arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics

7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 1/32

Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical TopicsAuthor(s): Clotilde Pontecorvo and Hilda GirardetSource: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, Discourse and Shared Reasoning (1993), pp.365-395Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233745 .

Accessed: 27/04/2013 02:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and

Instruction.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233745?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233745?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis



COGNITIONAND INSTRUCTION, 1993, 11(3 & 4), 365-395

Copyright? 1993, LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

ArguingandReasoning n

UnderstandingHistoricalTopics

Clotilde Pontecorvo and Hilda Girardet

University of Rome "LaSapienza"

The positive effect of social interactionon children'sreasoninghas frequentlybeen recognized.Social interactionprovidesa social supportsystem,particularlyfor the acquisition of procedural knowledge (Brown & Palincsar, 1989;

Pontecorvo, 1990). If learning s mainlya social process,an "entry nto a culture

via inductionby more skilled members"(Bruner,1986), what is learnedin a

social context is a process of behaving(Clancey, 1990).

Althoughsubstantial hangesarebeginning o be introducedn school contexts

and to appearn new

syllabusesand

curriculan

Italyand in othercountries,thesocial and constructive eaturesof learningarestill underestimatedn mostschool

teaching. For this reason, aiming to study the social processes of knowledge

acquisitionin a naturalsetting,we implementedsocial interactions n school by

designing innovative learning settings, which we call discussions, that make

possible a cognitive apprenticeship Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) in the

scientific ways of arguingand reasoning.Discussions are collective situations aimedat solving a problemin groupsof

differentsizes;theycan be led by a teacherormanagedautonomouslyby children

(Pontecorvo, 1986). School discussion can be a powerfulcontext for practicingand learning new reasoningbehavior if certainconditions for their realization

arecompliedwith, for example,starting romcommonexperience,having a very

problematicobject of discussion, and changing the rules of school discourse

when the teacher s leadingthe group(Pontecorvo,1990).As collectivediscourse,a discussion is based on more general conversationalskills that childrenhave

masteredbeforeenteringschool and even preschool:They have to learnto direct

those skills toward the goal of the instructional alk (Orsolini & Pontecorvo,

1992).

Requestsforreprints hould be sent to ClotildePontecorvo,Dipartimento i Psicologiadei Processi

di Sviluppoe Socializzazione,Universithdi Roma"La Sapienza,"Via dei Marsi78, 00185 Roma,

Italy.








366 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET

INTEGRATINGNACTIVITY-THEORYPPROACHWITHA VYGOTSKIANNE

Ourmaintheoreticalpointof reference nimplementingandanalyzingdiscussions

is offeredby the Vygotskianconstruct of semiotic mediation,as interpretedbyWertsch (1985a) and by Wertsch (1988). Children can be socialized to the

scholarlywayof knowing(Wertsch,1985b)by themediationof symbolicsystems

(Cole, 1990), first of all by language (Vygotsky, 1934/1990), which assumes

particulardiscursive forms in school, as Olson (1986) has shown. School

discourse has been the object of many sociolinguistic studies (Cazden, 1986;

Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). These studies have been more

interestedn identifying he conversational eaturesof this form of discoursethanin looking for the role of collective speech in knowledge acquisition.

Ourapproachs to look atschooldiscourse,as it is implementedndiscussions,as instructional alk throughwhich teaching-learninggoals can be carried out.

Speech is the main mediationaltool for the transmissionand constructionof

knowledge at school and also for the shift from the interpsychological o the

intrapsychological evel (Vygotsky, 1960/1974, 1978; Wertsch & Sammarco,

1985). In our research,however, speech is not considereda tool thatguides or

indirectly points to some "material"actions. Rather,"what has to be done"

togetheris a discursiveaction,and the actionthat has to be carriedout throughdiscourse is a social knowledge constructionthat is the object of ongoing

negotiationbetweenparticipants.The presenceof a goal-and-tool-mediatedctionin every typeof instructional

talkencouragedus to use the developmentsof the Vygotskianapproachproposed

by Leont'ev's theorization1959/1976, 1975/1977; Wertsch,1981) to frame and

explain the teaching activityand its specific actions andoperations.With these

threeconstructs, t is possible to identifydifferent evels of analysisof the overall

teaching-learningsetting-as we have alreadydone elsewhere (Pontecorvo&

Orsolini, 1992)-taking into account both its molar and molecularaspects.The

activity-theoryperspectivecan be useful for explainingthe level of actionwhere

there is a cultural and interpersonalmediation between teacher and child or

between childrenworking togetheron the same problem.Actions, which can

also be divided into subactions,arecharacterized y theirbeing drivenby a goal(and/orsubgoals)about which the interlocutors an share awareness.

The activityconstruct n Leont'ev's meaningis referred o in the most globallevel of analysis. It is a molar category that can explain the sociocultural

interpretation imposedon the context by the participant(s)"Wertsch,1985b,

p. 203). It is "the non-additive,molar unity of life for the material,corporeal

subject.... It is the unitof life that is mediatedby mental reflection" Leont'ev,1975/1977, pp. 67-68). The social definitionof the instructionalactivity used

by the participantss almost never fully defined at an explicit level. It can be

reconstructed nly at the level of operations-that is, when theagentsareactually








ARGUINGON HISTORICALOPICS 367

operatingwithin the social and interactivecontext in specific and distinctive

ways thatwe can reconstruct s being theexpressionof their"activity"definition.

In the case of class discussions, however, children's (and teachers')operationsare conversational nes. They arecarriedout throughverbal nteractionandshow

typicalconversational eaturesas studiedby sociolinguistics.Speech is used byall interactantsas an instrument or meaning constructionand negotiationand

for sharing topics and perspectives.

DOMAIN ROCEDURESANDEPISTEMIC CTIONS

Actions andoperationsareprimarilydiscursiveones, thatis, more or less actedout through discourse. They have to be assumed in their peculiar features,

however, which aredeterminedby the specific domain or object of knowledge.Because what has to be transmittedn school is a culturalobject of knowledge,which is characterizedby particularepistemological operations(e.g., types of

explanation, ways of reasoning,conceptualframeworks), t is essential to take

into account hepeculiar eaturesof eachknowledgedomain.Inpreviousresearch,we have studiedhow childrencarryout the peculiarways of knowing required

by naturalscience topics in classroom discussions (Castiglia, Pontecorvo,&

Zucchermaglio,1983;Pontecorvo& Zucchermaglio,1989), lookingforparticular

epistemic procedures Pontecorvo,1987) thatare involvedin collective discourse

andreasoningon scientifictopics. One of us (Girardet,1991) has worked on the

particular pistemic procedures hat are actuallyused by 9- and 10-year-olds n

teacher-ledschool discussions devoted to the explanationand interpretation f

historical events. In bothcases, the main focus of the teaching-learningactivitywas on procedural knowledge, although substantial pieces of declarative

knowledgewere always involved in thelearning asks.But,as Glaser and Bassok

(1989) emphasized,the importantdifferencebetweenexpertand novice ways of

knowingis thatexpertknowledgeis always moreprocedurally riented nasmuch

as it is easily accessiblefor acquiringnew knowledgeand for problemsolving.In this article,we specify further he particular pistemic procedures hatwe

have identified as the goal-mediatedactions. These actions are implied by our

historicalanalysistask,which involves the interpretationf a Roman historian's

judgment concerning the German populations. On the basis of research

concerningthe epistemologyof history (Gardiner,1961; Von Wright,1971), it

has been possible to identifythe proceduresof the historian'sprofession(whatthe

greatFrenchscholar,MarcBloch (1949), called mitier de l'historien)as a

rather well-defined set of methodological procedures accompaniedby a less

definedset of explanationprocedures.Historical epistemic actions consist of at least two components (Girardet,

1991). The first consists of higher level methodological and metacognitive

procedures,which arethebasis of historicalinterpretativectivity; theydeal with









the features of the historical source and the validity and relevance of the

information:Is the source authentic, reliable, truthful? Is the documentation

sufficient andpertinent?

What is the evidencefora historicalevent? Howcertain,

probable, or plausible are the data? The second component includes the

explanationproceduresused for the interpretationf particularhistorical events.

For social science topics, the mainexplanationprocedures nvolve: (a) defining

categories and words; (b) categorizingthe social and historical actors and/or

institutions;(c) locating events in time and in space; (d) interpretingactions,

plans, and intentions;and (e) relatingactors and actions to the historicaland

culturalcontext.

Theprecedinghistoricalepistemicactions also have to be practicedby novices

when learning history. These methodological and explanation proceduresresembletheparticular pistemicactions,with theirrelatedgoals, that are carried

out by experts when interpretinghistoricalevents and documents.The actions

arecarriedout in a social interaction ettingby particularinguisticandcognitive

operations,which can be identified as argumentative perationsbecauseof their

linkage of social arguingand individualreasoning.Ourhypothesis is that children as novices in the historical domaincan learn

to master these latter procedures by practicingthem in appropriate earningenvironments.

METHOD

Subjects ndTask

Ourstudy involved 30 subjects(mean age: 9 years, 5 months) of middle-class

background,who attended wo fourth-gradelasses at a primaryschool in Rome.

Before the teaching activity, each subject was administereda test aimed at

assessing relationsbetween social variables.

In this study,we have analyzeddata from six small-groupdiscussionscarried

out in groups composed of 5 children each (without the teacher) who were

consideringa historicalproblem.Children were asked to discuss togetherand

reach a shared judgment about the interpretativedescription that Ammiano

Marcellino(a Roman historianof the 4th century) gave of the Huns. The main

aim of the curriculumunit,which was sharedby the teachers,was to foster the

transition o cognitive and culturaldecentrationn childrenthroughthe studyof

"other"populationscomparedwiththe mainstream f the children'sown culture.

By overcominga simplistic evaluativeattitude,children could acquireskills to

explain the behavior of "different"populations if these populations were

understoodwithin their historical and culturalcontexts.

The task was preceded by curriculumactivities (guided by the teacherand

lastingfor about 10 hr of lesson time) involving the criticalreadingof historical

documentsconcerningGermanpopulationsin their relations with the Roman








ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 369

Empire;only one group discussion was carriedout without the teacher before

the one analyzedhere.

The absence of the teacher and of any other adult guidance gives criticalimportanceto the way in which we presentedthe task to the children. The

following written text was given to the groupsof children:

Ammiano Marcellino is a Roman writer of the 4th century. In his

descriptionhe says that the Huns had habits similarto beasts.What

do you think he meant? Was he rightor wrong?Discuss it with your classmates, and write down the reasons that could

cause him to think in this way and whetheryou agree with him or

not.

The childrenwere asked to reach a consensuson: (a) what the historianmeant

by "habits imilar o beasts," b) his reasonsforsayingthis, (c) whetheror notthis

judgmentwas well grounded, d)thereasons or theHuns'"strange" ehavior,and

(e) the children'sreasons for agreeingor disagreeingwiththe historian.

The researchers'expectation(based on previous data: Girardet,1991) was

that the children would be engaged in the double distancingattitudesrequired

by the task, both toward the author and the Huns, by rejecting the evaluativeposition of the Roman historian and by contextualizingthe particularhabits of

the Hunswithintheir culturaland social organization. n bothcases, it is possibleto considerchildren'sinterpretative ctivity as aimed at negotiatinga contextof

plausibility, as Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958) defined it. Within this

context, the author'sjudgmentcan be acceptedor rejected,and, if rejected,the

Huns' behaviors can be accepted under certain conditions. Some groups have

graduallydeveloped more articulatedperspectives by discovering intermediate

positions that could take into account differentpoints of view.

Corpus f Data

The corpusis composed of six tape-recordeddiscussions for a total of 4 hr, 20

min of talk. Discussions were fully transcribedusing the following conventions:

xxx = word or sentencesthat were not identified

= shortpause

...= long pause

{ } = overlappings

The punctuation ries to representutterance ntonation.Each turn is numbered

progressivelywithin the discussion sequence and is marked by the subject'sname. Because the turn was not a significantunit in our data (as opposedto the

collective discussions in which interventions are shorter, because they are









propelledmainly by teachers'questions), we divided the turnwhen necessaryinto idea-units that correspondto linguistic clauses, as other researchershave

donewhen

studying individual(Voss, 1987) andcollective

(Resnick, Salmon,Zeitz, & Wathen,this issue) reasoning.

Hypothesis

This studyhas the descriptiveaim of showing if andhow the peculiarepistemic

procedurescharacteristicof historical reasoning can be practicedby children

when they are in a social situationthat supportstheir individuallinguisticand

cognitive activity. We assume the Vygotskian construct that children can

internalize and appropriate(Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989) the culturalreasoning proceduresof a scientific domain when, being supportedby the task

requestandby the social context(Wertsch,Minick,& Arns, 1984), they areputinthe conditionof applying heirgeneralargumentativekills to a specificdomain

problem(Pontecorvo,1990).

LevelsofAnalysis

Three levels of analysis were used. The first one is molar and identifies the

generalmood of thediscussion,what we have called in previouswork theframe

of discourse.Framehas been defined(Pontecorvo& Orsolini, 1989; Pontecorvo

& Zucchermaglio,1989) as a partor a phaseof a discussionthatis characterized

by a discursiveactivity and by a relatedcognitive function. Such functionsare

usually pursued by the teacher, who proposes her or his general goals to the

children'sgroupand oftenreproposes recycles) themin the course of discussion

(Pontecorvo & Orsolini, 1992). Because the functional and goal-directed

leadershipprovided by the teacheris not operating n the discussion here, the

object of discourseis framedby the children,who negotiatetheirinterpretationof the task thathas to be accomplished.In our case, the frame,as the dominant

cognitive activity that results from the negotiationbetween speakersabout a

historicaltask,comes closer to the methodological ssues of the historian's ools.

The second level, which is embedded in the first level, consists of smaller,well-identifiedreasoning sequences in which particularepistemic actions (or

subactions)arepursued.Sequencescorrespondo the level of actioninLeont'ev's

theory,and, in our case, they are similarto the explanationstrategiestypicalof

the historicaldomain.

Within these reasoning sequences, the third level of analysis looks at the

molecularoperationscarriedout throughthe idea units: the smallest units in

which the discourse is analyzed. Each idea unit is submitted to a double

categorization, looking at the specific argumentativeoperations (i.e., the

sociocognitivemotor of the discussion) and at the epistemic operationsused bychildren.At this level, we have also marked what was unexpressedby speakers








ARGUINGON HISTORICALTOPICS 371

andleft at an implicit level. In most cases, it is shared and does not requireany

explicit formulation.

RESULTS

FramesofDiscourse

Froma general analysisof the six discussions,two main framesemerge as waysin which the task was interpretedby the children'sgroups.Both are very close

to those used by thehistorians;but,althoughframeA corresponds o the explicitaim of the curricular ctivity,frameB is ratherunexpected, given the children's

ageand

grade.

A. Acceptabilityof the judgment of AmmianoMarcellino. This frame is

subdivided ntothefollowing questions:Werethe Hunsreallylike beasts?

What does it mean? What were the motives for their behavior?

B. Authenticityand reliability of the source. This frameis subdividedinto

the following questions:Is what AmmianoMarcellino said true?Was he

well documented?Is the source an authenticone?

