Participation in Dialogic Learning Differences among presentations Methodology (experiments, quasi experiments, correlational studies) Emphasis on student-student vs. teacher-student interaction Number of conversational participants (small groups to classrooms) Duration of study (1 week to several years) Goal of study (e.g., development of discourse norms, dialogue and leadership, dialogue and learning) Variables measured Conversational (e.g., talk about discourse, number of utterances, reasoned responses to others’ views, correct explanations, challenging others’ views) Cognitive (e.g., science and math achievement, number conservation, spatial awareness, analogical reasoning, text comprehension)

Participation in Dialogic Learning Commonalities across presentations Evidence suggesting dialogue may have positive effects on short-term and long-term indices of thinking and learning No systematic attention to role of motivation Motivational assumptions rarely discussed General belief that dialogue fosters “engagement” General belief that dialogue should involve “cognitive challenge” Suggestion that competition may foster engagement (Kuhn & Zillmer; Anderson) Questions What goals are activated in different conversational environments, and how do these goals affect conversation and cognitive outcomes? How do students’ pre-existing goals affect their conversations and cognitive outcomes?

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Cooperative learning (vis-à-vis competitive and individualistic learning) Elliot Aronson; David and Roger Johnson; Robert Slavin Consistent and wide-ranging effects Academic achievement Self-esteem Intergroup relations Acceptance of academically handicapped students Attitudes toward school Possible mechanisms Self-interest (reward interdependence) Interpersonal attraction Cognitive elaboration

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Socio-cognitive conflict Gabriel Mugny, Willem Doise, A. N. Perret-Clermont; Fabrizio Butera Socio-cognitive conflict = individuals have different responses to a problem and seek to achieve a joint solution Produces extensive cognitive restructuring Generalization across domains Novel solutions Moderated by several factors Participants’ level of cognitive development Participants’ relative status Intensity of conflict Mode of conflict resolution (social or cognitive)

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Constructive controversy (vis-à-vis debate, concurrence seeking, individualistic effort) David and Roger Johnson Constructive controversy = two people’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, or opinions are incompatible and they seek to reach agreement Well-developed theoretical rationale (uncertainty, epistemic curiosity, information search, perspective taking, reconceptualization) Necessary conditions: cooperative goal structure, skilled disagreement, rational argument, active involvement of all participants Positive impact on wide range of achievement tasks, cognitive reasoning, perspective taking, task involvement, self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, ability to engage in political discourse

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Achievement goals Carol Dweck; Andrew Elliot; Judith Harackiewicz Mastery goals (meet task-based or self-defined criteria) vs. Performance goals (outperform others) Approach goals (improve skills; do better than others) vs. Avoidance goals (avoid skill decline; avoid doing worse than others) Approach > > avoidance Mastery > < performance Current directions Multiple goals approach: unique benefits of mastery and performance goals Mechanisms: arousal/effort; depth of learning (how students study); learning agenda (what students study -- teacher vs. self)

Achievement Goals: Implications for Dialogic Learning Regulation of socio-cognitive conflict Epistemic regulation = focus on gaining valid knowledge open mindedness Relational regulation = focus on demonstrating competence defensiveness Darnon & Butera (2007); Darnon, Butera, & Harackiewicz (2007) Mastery goals lead to epistemic regulation and better learning Performance goals lead to relational regulation and worse learning Exchange of information Mastery and performance goals affect orientations toward others and willingness to share information with them Poortvleit et al. (2007) Mastery goals lead to reciprocity orientation and high info sharing Performance goals lead to exploitation orientation and low info sharing

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Group composition Number of members Characteristics of members Demographic features (sex, race, age, SES) Skills/knowledge Values Personality Distribution of characteristics Homogeneous Heterogeneous Balanced Unbalanced Majority/minority

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Group composition (cont.) Substantial research on how diversity affects group processes (e.g., communication, conflict) and performance Many moderators have been identified (e.g., member characteristics, length of contact, type of task) Substantial research on how members of numerical majorities and minorities process information from and are influenced by the other faction Many moderators have been identified (e.g., faction size, social identity of majority and minority members, objective vs. subjective issues) Substantial research on “stereotype threat,” in which members of social groups (often minorities) exhibit reduced performance when a negative stereotype of their group is activated Anxiety about performance reduces working memory capacity

Potentially Useful Lines of Work Group composition and learning in groups Interactants with complementary information learn more than those with the same information (Lambiotte et al., 1988) Introverts prefer collaborative over adversarial discourse (Nussbaum, 2002) Many interesting questions remain…

Conclusions Researchers who study dialogue and learning should (a) make explicit their assumptions about the role of motivation and (b) base these assumptions on evidence Attention should be given to the range of epistemic and social motives that may operate in dialogue situations De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg (2008) – Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine (2009) – Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world Attention should be given to how situationally induced motives change during interaction and how pre-existing motives interact with situationally induced motives