Promoting perspective coordination by dilemma discussion. The effectiveness of classroom group discussion on interpersonal negotiation strategies of 12-year-old students

Promoting social competence and social cognition is an important aim of education and socialization. According to theories of social cognitive and moral development, social cognition may be promoted by adolescent peer interaction. In this study, social cognition is theoretically conceptualized by the interpersonal negotiation strategies model of Selman which distinguishes levels of perspective coordination and steps of information processing (identification of a problem, generating negotiation strategies, selection of a strategy, evaluation). In a pre-post control group design this study investigated whether dilemma discussions among peers lead to higher individual levels of perspective coordination compared to an individualistic condition. Members of the discussion-condition exhibited higher gain scores in perspective coordination compared to the control group regarding the information processing steps generating strategies and strategy selection. In order to analyze verbal interaction in the discussion groups, an integrative coding schedule was developed. In addition, trait-like argumentative motives of the participants were assessed. The results of multilevel analyses suggest that progress in posttest-perspective coordination is mediated by the groups consensual solution of the dilemma as well as by an explanation-oriented discussion style, but only if the latter is accompanied by a trait-like subject- and consensus-oriented argumentative motive. Theoretical and practical conclusions are drawn.     

Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective

Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses.     

Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development

The aim of the paper is to advance the theory of argument or inference schemes by suggesting answers to questions raised by Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (1996), specifically on: the relation between argument and reasoning; distinguishing deductive from presumptive schemes, the origin of schemes and the probative force of their use; and the motivation and justification for their associated critical questions.     

Elementary schoolchildren know a logical argument when they see one

Both empirical data and theoretical approaches suggest that argumentation is an important component of development of reasoning skills. We argue that if argumentation does have a primary role, then children should be able to distinguish more from less logical justifications even when they are incapable of determining the correct conclusion by themselves. We asked 8- and 11-year-old children to choose one of two conclusions for abstract reasoning problems, based on justifications from authority (friends and teacher) or logical ones (probability and counterexamples). Although there was a clear age-related increase, even the younger children considered logical justifications to be better than authority, irrespective of the specific conclusion endorsed. Thus, children can distinguish logical and non-logical justifications even when they cannot easily arrive at the correct conclusion by themselves.     

Reasoning Is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation

Theoreticians of deliberative democracy have sometimes found it hard to relate to the seemingly contradictory experimental results produced by psychologists and political scientists. We suggest that this problem may be alleviated by inserting a layer of psychological theory between the empirical results and the normative political theory. In particular, we expose the argumentative theory of reasoning that makes the observed pattern of findings more coherent. According to this theory, individual reasoning mechanisms work best when used to produce and evaluate arguments during a public deliberation. It predicts that when diverse opinions are discussed, group reasoning will outperform individual reasoning. It also predicts that individuals have a strong confirmation bias. When people reason either alone or with like‐minded peers, this confirmation bias leads them to reinforce their initial attitudes, explaining individual and group polarization. We suggest that the failures of reasoning are most likely to be remedied at the collective than at the individual level.     

Representations and social knowledge: An integrative effort through a normative structural perspective

The structural approach on social representations is known for the development of central core theory and its similarity with cognition-oriented sociopsychological perspectives, which has been a target of criticism. The approach has difficulty in dealing with the social dimension of knowledge and adopts a static notion of structure. Acknowledging those shortcomings, we present a revised structural conceptual model of social knowledge and social representations based on the consideration of normative and social identity processes, compatible with contributions of authors external to the classical structural approach, such as Wagner (holomorphy) and Lahlou (propagation model). After redefining the concepts of cognem and structure, we tackle thinking processes and the differences between personal and social representations, conceiving the latter as conventional codes linked to groups. Limitations of the perspective are discussed and research directions are indicated based on an understanding of structure that is broader than the one adopted by the classical approach.     

Bio-necro-biblio-politics? Restaging feminist intersections and queer exceptions

This response to Jasbir Puar's Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (2007. Durham, NC: Duke University Press) proposes that, although it might seem a bit far afield for scholars within biblical studies, a range of conceptual interventions from this work could make striking contributions to this sub-discipline. Through further interaction with both exceptionalisms and intersectionalities, this response demonstrates the way that feminist, postcolonial and queer interrogations of biblical argumentation can also intervene, extend or reorient practices within cultural studies. The recurrence of exceptionalism reframes religious groups' claims to openness, while concerns over the deployment of intersectionality enable critical reflections on interdisciplinary projects such as religious studies and biblical studies as disciplines.