In both cases, the participantsdiscussed whetherAmmiano Marcellino wasrightor wrongand whetherthey could or could not agreewith his interpretation,and they did it by reconstructingdifferent "contexts of plausibility." Two

groupdiscussions (COR and AOR)' are for the most partwithin frame A and

interpret he task accordingto its explicit aim. One groupdiscussion (ALU) is

completely within frame B, whereas threegroupdiscussions (DOR, BOR, and

BLU) present an alternationof the sequences in frame A and frame B. The

interpretations f the task and their relatedframes are summarized n Table 1,wherethe numberscorrespondto the turns of talk. Gaps between turnnumbers

indicate out-of-tasksequences.

Discussion equencesandEpistemicActions

The second level of analysis permits us to identify homogeneous reasoning

sequencesin whicha particular pistemicactionis practicedand canbe identified

as being more or less typical of the explanationproceduresof the knowledgedomain. Sequencesare identified within the frames as argumentativephases in

which a dominantcollective goal-mediatedaction is pursued.

We have identifiedthe following relevant actions:

'The first letterof the acronymsof the groupdiscussions refers to the orderin which the groupworked on the task (A, B, C, D); the last two letters refer to the two classroom teachers(LU and

OR).









TABLE1

SummaryContentof the Six Protocolsby Frames and Topics

1. COR:Is the judgmentof A. M. an acceptableone? (A)(1-20) Whatdoes "to be like a beast"mean?

(44-65) Is it possible to be different withoutbeing inferior?

(73-84) Do we have somethingin common with the Huns?

2. AOR: What is the meaningof being bestial or civilized? (A)

(1-30) Whatdoes "to be like a beast"mean?

(31-43) Whatdoes "to be civilized" mean?

(44-62) We have to locate the Huns in their time and context.

3. ALU: How reliable is A. M.? Is he an authenticsource?(B)

(1-42) Did A. M. really see them?Did he live at this time? Have we got enough proofto

decide?

(48-75) What did A. M. gain from saying/writingthese things?How could he know?

4. BOR

(1-9) What do we have to discuss?

(16-60) Is A. M. a reliableauthor? B)

(61-80) Were the Huns really like beasts? (A)

(81-92) How could we decide? (B)

(93-125) We have to locate the Huns in their time and context. (A)5. BLU

(1-23) Why are the Huns like beasts? (A)

(24-25) Does A. M. tell the truth? B)

(26-58) Whyare the Huns like beasts?

(A)6. DOR

(1-19) What do we have to do?

(20-32) Which sentencebest describes the Huns?


(38-57) Which sentence best describes the Huns?


Note. Numbers in parenthesesto the left of topics indicate turns of talk spanningthe topic.Frame(A or B) is given following appropriate opics. A. M. = AmmianoMarcellino.

1. Terminologicalandconceptualdefinitions.

2. Categorizationof social actors and of sociohistoricalphenomena.3. Locatingevents and phenomenain time and space.4. Interpreting ctions,plans, and intentionsof social actors.

5. Locatingactors and actions in theirhistoricalcontext.

These actions havebeendevelopedby the children n bothframeA and frame

B. We provide examplesof some of them in what follows.

OperationsndCategorizationystem

The categorization ystemhas been developedto take into account the relations

betweendiscourse and reasoningat the molecularlevel of the idea units where

the operationsoccur. A distinction was made betweentwo types of operations:








ARGUINGONHISTORICALOPICS 373

(a) the argumentative perations hatgive an accountof the collective discursive

activity and (b) the epistemic operationsthroughwhich the specific knowledge

domain is analyzed. As is specified further,an internallink, which should beverified in furtherresearch,could be assumedbetweenepistemic and argumen-tativeoperations,correspondingo the structure f collectivereasoningembedded

in the argumentativeactivity.

Argumentative perations. Theseareusedby thespeakers s a meansof

constructingand supporting heirreasoning(Toulmin, 1958). They areused bythe children as a means of constructing and supporting their claims and,

consequently, their reasoning and thinking. They can appear as any of the

following:

Claim: Any clause thatstates a position (thatcan be claimed).

Justification:Any clause that furnishes adequategroundsor warrants or

a claim.

Concession:Any clausethatconcedes something o anaddressee,admittinga point claimed in the dispute.

Opposition:Any claimthat denies what has beenclaimedby another,with

or withoutgiving reasons.Counteropposition:Any claim that opposes another'sopposition, which

can be more or less justified.

The categorizationof argumentativeoperations permits us to focus on the

developmentof the discourse-reasoningconstructedeither by a single speakeror by more than one. The link that is necessarilyestablishedbetween claims and

justifications s basic andcrucial,even for reasoning hatdevelopsmainlywithin

a single participant,whereasthe chainingbetweenopposition, counteropposition,and sometimes concession underlines the collective dimension of the shared

reasoning.Only at the argumentativeevel have we formulatedand categorizedwhat stays implicit in the collective discourse.In most cases, they are"implicitclaims,"which the speakersdo not need to make explicit; in a few cases, there

are also "implicit justifications"or both. Implicit idea-unitsare markedwith a

letterfollowing the numberof the clause to which they are linked (e.g., 1.4a in

Excerpt1, which appears n a later section).

Epistemic operations.Theseare

groundedn the

explanation roceduresand arespecified in termsof the particularhistoricalcontent to whichthey refer.

Epistemic operationscorrespond o the explanationprocedures hatareused for

describingand interpretinghistorical events. When used on the real sequencesof discourse, heyarein most cases accompaniedby a reference o thepeculiaritiesof the historicaltopic with which the speakersaredealing.









Definition:A statementabout the essentialnatureof an event or about the

meaningof a word, includinga shift of meaning.

Categorization:When something is consideredas

beinga

memberof aclass, includinga shift of categorization.Predication:The action of assertingsomethingabouta topic withoutany

evaluative dimension.

Evaluation: The action of asserting something about a topic with an

evaluative dimension.

Appeal to: The action of supportinga claim by appealingto somethingthat the speakerconsiders relevant to the topic; the content of the

appealcan be:

"*Analogy."*Exemplarcases or instances.

"*Conditions.

"*Rules, general principles."*Motives/intentions/goals."*Consequences/implications."*Authority(expert,author,source).

"*Time."* ocioculturalcontext.

"* patialand temporalcontext.

The categorizationof the epistemic operationsshouldpermitus to distinguishbetween cognitive activities that are more frequentor appropriateo different

knowledgedomains. In particular,he differenttypes of "appeal o,"which have

been derived from Toulmin's construct concerning warrants and backings

(Pontecorvo, 1987), should be used differentlyin discussions concerningsuch

differing topics as naturalsciences versus social sciences.

Quantitativeescriptionf theOperations

To give a generaloverview of both argumentative ndepistemicoperations,we

presenttheir distribution n the whole corpus. As shown in Figure 1, most of

the idea unitsof the argumentative perationsareequallydivided into two main

groups:claims (42%)andjustifications(39%). It can be assertedthatdiscourse

proceeds almost through an alternate rhythm of claims and justifications.Concessions accountfor 8% of the units,whereas all theoppositionmoves reach

only 11%. Given the type of task, direct opposition does not have a strong

function;the roles of "opposer"and"opposee"are offeredby the documentand

underlinedby the task request.









50-

40

30o

20

10

0

CLAIM

JUSTIFICATION

OONCESSION

OPPOSrITON

COUNTER-OPP

1FIGURE 1 Percentagedistributionof the argumentative perations.

Most of the epistemicoperations(see Figure2) areappeals(50%), followed

by predications(24%). Categorizations 12%) and evaluations(11%) are much

more frequentthan definitions(3%).

The distribution f appeals(see Figure3), which is themost frequent pistemic

operation,shows that more than one thirdareappealsto conditions,whereasthe

othertypes of appealsall occur with much lower frequency.Across the two categorizations,we find that 45% of claims are constituted

by predications(on the epistemic level), whereasjustificationsare for the most

part (75%) constitutedby appeals;the other types of epistemic operationsare

rare. The high frequencyof justificationsand the fact thatthey arein most cases

expressedthrough appealsconfirmthe dominantargumentative haracterof the

collective discourse in which the strongerpersuasivemeans are used.

