No abstract

Sixty British primary school children aged 9‐10 and their teachers took part in an experimental teaching programme, designed to improve the quality of children's reasoning and collaborative activity by developing their awareness of language use and promoting certain ‘ground rules’ for talking together. Children's subsequent use of language when carrying out collaborative activities in the classroom was observed and analysed, and effects on their performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices test of non‐verbal reasoning were also investigated. Comparative data were gathered from children in matched control classes. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of discourse showed a marked shift in target children's use of language in accord with the aims of the teaching programme, and demonstrated that adherence to the ground rules helped groups solve the reasoning test problems. Children's individual scores on the Raven's test also improved. These findings support a sociocultural view of intellectual development and confirm the value of explicitly teaching children how to use language to reason.

Sociocultural researchers have claimed that students' learning of science is a discursive process, with scientific concepts and ways of reasoning being learned through engagement in practical enquiry and social interaction as well as individualized activity. It is also often claimed that interacting with partners while carrying out scientific investigations is beneficial to students' learning and the development of their understanding. The research we describe investigated the validity of these claims and explored their educational implications. An experimental teaching programme was designed to enable children in British primary schools to talk and reason together and to apply these skills in their study of science. The results obtained indicate that (a) children can be enabled to use talk more effectively as a tool for reasoning and (b) talk-based activities can have a useful function in scaffolding the development of reasoning and scientific understanding. The implications of the findings for educational policy and practice are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract