaction and cognitive development in children London: Academic Press 1980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perret‐Clermont, A. N. What is it that develops? Cognition and instruction 3–4 197 – 205 1993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. The language and thought of the child London: Routledge (Original work published 1923) 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child London: Routledge 1932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. The child's conception of number London: Routledge (Original work published 1941) 1952.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. Sociological studies New York: Routledge 1995.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psaltis, C. (2005a). Communication and the construction of knowledge or transmission of belief: The role of conversation type, behavioural style and social recognition Studies in Communication Sciences, 5, 209 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psaltis, C. (2005b). Social relations and cognitive development: The influence of conversation types and representations of gender. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psaltis, C., Duveen, G. (2006). Social relations and cognitive development: The influence of conversation type and representations of gender European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 407 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rommetveit, R. The role of language in the creation and transmission of social representations Farr, R. M., Moscovici, S. Social representations 331 – 360 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, I. W., Geringer, E. Dyadic interaction and conservation induction: A test of Piaget's equilibration model Child development 44 815 – 820 1973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, I. W., Stone, J. Modyfying cognitive functioning through participation in a problem‐solving group Journal of Educational Psychology 63 603 – 608 1972.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. Necessary knowledge: Piagetian perspectives on constructivism Hove, UK: Erlbaum 1993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tudge, J. Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis Child Development 63 1364 – 1379 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tudge, J., Rogoff, B. Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives Bornstein, M., Bruner, J. Interaction in human development Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1989.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valsiner, J. The guided mind. A sociogenetic approach to personality Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. Communities of practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. M., Tolmie, A. Conceptual change in biology: Group interaction and the understanding of inheritance British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18 625 – 649 2000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zittoun, T., Duveen, G., Gillespie, A., Ivinson, G., Psaltis, C. The use of symbolic resources in developmental transitions Culture and Psychology 9 415 – 448 2003.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Charis Psaltis and Gerard Duveen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref97"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ940058 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Conservation and Conversation Types: Forms of Recognition and Cognitive Development – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Psaltis%2C+Charis%22">Psaltis, Charis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Duveen%2C+Gerard%22">Duveen, Gerard</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Developmental+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Developmental Psychology</i></searchLink>. Mar 2007 25(1):79-102. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: British Psychological Society. St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7DR, UK. Tel: +44-116-254-9568; Fax: +44-116-227-1314; e-mail: enquiry@bps.org.uk; Web site: http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: PhysDesc Label: Physical Description Group: PhysDesc Data: PDF – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 24 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2007 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Violence%22">Violence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Development%22">Cognitive Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Communication%22">Interpersonal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recognition+%28Psychology%29%22">Recognition (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conservation+Education%22">Conservation Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1348/026151005X91415 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0261-510X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: While the productive role of social interaction between peers in promoting cognitive development has been clearly established, the communicative processes through which this is achieved is less clearly understood. Earlier work has established that different types of conversation become established between children as they work together on a problem, and that these types have different implications for the progress of a non-conserver. The paper focuses on the forms of recognition that emerge within these different conversation types. It reports further analyses of a study in which 226 6.5- to 7.5-year-old children were presented with a Piagetian task of conservation of liquid. Conservers and non-conservers were asked to discuss in pairs their conflicting answers and agree upon a joint response. Cognitive progress was assessed by pre- to post-test gains. Analyses of the conversational moves made by each of the participants to the conversation indicates that both non-conservers and conservers not only make characteristic contributions, but that these contributions vary across the conversation types, and hence also relate differentially to the non-conserver's progress. More detailed qualitative analyses of the different conversation types provide insights into the ways in which different forms of recognition emerge through these interactions. These results are discussed in relation to a socio-cognitive account of development. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2011 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ940058 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ940058 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1348/026151005X91415 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 24 StartPage: 79 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Violence Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Interaction Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests Type: general – SubjectFull: Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Task Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Communication Type: general – SubjectFull: Recognition (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Conservation Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Conservation and Conversation Types: Forms of Recognition and Cognitive Development Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Psaltis, Charis – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Duveen, Gerard IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2007 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0261-510X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 25 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: British Journal of Developmental Psychology Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