50

40

30

20

10

0

APPEAL

PREDICATK)N

CATEGORIZATKON

EVALUATION

DEFINITION

1

FIGURE 2 Percentagedistributionof the epistemicoperations.









40"

30

20

10

01

APPEALS O:

CONDfITON

RULE

TIMESOCIO-CULTURALONTEXT

DATA

INSTANCE/ANALOGY

AUTHORITY

FIGURE 3 Percentagedistributionof the appeals.

Cognitive ctions ndArgumentativeperations

Given the descriptive characterof this study and the particular ormatof the

conversationaldata in which we are interested, n what follows we describeand

commenton some protocolexcerpts.Reasoningsequencesexemplifyingdifferent

epistemicactions,withinthe two activities definedas frame A andframeB, are

categorized atthe level of the molecular

operations.We

provide examples,developedin some of the children'sreasoning sequences,that arerepresentativeof the mainepistemicactions.Accordingto our initialassumptions,such actions

are attemptsat appropriatinghe explanatoryproceduresof historicalreasoning

by practicingwith some of the historian'sreasoningtools.

The main title of each protocol corresponds o the main epistemic function

carriedout by the sequence;the subtitlespecifies the content of the frame and

in some way thetopic of the collective discourse.(Inexcerpts,A. M. = Ammiano

Marcellino.)2

Terminological efinition. In Excerpt 1 of frameA, the group aced the

problem of if and how the Huns' habits could be defined as normal. The

oppositionbetweenAndreaand Alessandraconcernedthe implicit definitionof

the word normal. Andrea adopted a relativist use of the word: If you are

accustomedto certainhabits,such as cuttingyour cheeks and following certain

laws, this is right and normal for you. Alessandraqualifiedthe same data in a

more absoluteway: Those habits cannot be considerednormal in any way, in

the sense of "being acceptablefor us."

Althoughtheentiresequencewasbuiltaround heepistemicaction of reachinga correctand shareddefinitionof theterminology,argumentative perationswere

2Given hatthe focus of thispresentations on thecodingof reasoningprocesses,the transcription

of the excerptshas been simplified, and the talk sequences have been translated nto English. The

originalItalianprotocolsare availableon request.








Excerpt 1

(1) COR (Turns I to 4)

Terminological definition: What does it mean to say that the Huns were "like

beasts"? (frame A)

TALK

SEQUENCE

Andrea1.1 A.M. does not describe them very well

1.2 because if they have already been

brought up like that

1.3 forinstance,if we areused to cuttingourselves at birth

1.4 that is our custom

1.4a a custom is rightfor who holds it

1.5 and for us, this is right

1.6 it is the same for the Huns if theydo...

Filippo2.1 look, you are wrong, they were not the

Huns

Andrea3.1 no, they were the Huns

3.2 for the Huns it was normal to havethose laws

3.3 that's why they are not barbariansas

they say

Alessandra4.1 accordingto me A.M. is quite right

4.2 because from this document it is clear

4.3 that these people were not normal

4.3 making cuts frombirth to stop thebeardgrowing

4.4 I think it's a really bestial habit

ARGUMENTATIVEOPERATIONS

Claim

Justification

Justification

Initiating analogy

Claim

Implicit claim

Claim

JustificationEnd of the analogy

Opposition(conversational)

Counteropposition(conversational)

Justification

Claim

Opposition

Justification

Claim

Justification

Claim

EPISTEMICOPERATIONS

Evaluation

of the author'sjudgment

Categorizationof behaviors

Appeal to an instancefrom the source

Categorization

Evaluation

of the categorization

Appeal to the consequences

Evaluationof behaviors


Evaluationof the author'sjudgment

Appeal to the source

Evaluation

of the people

Appeal to an instancefrom the source

Evaluation

of people's behaviors









mainly constitutedby justificationsof personalclaims advanced both by the

opposerand the opposee.

Conceptualdefinition. InExcerpt of frameA, thetopic ookssimilar othe previousone, but herethe focus is on the conceptual efinition f beingcivilized. Aftera long silenceuntil thispoint,Andrearecycled(44) his opposition

Excerpt2

(2) COR (Turns 44 to 56)

Conceptual definition: Were the Huns inferior or different? (frame A)

TALK

SEQUENCE

Andrea44.1 no,no,no

44.2 I say that he is not right

Alessandra45.1 but why do you thinkthey are

civilized?!

45.1a you wouldbewrongif you said that

they were civilized

Filippo46.1 are they civilized?!

46.1a beingcivilized means to be like us

46. 2 are they like us?

Andrea47.1 they are not really civilized

47.1a there are differentdegreesofcivilization

47.2 they have one.... some laws to follow

Filippo48.1 but it was written on the text

48.2 that they didn't have laws

Andrea49.1 that'strue,but this was their custom

49.2 we cannot say that they werebarbarians

49.3 if that was their custom

Alessandra50.1 Andreabut


Opposition

Claim

Counteropposition

Implicit claim

Counteropposition

Implicit justification

Counteropposition

Concession

Implicit claim

Justification

Justification

Opposition

Concession

Claim

Justification

Opposition

EPISTEMICOPERATIONS

Evaluationof the author'sjudgment

Categorizationof people

Categorizationof people

Appeal to an analogy

Recategorizationof people

Appeal to an existingcondition

Appeal to the source

Appeal to a lacking condition

Recategorizationof people's behavior


Recategorization









50.2 this is the description of a people Justification Appeal to textual aspects of

who were barbarians the source

Filippo

51.1 then we are right Andrea Claim Evaluationof one'sown knowing

Andrea52.1 and why weren't they civilized? Counteropposition Categorization

Alessandra53.1a they were not civilized Implicit claim

53.1 because they didn't have a roof Justification Definition

53. 2 they didn't follow the laws Justification Definition

53 .2a civilization = houseand laws Implicit justification

Filippo54.1 wait a moment, we can say that they Claim Definition

didn't use to eat like us

54.2 we don'tgo down the road,pick roots Justification Appeal to an analogyand eat them, we don't do that

54.3 we eat cooked food.., raw meat, we Justification Appeal to an analogydon't eat raw meat

54.3a they are different rom us Implicit claim

54.4 we are more civilized thanthey

Claim Recategorizationof a people

Andrea55.1 it's true,but they were more Concession Appeal to time

backward

55.1a whoeverprecedesus in time is Implicit justification

justified in being less civilized

Filippo56 Yes, that'strue Concession Predication on 55.1

to the historian'sjudgment, which he had already presented in I and 3 (see

Excerpt 1). After havingreceived strong oppositionthat included ironicand/orrhetoricalquestions (45 and 46), Andrea insisted that it was possible to have

differentways of behavingand different aws (inthe sense of rules)to be followed

(47 and 49). These differences could be justified because of one's being"backward"55). This concession was recognizedas acceptableby others.

The epistemic action carried out here related to the representationof the

concept of being civilized. The sequence was more clearly focused than the

previousone on the possibility, brought up by Andrea,of a graduatedposition;that is, the concept that there are different degrees of civilization and that

civilizationmust be evaluatedwithrespectto its time. Theargumentativetrategyused by the opposers was mainly "extremization" f the opposee's arguments,whereas the opposee produceddifferenttypes of graduation,as concessions, a

kind of argumentative caling (Ducrot, 1980), and therebysucceededin havinghis more balancedposition accepted.









