When Sociocognitive Transaction among Peers Fails: The Case of Misconceptions in Science

Levin, Iris; Druyan, Sara

doi:10.2307/1131553

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last problem (C, the horse trader), confidence played a much more important role. We offer an explanation for this finding in the conclusion, as well as an interpretation of the difference between the present results and those obtained by Levin and Druyan (1993).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…If the community of experts has had great difficulty in agreeing on the correct answer to these problems, it is hardly surprising that untutored participants also fail to find the arguments for one side more convinc ing than those for the other side. Similarly, the problem for which Levin and Druyan (1993) found that group discussion led to poorer performance was particularly difficult: It implicitly asked 13-yearolds to understand the difference between standard and angular speed, concepts with which they were presumably not acquainted. It can be argued that in this case, providing the wrong answer reflected a better grasp of the principles of physics involved than providing the "right" answer-throughout history, wrong physical theories have been de fended by very good reasons (see, e.g., Bozzi, 1958).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most convincing demonstration that confidence trumps argumentation in group discussion might be the study of Levin and Druyan (1993) showing that children (sixth to 10th graders) tended to be convinced by the most confident group member, whether she was right or not, in one Piagetian task and a physics problem. The results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3, along with prior results, suggest that this tendency is typically not true of adults: Arguments, not confidence, account for the outcome of group discussion of intel lective tasks.…”

Section: Experiments 4: Effects Of Confidence and Arguments In Group Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups.

Trouche¹,

Sander²,

Mercier³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many intellective tasks groups consistently outperform individuals. One factor is that the individual(s) with the best answer is able to convince the other group members using sound argumentation. Another factor is that the most confident group member imposes her answer whether it is right or wrong. In Experiments 1 and 2, individual participants were given arguments against their answer in intellective tasks. Demonstrating sound argumentative competence, many participants changed their minds to adopt the correct answer, even though the arguments had no confidence markers, and barely any participants changed their minds to adopt an incorrect answer. Confidence could not explain who changed their mind, as the least confident participants were as likely to change their minds as the most confident. In Experiments 3 (adults) and 4 (10-year-olds), participants solved intellective tasks individually and then in groups, before solving transfer problems individually. Demonstrating again sound argumentative competence, participants adopted the correct answer when it was present in the group, and many succeeded in transferring this understanding to novel problems. Moreover, the group member with the right answer nearly always managed to convince the group even when she was not the most confident. These results show that argument quality can overcome confidence among the factors influencing the discussion of intellective tasks. Explanations for apparent exceptions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 4: Effects Of Confidence and Arguments In Group Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups.

Trouche¹,

Sander²,

Mercier³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Greenfield, 1984;Levin & Druyan, 1993;Roberts & Barnes, 1992;Rogoff & Gauvain, 1986;Saxe, 1991). Greenfield, 1984;Levin & Druyan, 1993;Roberts & Barnes, 1992;Rogoff & Gauvain, 1986;Saxe, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mothers' and fathers' scaffolding of their 2‐year‐olds during problem‐solving and literacy interactions

Conner

Knight

Cross

1997

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building upon Wood & Middleton's (1975) concept of parental scaffolding, the influence of parent-child interactions on children's competence within several tasks was investigated. Thirty-two 2-year-old children visited our lab twice, once with their mothers and once with their fathers. During each session dyads participated in problem-solving and literacy tasks, followed by independent child performance tasks. Although subtle differences were found between mothers' and fathers' contingent behaviours displayed during the interactions, at a global level, parents were equally effective in their ability to scaffold their children's emerging skills. Specifically, parental scaffolding behaviours were associated with children's success measured both during the interaction and independently (i.e. following the interactions). These results have implications for the interpretation of research comparing mothers and fathers, and lend support to the claim that scaffolding can be an effective instructional strategy.

show abstract

“…(The other two involve the single object/single motion misconception and its regression effect on transaction; see Levin & Druyan, 1993.) Each problem included a pair of objects moving synchronically on a computer display.…”

Section: Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Differential Contribution of Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles to Sociocognitive Transaction in Promoting Scientific Reasoning

Druyan¹

1996

International Journal of Behavioral Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study exam ines the in uence of two types of con ict-arousing intervention on reasoning about speed among subjects with different cognitive styles. It focuses on the types of argumentatio ns provided in sociocognitive transaction by eld-dependent and eld-independent subjects and on the role of such argumentatio ns in cognitive change. A total of 360 6th, 8th, and 10th graders participated in four stages: individual pre-test; interventioninterpersonal con ict (created by sociocognitive transaction) or intrapersonal con ict (created by multiple-choice testing); immediate post-test; and delayed post-test. In each stage subjects dealt with speed problems involving both linear and rotational motions. Sociocognitive transaction was found to be ef cacious in improving the understanding of the speed concept, especially for eld-dependent subjects. Analyses of the cognitive and social aspects of the transaction discourse revealed that although eld-independent subjects made a greater cognitive contribution, eld-dependent subjects' contribution was closer to co-subjectivi ty. The results suggest that sociocognitive transaction is an appropriate learning environment in the subject of physics for elddependent as well as eld-independent subjects.

show abstract

When Sociocognitive Transaction among Peers Fails: The Case of Misconceptions in Science

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups.

Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups.

Mothers' and fathers' scaffolding of their 2‐year‐olds during problem‐solving and literacy interactions

The Differential Contribution of Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles to Sociocognitive Transaction in Promoting Scientific Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About