Group emotions: the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation

Polo, Claire; Lund, Kristine; Plantin, Christian; Niccolaï, Gerald P.

doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8

Cited by 63 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While argumentation can support important science learning goals, researchers have also started to notice that there can be an entanglement between the cognitive and socioemotional processes of interaction (e.g., Andriessen et al., ; Asterhan, ; Bellocchi, ; Isohätälä et al., ; Lampert, Rittenhouse, & Crumbaugh, ; Polo et al., ). Social processes of interaction influence conceptual reasoning (Barron, , ; Engle et al., ; Lampert et al., ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is no surprise that social processes in interaction can entangle with conceptual ones, in light of recent claims that learning, argumentation, and knowledge construction are inherently emotional in nature (Bellocchi, ; Hascher, ; Isohätälä et al., ; Polo et al., ). For example, Davis () demonstrates the relationship between the emotion of respect and the processes of analogical reasoning.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking an escape hatch: Managing tension in group discourse

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem solving in groups can be rich with tension for students. This tension may arise from conflicting approaches (conceptual and/or epistemological) and/or from conflict emerging in the social relations among group members. Drawing on video records of undergraduate students working collaboratively, we use three cases to illustrate the multifaceted ways in which conflict arises—combining conceptual, epistemological, and socioemotional dynamics—and a specific way of managing the tension that can emerge from the multifaceted conflict, “taking an escape hatch.” An escape hatch is a set of discourse moves through which participants close the conversational topic, thereby relieving tension, but before a conceptual resolution is achieved. We describe how epistemological twists and turns can be recruited as a means of managing the strong emotions experienced by the students, showing the coupling of emotion and epistemology in students’ conceptual sense making during group work. We help to provide the groundwork necessary for instructors to notice, understand, and respond to one way in which conceptual–epistemological–social–emotional aspects of interaction are coupled in the emergence of tension, rather than narrowly targeting instructional moves based on only conceptual or epistemological considerations. Instead, instructors should often respond to—and help students become aware of—the emotional component of peer interactions and its entanglement with the “cold cognitive” conceptual and epistemological components.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking an escape hatch: Managing tension in group discourse

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, a reliable measurement of argumentation competence should rely on both students' argumentation knowledge and their behavior during actual discourse (see Andrew & McMullen, 2000). Furthermore, students' argumentative discourse activities may be affected by psychological-, emotional-, motivational-, and social factors (Polo, Lund, Plantin, & Niccolai, 2016). For instance, some students may present emotions, such as nervousness or anxiety, while presenting a claim or receiving a question (Gilbert, 2004).…”

Section: Argumentation Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, if students are emotionally attached to the topic under discussion (e.g., controversial issues like genetically modified food, animal testing or politics), argumentation may prove unfruitful, complicated, or even impossible (Baumeister & Scher, 1988;Leith & Baumeister, 1996). In contrast, emotions may also result in successful and fruitful argumentation as students use their emotions as a resource to argue (Polo et al, 2016;Polo, Plantin, Lund, & Niccolai, 2017) or operate on the reasoning of their learning partners to highlight or make more salient socio-cognitive conflicts related to their individual positions regarding the controversial issue at stake (Fischer, Bruhn, Gr€ asel, & Mandl, 2002;Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer, & Mandl, 2005).…”

Section: Argumentation Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Competence: Students’ Argumentation Knowledge, Behavior and Attitude and their Relationships with Domain-Specific Knowledge Acquisition

Haro

Noroozi

Biemans

et al. 2020

Journal of Constructivist Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following constructivist paradigms for learning, this article explores the relationships between the components of argumentation competence (knowledge, behavior and attitude), their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition, and the differences in argumentation behavior between successful and less-successful students. An exploratory study, with a pre-and post-test design, in an authentic, non-scaffolded, online learning environment was conducted. Contrary to our expectations, no significant relationships between the components of argumentation competence were found. Nevertheless, a significant relationship between argumentation behavior and domain-specific knowledge acquisition was found. Moreover, results suggested that the capacity of students to transfer argumentation behavior to similar argumentation tasks can be related to students' domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Finally, successful students in terms of domain-specific knowledge acquisition scored higher with regard to their argumentation behavior than less-successful students. These findings are discussed followed by theoretical and practical implications and suggestion for future work. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…In the last issue, Polo et al (2016) addressed this in an empirical contribution based on two case studies. The teachers' contributions to students' collaborative learning is beginning to receive increased attention (Furberg 2016).…”

Section: Review Studies and Integration Of Lines Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%