Interpretinglans,actions,andmotivesof the actors. DuringExcerpt3

of frameB, thegroupfaced a topicsimilarto thatof thepreviousgroup;however,

inthis case,

the children focusedprimarily

onoffering

reasons anddescriptivedetails,drawnexplicitlyfrom the source,to interprethe life and behaviorof the

Huns. Thus, they found some positive points in the Huns that contradicted he

judgmentof Ammiano Marcellino:The Huns were technicallyadvanced n war

Excerpt3

(3) AOR (Turns 14 to 22)

Interpreting plans, actions, and motives of the actors: Reasons accounting for the

characteristics of the Huns (frame A)

TALK

SEQUENCE

Giulia14.1 then, perhaps these people were

used to living like that fromchildhood

14.2 because, given the circumstancesthat

they lived in horrible places

14.3 so perhaps they didn't have the

possibility of being civilized

14.3a one learns one'sown wayofbehaving from parents

14.4 because they had learned to be like

that, in this way over generations,then..

(15-17:digression)

Pace18.1 I wanted to say something similar to

Giulia

18.2 that this population, the Huns, sincechildhood, besides being used to

hunger, thirst

18.3 perhaps they were not, they didn'thave a good educationas a

population

18.4 that's why they could not havemuch power over the other

populations

18.5 because they weren't very intelligent

18.5a to be educated= to be intelligent

18.6 a very important thing about theHuns was their technique in war

18.7 they had a very good and advanced

technique


Justification

Justification

Claim

Implicit justification

Justification

Claim

Justification

Justification

Claim

Justification

Implicit claim

Claim

Claim

EPISTEMIC

OPERATIONS

Appeal to the socioculturalcontext

Appeal to the spatialcontext

Categorizationa

of the possibility

Appeal to a ruleof cultural transmission

Predicationon own intervention

Appeal to cultural context(data from the source)

Appeal to a condition

Appeal to a consequenceof the condition


Predicationon a people's ability

Evaluationof a people's ability









Chiara

19.1 I don't think they were bestial

19.2 they were like savages

19.3 but not exactlysavages, justa kind of

savage

19.4 but they had already invented manythings

19.4a if one invents many things,he is nota savage

Luca20.1 as Pace says, they were not very

strong in war

20.2 I don't think it was true

20.3 in the document it is written that

they were called the most frighteningwarriors

Giulia21.1 I wanted to say thataccordingto me

maybe he meant

21.2 maybe I agree that they were bestial

21.3 maybe because at that time theyhad not yet discovered thesecivilizations

21.4 the meaning of the word civilizedwas not clear yet

21.5 only the very rich persons had theluck of being civilized

21.6 of being,of going to school

Pace22.1 I wanted to say that the Huns were

already not a primitive population

22.2 because they alreadyknew how toraise cattle and they knew manythings

22.3 but they did not have much food,

they ate meat, milk

22.4 I meant that the Alans alreadyknew how to raise cattle

22.5 so they ate milk and a lot of meat

22.6 because they had a lot of cows

22.6a raisingcattle is a markofcivilization

Claim

Claim

Concession

Justification

Implicit justificationand claim

Claim

Opposition

Justification

Conversational stance

Claim

Justification

Justification

Concession

Justification

Claim

Justification

Concession

Justification

Claim

Justification

Implicit claim

Evaluationof the author's

categorization

Recategorizationin terms of civilization's

degreeCategorization

Definition

of an aspect of the category

Predication

on a people's ability

Predication

Appeal to data from thesource

Evaluation

of the author'scategorization

Appeal to the timeas reason for the absence of

civilization

Appeal to the timeas reason for the absence

Appeal to the socio-culturalcontext

(economic differences)

Appeal to a rule

Categorizationof a people in relative terms

Appeal to conditions

Appeal to a rule


Predication

on people's characteristics










(18.7and 0.3);heyhad nvented anyhings19.4);ndheyknew ow oraisecattle22.2).The hildrenlsostressedomenegativespects:heHuns idnot

knowhemeaningfbeingivilized21.3);heywere ot ducated18.3), ecauseonlya fewcould otoschool21.4).They oncluded,owever,hatheHunswerenot ikebeasts19.1),but heywere"akind fsavage eople"19.3).

Themain pistemicctionwas o understandnd xplain,nthedoubleenseoffered yVonWright1971),hemotives nd ituationf thispopulationyrelatinghem otheir istoricalnd ulturalontext. rom nargumentativeointofview, hesequenceascharacterizedyalackofstraightppositionetweenthe nteractants.herewasaprevalencefconcessionsndpartialegationsfstatementshat ouldbe toostrong,orexample:Theyouldn't avea good

education"18.3), Theyouldn'tavemuch ower"18.4),"They eren'teryintelligent"18.5),"Theyadnotyetdiscoveredhese ivilizations"21.3),"Themeaningf thewordivilized asnotvery lear"21.4).Thedominantrgumen-tativemood fthis equenceascharacterizedya"not... much"attern.

Interpretingctionsand motivesof thehistorian.InExcerpt, which

developedwithin rameB, thegroup ocusedontheproblemf source eliabilityand on the conditions or beinga goodhistorian.One of the implicit tarting

Excerpt4

(4) BOR (Turns 25 to 38)

Interpreting actions and motives of the historian: Exploring conditions for a reliable

source (frame B)

TALK ARGUMENTATIVE EPISTEMIC

SEQUENCE OPERATIONS OPERATIONS

Fulvio25.1 well Marcellino Marcellotti, we Claim Appeal to a necessary

don't know if truly, if he could truly condition

have...

25.1a a historian must have seen what Implicit justificationhe describes

25.2 he doesn't know Claim Predicationon author'sknowledge

253 he, he thinks it's like that Claim Predication

25.4 but he cannot say:I saw it, I did it Claim Appealto a consequence

25.5 because he did not see those things Justification Appeal to a condition

(to be eyewitness)Chiara26.1 sorry,Fulvio,but A.M. was a writer Opposition Categorization

of the author as a writer26.2 and he should have... Justification Appeal to a rule

of the writer'sFulvio27.1 all right, but he was not living Counter-opposition Appeal to a necessary

condition

Chiara28.1 he was of the fourthor sixth century Justification of 26.1 Appeal to a necessary

condition








28.2 so he had to... maybe he saw them Claim Appealto the consequence

28.3 to make these observationshe must Justification Predicationhave seen them, well, eat and ... on theprocedure

(29-32 = digression)

Marco33.1 even if he could not know Concession Predication

on author's knowledge33.2 he had seen some document,some- Justification Appeal to

thing that describes the Huns an alternative condition

warrantingthe rightness ofthe procedure

33.2a since documentsaresourcesof Implicit justification

knowledge

33.2b A.M. can be reliable Implicit claim

Giovanni

34.1 I wanted to say to Fulvio that he Opposition Predicationmust have known on author'sknowledge

34.2 because all writers, before they do Justification Appeal to a proceduralrule

things, they look, see and then write

34.3 and they are very good at saying Justification Evaluationhow they did the things of writer'scompetence

Tommaso35.1 I think Fulvio is almost right, in fact Claim Predication

on a claim of another child

35.2 but it is not a really sure thing Concession Evaluation

35.3 because he probablycannot speakon, Justification of 35.2 Appealto a consequencespeakon randomly

35.4 he cannot foreseewhere this Justification Appeal to a general principledocument will end up

35.5 so he must tell the truth Claim Appeal toa consequenceof the general principle

35.6 he cannot write imaginary things Claim Appeal to a consequenceof the general principle

Marco36.1 indeed he is right in a way Claim Predication on author's

knowledge

36.2 before saying something you have to Justification Appeal to a proceduralrulesee (eyewitness)

36.3 you see how they live from the Justification Appeal to aproceduralruledocuments

Chiara37.1 as Marco said Claim Predication on a claim of

another child37.2 because when someone has to write Claim Appeal to an instance

on the Romans, like him writingabout the

Romans,37.3 he did not invent everything Claim Predication on author's

honesty37.4 he could have been either a Roman Justification Categorization

of the author37.5 or someone who had an ancestor who Justification Categorization

had told him transmitting this of the author as descendantRoman stuff, maybe this as well... (oral tradition)

383









pointsof thecollective reasoningwas: "In orderto be a historian,you must have

seen what you describe" (25, 27, and 28). This is a rathercommon-sense

assumption,drawnperhaps romthe news world,but which was corrected n the

discussion by referring o documents(33 and 36), to oral tradition 37), and to

the skills of the writer(the historian s considereda writer),who is supposedto

follow a kind of Gricean(Grice, 1975) rule of "telling the truth" 35.5).

This representeda combinedepistemic action. The complex methodological

problemof establishingvalidity, reliability,andrelevanceof the historicalsource

was associatedwith the usualexplanationproceduresof interpretingonditions,

actions, and motives of the historian as a particulartype of historical actor.

Because the main questionconcernedthe authenticityof the historicalsource,

there was opposition between those who took the position that AmmianoMarcellino was unreliablebecausehe could not have seen the Huns, and those

who said that a historian'swritinghas to be truthfulby using documents as a

source of information which is exactly the idea of history that the curriculum

triedto transmit). nopposingone another, he childrenappealed o generalrules

of behavior and to necessaryconditions,even by inferringconsequencesfrom

rules and conditions.

Locatinghe documentn its historical ontext. InExcerpt5 of frame

B, the childrendevelopeda coherentreasoningaboutthe material mpossibilityof the historian'shaving writtenthis text at that time. They reached a shared

Excerpt 5

(5) ALU (Turns 18 to 26)

Locating the document in its historical context: Challenging the authenticity of

the source (frame B)

TALK ARGUMENTATIVE EPISTEMIC

SEQUENCE OPERATIONS OPERATIONS

Filippo18.1 now I would say "wedo not agree" Claim (Recycle the task)

why?

Paolo19.1 1do not much agreebecauseA.M... Claim Predication

on one's own claim

19.2 I'vechanged my idea from what I Claim Predication

said before on one'sown claim

19.3 I don't think A.M. lived at that time Claim Appeal toa necessary condition of the

source's authenticity19.3a to write history you must have Implicit justification

lived at the same time as the event

19.4 it seems difficult he can have Justification Predicationwritten this document on the implausibility of a

necessarycondition








19.5 because therewere not many pens Justification Appeal to materialand paper conditions

19.6 or, I mean, Idon't think A.M. is right Claim Evaluationof author's claim

19.6a he cannot have written this text Implicit claim

19.7 these are my impressions Claim Predicationon own claim

19.8 and even if A.M. had written this Claim Predicationdocument in ancienttimes Counterfactual strategy on the source authenticity

initiating

19.9 but it must be seen how he succeeded Claim Appeal toin looking at them a necessary condition

(eyewitness)

19.10 since they had very bestial habits Justification Appeal to datafrom the source

19.11 so they could even kill him Justification Appealto a consequenceof source's data

19.11a thus either it is false that they Implicit claimwere bestial or it is false that he had Counterfactual strategylived at that time and had seen them initiating

Nicola20.1 Right! what Paolo said is right Claim Predication on 19.1

20.2 because he could not have lived at Claim Appeal to anecessarythat time condition

203 also because I think that if he had Claim Predicationlived in those times, in the Middle Counterfactual strategy on timecontemporaneityAges initiating

20.4 not everyone could have, let's say, in Justification Appeal to socioculturalthe Romantimes and so not everyone contextcould write (scarcediffusion of writing)

20.5 and they could not producea Justification Appeal to sociocultural

description of people with such contextanomalous laws

20.6 I think that no one could have done Claim Predicationthis description then Counterfactual strategy on cultural impossibility

ending

Filippo

21.1 instead, I think something that Claim Predication on own claimperhaps does not fit in

21.2 that is, I mean I partly agree and Claim Predication on own claim

partly I don't agree

21.3 because when A.M.,well, he could Justification Appealto a consequenceeasily have been killed for the author of data from

the source

21.4 or he could have had some problems Concession Appeal to a consequencein seeing, in getting in touch with the for the author of data fromAlans or Huns the source

21.5 because either he was an Alan or a Claim CategorizationHun of the authoras member of

the people of the source

21.6 or what he has written is somewhat Claim Predicationfalse on the source'suntruth

385









Paolo22.1 1think at that time they could not Justification Appeal to a necessary

read and write condition (lackofinstrumental abilities)

22.2 thus it was very hard for A.M. to Claim Predicationhave written that document on the improbability of the

attribution of the sourceNicola

23.1 because, if he had writtenon these Claim Predicationsheets of paper,on sheets of paper Counterfactual strategy on the possibility of the

initiating material production

23.2 I think that, at this time, the sheets Justification Appeal to timewould alreadyhave turned to dust as reason for the source's

material deterioration23.3 in short, as time goes by, the sheets Justification Appeal to time

turntodust as reason for the source'smaterial deterioration

23.4 Two or threethousand years have Justification Appeal to

passed, I believe the amount of time

23.4a source s not authentic Implicit claim

23.5 so the sheets wouldn'thave been Claim Appeal to the consequencesfound any more, they would have Counterfactualstrategy of timepassingon thesourcebeenturnedto dust ending

Filippo24.1 it could easily have been written on Claim Predication

a stone, for instance on alternative procedures(other materials on which

the source was written)24.2 or remnants of huts

might have been Claim Predicationfound on alternative procedures(othersources)

24.3 and they would prove naturally... in Justification Appeal to material aspectsthe building, perhaps in the way it of the socio-cultural contextwas used, how they used it

Nicola25.1 1 think that if he had written it on a Opposition Predication

stone Counterfactualstrategy on the possibility of the

initiating condition (writing material)

25.2 they couldn't have written that is Justification Appeal to datawritten there everything, everything from the source(amountof

information)

25.3 simply becausewritingon stone is not Justification Appeal to a general principlethe same as writingon paper

25.4 thus I think that all this news Claim Predicationwould not have been understox)d;n Counterfactualstrategy on thequalityof source'sshort,do you understand? ending information

25.4a but since they are understandable Implicit justification

25.4b thus the source is false Implicit claim

conclusion that the source was false (21.6) because of: the lack of paperand

pencil (19.5), the inevitabledeteriorationof the paperif it existed (23), a lackof writingand descriptiveskills duringthat time (20), and the impossibilityof

writing such a text on a stone (25). Counterfactual easoning (19.8 to 19.11)directly challenged the content of Ammiano Marcellino'sjudgment:What he

says is not true,because if he had really seen this populationwith his own eyes








ARGUINGNHISTORICALOPICS 387

(19.9), the Huns would have killed him, being cruel and"like beasts."So, either

he was one of them,and thus the statementthat he was a Romanwould be false,

or what he wrote about the Huns(21.6) was false, andtheywerenot "like beasts."Thedominantpistemic ctionhereconcernedhereliability ndauthenticityof the historical source, which was radically challenged by the children's

analyzingboth culturaland materialimpossibility, as shown in the preceding.

Excerpt 5 was characterizedby the presence of three complex counterfactual

strategies (starting at 20.3, 23.1, and 25.1) by which children used single

argumentativeperationso reacha morecomplexargumentativeoal. Giventhe main topic of the sequence,argumentativeoperationswere characterizedbythe demonstrationof the impossibility-based on conditionsand consequences

and being both material and cultural-of the authenticityof the source.

DiscourseOrganizationnd Interaction ode

The linearorganizationof the written text does not do full justice to either the

complex articulationof the individualreasoningor the differentmodes throughwhich the shared discourse and reasoningwere carriedout. At this point, we

were pushed to find a better representationof the links existing among the

differentpartsof the discourse-reasoning, rying to representgraphicallytheirinternalandsometimes hierarchical rder,as is doneby Resnicket al. (this issue).

Also usingthe turnas a unit of analysis,it was possibleto discoverthe internal

structure of the discourse with its different levels of articulation.The main

position expressedby the speaker,whose claim could be more or less justified,was supportedn most cases by anorganizedset of justificationsand claims that

had the subordinate unction ofjustifyingthe mainposition.Thesemorecomplex

argumentscould be structuredaccordingto differentmodes, and some of them

could be identifiedmoreeasilyon the basis of theirepistemiccontent; orinstance,

they maderepeateduse of analogiesor of counteropposed xamples.The example reportedin Figure 4 representsTurn4 of Excerpt 1 in which

Alessandraexpressedherposition in five clauses. In her first clause, Alessandra

statedherposition throughan evaluation "According o me AmmianoMarcellino

is quite right"), after which followed an argumentativestructure aimed at

justifyingthepositionandorganizedon two levels: first,a claimandajustificationwith an appealto the source ("becausefrom this document t is clear/ that these

people were not normal"); hen, a second claim (anotherevaluation)groundedon a justificationthat used an appealto an example ("makingcuts from birthto

stop the beardgrowing/ I think it's really a bestial habit").The speakerstended to use the same structure n differentturns of the same

conversation as if they were following an argumentativestyle: Alessandra

repeateda similar structuren Turn6 (see Figure5) and in Turn 53 (see Figure6) of the same discussion.








r N A W , 1 0 A

SOURCE

CATEGORY

EXAMPLE

EVALUATE

LEGEND

I 1

C D >

Claim

Opposition/CounterOpposition

Justification

ImplicitPresupposition

Concession

DEStructure ofJustification

Structureofattack

Structure

containinganotherstructure

++

Link

Development

LinkJustification with Claim

OppositionLink

FIGURE The nternaltructuref

theturn Alessandra,urn , Excerpt1).

388








ANDREA FILIPPO ALESSANDRA

VALUATE ATEGORY

EXAMPLE

VALUATE

V A L U A T E

24

O N S E

V A L U A T E

C O N S E Q .

SOURCE

ATEGORY

E X A M P L

ATEGORYVALUATE

EXAMPL

EXAMPL

+

6EXAMPL

ISOURCEATEGORY

ATEGORY + +

D A T A

ATEGORY

ATEGORY

FIGURE 5 Graphical representationof a sequence of turns (from Excerpt 1). Numbers

representturns.

389








Andrea AlessandraVALUATE

V A L U A T E

A N A L O G

', 0

co~sEQ.SOURCO N S E Q .- - I D

TEGOR

51 53

TIME

V A L U A T E V A

D A T A

D A T A

A T E G O R Y

4&%

55/////<' ATEGORY

T I M E

++

FIGURE6 Graphicalepresentationf a sequence f turns fromExcerpt ). Numbers

representurns.









This type of graphicrepresentationnhancesunderstanding f the interaction

modes used by the speakers duringthis discursiveactivity, which can be much

more intensive than is indicatedby a simple count of frequencies.In Figure 5, the discussion reported n Excerpt 1 is representedgraphically.Eachspeaker'snameappears n a column:The vertical ine enables us to examine

the argumentdeveloped by a single speaker,whereas the horizontal line makes

it possible to focus on the exchangesamong speakers.When we consider the same speaker(Andrea n Turns1 and 3, or Alessandra

in Turns 4 and 6 of Figure 5), it is possible to look at the structureof the

individual'sdiscourse and at the ways in which they coconstructreasoning in

agreementor oppositionwith the other speakers.When the exchangesbetween

speakersare focused, it is possible to distinguishbetween different interactionmodes. For instance,oppositioncan concern the refusalof one single claim, as

in the case of Filippo in Turn 2 opposing Andrea's Turn 1. But it can also

concern an entire argumentative tructure,as in the case of Alessandrain Turn4 (opposingAndrea'sTurn3):This opposition s carriedout through he complex

argumentative tructureanalyzed in Figure 4.

Such graphicalrepresentationsmake possible an overview of the dynamicsof the interactionalexchanges that produce differenttypes of patterns.In the

reasoningsequencepresentednFigure5, eachspeakerexposes his or herthinking

in a rather structuredway, whereas in othermoments of the same discussion,which arereportedn Excerpt2 andpartiallyrepresentedn Figure6, thedifferent

turnsare shorterandmorefrequent,and theexchangesof counteropposed laims

arefaster,often supportedby singlejustificationsor by simplified argumentativestructures.

DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION

Our differentdataanalysesshow that autonomous nteractionalactivitiescan be

extremelyrich situations n terms of theproductionof high-level reasoning,even

in young children. Such group discussions could be defined as situations of

"cognitive apprenticeship"Collins et al., 1989) in which reasoning is both a

situated and a distributedaction existing in the social realityof negotiationwith

othersand with the task.As Bruner 1990) alsoemphasized,a person's knowledgeis not just in one's own head but also in the notes, in the underlinedbooks, in

the informationsources, in the friendsone can call on for help, in what results

from social interactionwith others.

The complexity of children's sharedreasoningmade it necessaryto developa pluralityof analyticalinstruments o account for the different dimensions of

the reasoning,on both the argumentative nd epistemic levels.

The identification of general frames of discourse and of more specific

epistemic actions was particularly ffective in emphasizingthe characterof the









"social negotiation" of children's cognitive activity. The absence of the

teacher-usually the personwho aims to bringthe children to an understandingof the

topicandto

acquirecorrecthistorical

knowledge--compelledthe children

to engage in much negotiationactivity in interpretinghe task assignedto them

(Edwards& Mercer,1987). The children understood he features of the specifichistorical activity, although they carried it out within different frames and

consequentlythroughdifferentepistemic actions, which are very close to the

proceduresof historicalreasoning.The molecularsystemsof analysisconcerning heargumentative ndepistemic

operationswere productivein focusing the structureof the shared reasoning,both within the individual and the group, in ways that were relevant to the

historical topic. On this basis, it is possible to confirm our hypothesis thatelementary chool childrencanpracticeandgraduallymastercognitiveskills and

tools of a specific knowledge domain when they are supported by a learningenvironment hat offers a meaningfulproblematic ramework hat can be shared

in a group.The identification of more complex argumentativestructures (as other

researchershave also done: see Resnick et al., this issue) reveals different

interactionmodes and argumentativestyles in subjects and in groups. With

longitudinaldata,it may be possible to verify the evolution and/orthe "passage"

of a reasoningstructure romone child to anotheras an effect of the interactionwith peers in appropriate earningenvironments. ndeed,the exchangeconcerns

not only the appropriation f informational lements but also the acquisitionof

reasoning strategies,the core of which is given by the structures f justification.From a proceduralpoint of view, children could succeed in practicingand

mastering he methodologicalandexplanatory ools of the historian,as we have

shown throughthe protocol analysis.From a declarativepoint of view, the lack

of adult guidance sometimes leads children onto divergent paths: Adequateteacherinterventionwould have been extremely useful in such cases, offering

childrenthe relevant historicalinformationand redirecting heir argumentationand reasoning.

Comparing hese discussions with those led by teachers(Pontecorvo, 1993),

however, we can say that children'sautonomouscollective discourseis often on

a higher cognitive level thanthatguideddirectly by theteacher(Girardet,1991).The aim of masteringthe tools of arguingand thinkingwithin a subjectfield is

probably better reached through this type of unguided discussion dispute.

Nevertheless, such discourse occurs within the school context and provides a

kind of assessment of what has alreadybeen done in class in the knowledge

domain of history. Problem-solving group settings can also be regarded as"contextualizedmeasures"of how much childrenhave masteredthe actionsand

goals proposedto them by their teachersthroughthe curriculum.At the same

time, thechildren,who engagedthemselvesautonomously n discussingwhether

the judgmentof the Romanhistorian was well grounded,showed that they not









only understoodhe specificfeatures f the historicalask but also weremore

generally ocialized o a representationf the learning ctivityas an "active"

counterpartf theteaching.notherwords, hesechildrenmplicitly hared heideathat n schoolone has to engage n understanding,xplaining, easoning,andarguing. heengagementf thesechildrenn a difficultask, hownbytheir

eagerness o find a well-groundednswer o the questionsproposed o them,demonstrateshat heyshare conceptionf learning-inLeont'ev's1975/1977)words, they share a particular efinitionof the learning"activity"-as a

self-directedrocessmediated y culturalools andbygroup-distributedction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A previousItalianversionof this articleappearedn 1993 in the bookLa

Condivisione Della Conoscenza [Shared Knowledge]. (C. Pontecorvo, Ed.).Florence:LaNuovaItalia.

Thepreparationf thisarticlewassupported ya grant f the ItalianMinistryof Universityand of Scientific and TechnologicalResearch(60%, Rome

University) or a researchprojecton "Mediationalmeans and interactivemodalitiesn competence cquisition."

REFERENCES

Bloch, M. (1949). Apologie pour l'histoire ou mitier d'historien [Apology for history or the trade

of a historian].Paris:Colin.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar,A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learningand individualknowledge

acquisition.In L. B. Resnick(Ed.),Knowing, earning,and instruction:Essays in honor of Robert

Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Bruner,J. S. (1986). Actualminds,possible worlds. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.Bruner,J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning:Four lectureson mind and culture.Cambridge,MA: Harvard

UniversityPress.

Castiglia,D., Pontecorvo, C., & Zucchermaglio,C. (1983). Discorso e ragionamentoscientifico in

classe [Discourseand scientific reasoningin class]. Scuola e Cittc, 17, 371-387.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookof research on

teaching(3rd ed., pp. 4-91). New York:Macmillan.

Clancey,W. (1990, October).How shouldexpert systemtechnologybe applied or education?Paper

presentedat the NATO Workshopon Intelligent TutoringSystems, Sintra,Portugal.

Cole, M. (1990). Culturalpsychology:A once andfuturediscipline?In J. J. Berman Ed.),Nebraska

Symposiumon Motivation 1989: Cross-culturalperspectives (pp. 279-335). Lincoln: University

of NebraskaPress.Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship.Teaching the crafts

of reading, writingand mathematics. n L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, earning, and instruction:

Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,

Inc.

Ducrot,O. (1980).Les echellesargumentativesArgumentativecales].Paris:Les Editions du Minuit.









Edwards,D., & Mercer,N. (1987). Commonknowledge:Thedevelopmentof understandingn the

classroom. London:Methuen.

Gardiner,P. (1961). The natureof historicalexplanation.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress.

Girardet,H. (1991). Spiegare fenomenistorici[Explaininghistoricalphenomena]. nC. Pontecorvo,A. M. Ajello, & C.Zucchermaglio Eds.),Discutendosi impara:Interazione ociale e conoscenza

(pp. 201-218). Rome:La Nuova ItaliaScientifica.

Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learningtheory and the studyof instruction.Annual Review of

Psychology,40, 631-666.

Grice,H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. nP. Cole & I. L. Morgan Eds.),Syntaxand semantics:

Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic.

Leont'ev,A. N. (1975). Problemidello sviluppopsichico [Problemsof psychicaldevelopment](S. A.

Boclone & V. Boclone, Trans.).Rome: EditoriRiuniti.(Originalworkpublished1959)

Leont'ev, A. N. (1977). Attivit6,coscienza,personalith[Activity,consciousness,personality] M. S.

Veggetti, Trans.).Florence:GiuntiBarbera. Originalwork published1975)Mehan,M. (1979). Learninglessons. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Newman, D., Griffin,P., & Cole, M. (1989). The constructionzone: Working or cognitive changein school. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Olson, D. R. (1986). The cognitive consequencesof literacy.CanadianPsychology,27, 109-121.

Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo,C. (1992). Children's talk in classroom discussion. Cognition and

Instruction,9, 113-136.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca,L. (1958). Traiti de l'argumentation:La nouvelle rhitorique

[Essay on argumentation: he new rhetoric].Paris: Presses Universitairesde France.

Pontecorvo,C. (1986). Interazionedi gruppoe conoscenza: Processi e ruoli [Group nteractionand

knowledge:Processes androles]. Etd Evolutiva,24, 85-95.Pontecorvo,C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning:The role of argument n knowledgeconstruction.

In E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks,R. Parmentier,& P. Span (Eds.), Learningand instruction:A

publication of the EuropeanAssociationfor Research on Learningand Instruction Vol. 1, pp.

71-82). Oxford,England/Leuven,Belgium:Leuven UniversityPress.

Pontecorvo,C. (1990). Social context, semiotic mediationand forms of discourse in constructing

knowledgeat school. In H. Mandl,E. De Corte,N. Bennett,& H. Friederich Eds.),Learningand

instruction:A publicationof the EuropeanAssociation or Research on Learningand Instruction

(Vol. 2, pp. 1-27). Oxford,England:Pergamon.

Pontecorvo,C. (1993). Social interaction ndknowledgeacquisition.EducationalPsychologyReview,

5, 293-310.

Pontecorvo, C., & Orsolini,M. (1989, April). Discussing and explaininga story at school. Paper

presentedat the meetingof the Society for Researchon Child Development,KansasCity.

Pontecorvo,C., & Orsolini,M. (1992). Analyzinga literacydiscoursepractice rom anactivity-theory

perspective. Infanciay Aprendizaje,58, 125-141.

Pontecorvo,C., & Zucchermaglio,C. (1989, September).Scientificreasoningand cultural mediation.

Paper presented at the meeting of the EuropeanAssociation for Research on Learning and

Instruction,Madrid.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard,R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Toulmin,S. (1958). The uses of argument.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Von Wright,G. (1971). Explanationand understanding. thaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.

Voss, J. F. (1987). Learningand transferin subject-matter earning:A problem-solvingmodel.

InternationalJournalof EducationalResearch, 11, 607-622.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1974). Storia dello sviluppo delle funzioni psichiche superiori [History of the

development of the higher psychic functions] (M. S. Veggetti, Ed. and Trans.). Florence:

Giunti-Barbera.Originalwork published1960)









Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The developmentof higher psychological processes (V.

John-Steiner,E. Souberman,M. Cole, & S. Scribner,Eds. andTrans.).Cambridge,MA: Harvard

UniversityPress.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1990). Pensiero e linguaggio [Thoughtandlanguage](L. Mecacci,Ed. andTrans.).Bari, Italy:Laterza. Originalwork published 1934)

Wertsch,J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Sovietpsychology. Armonk,NY: Sharpe.

Wertsch,J. V. (1985a). Culture,communication, nd cognition: Vygotskian erspectives.Cambridge,

England:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985b). Vygotskyand the social formation of mind. Cambridge,MA: Harvard

UniversityPress.

Wertsch,J. V. (1988, September).The problemof meaningin a socioculturalapproach o mind. In

TheoreticalAdvances in the Studyof Cognition.Lectureseries, Universityof Calgary,Calgary,Canada.

Wertsch,J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. (1984). The creation of context in joint problemsolving. In

B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everydaycognition:Its development n social context(pp. 151-171).

Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Wertsch,J. V., & Sammarco,J. G. (1985). Social precursorso individualcognitivefunctioning:The

problemof units of analysis.In R. A. Hinde,A.-N. Perret-Clermont,& J. Stevenson-Hinde Eds.),

Social relationshipsand cognitivedevelopment pp. 276-291). Oxford,England:Clarendon.

arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics

Documents