ABSTRACT
Resumen La teoría del conflicto sociocognitivo del desarrollo cognitivo emerge en la psicología europea en la década de los 70, sobre todo a partir de investigaciones de la llamada Escuela de Psicología Social de Ginebra, que alcanzó notable difusión en las décadas siguientes. Representa una postura neopiagetiana crítica que pone el acento en el papel determinante de la interacción sociocognitiva entre iguales (y más específicamente de la confrontación de puntos de vista distintos) en el desarrollo de la inteligencia. En este artículo se analiza la especificidad del constructo que perimitirá determinar con claridad los elementos teóricos que lo definen y analizar las confusiones y malos entendidos a que dio lugar la notable difusión del paradigma en la psicología y la educación. En una segunda parte se reportan diversas ilustraciones experimentales sobre la temática, fruto de la labor de un equipo compacto de investigadores del IRICE (CONICET). Se trata de una selección en torno a tres ejes de extensión del paradigma: el conflicto como promotor del desarrollo de la operacionalidad formal, el microanálisis de los tipos y modalidades de conflicto sociocognitivo, y el papel de este en el aprendizaje de conocimientos y el cambio conceptual. Estas ilustraciones son solo un ejemplo de la vitalidad que el paradigma generó en el seno de este equipo de trabajo, y marcan una evolución que también se registra en el contexto científico global. El artículo también hace referencia a estos aportes, aunque el acento se pone en las investigaciones propias, entendido como una muestra de construcción colaborativa.
Abstract The theory of socio-cognitive conflict emerges in European Psychology in the 1970s, particularly from the research of the social psychology school of Geneve, that had a strong diffusion in the following years. This theory represents a neo-piagetian critical view of Piaget's theory of cognitive development, in the sense that the attention is focused on the role of peer socio-cognitive interaction (specifically in the social confrontations of different points of view) enhancing cognitive growth. The value of the socio-cognitive conflict promoting cognitive development lies in the decentration effect that it produces. According to this view, disturbance resulting from socio-cognitive conflicts gives way to a superior state of equilibrium. The first part of the article focuses on the theoretical and methodological analysis of the concept. In that way, two periods are distinguished in the evolution of the paradigm attending the inclusion of the communicational analysis of the verbal exchange between subjects. Also, this analysis refers to many confusions and misunderstandings in the larger application of the paradigm to psychology and education. The aim of the second part is to present some experimental illustrations produced by the IRICE (CONICET) research team's work. These illustrations concern three conceptual axes: the application of the paradigm to the development of the formal-logical intelligence, the microanalysis of modalities and types of socio-cognitive conflict, and the extended application of the paradigm to the knowledge learning and conceptual change. The research reported in the first axis concerns the comparison of two experimental conditions: collaborative (dyads) and individual problem solving task (problems of Raven's test), in a sample of 12-13 year old students. The comparison concerns to the performances both in the experimental treatment and in the individual post-test of equivalent problems applied to all participants. Results show, in both cases, the superiority of the collective condition. The second axis focuses on some studies concerning the modalities and types of socio-cognitive conflicts. Particularly, a system of categories for the analysis of the social behavior of children of different ages (4, 8 and 12 years old) in a block construction task (to build a house) is reported. This system differentiates many kinds of interactional behavior: dissociation, dominance-submission (both lower social coordination), cooperation (implicit and explicit) and collaboration (these three are modalities of higher social coordination). The third axis examines some illustrations referring to the extension of paradigm to the epistemic learning. After some references to the difficulty of this extension to the educational settings, two studies are reported. The first one concerns an experimental comparison between a collaborative learning condition (dyads) and an individual learning condition in university students of Psychology and Physics. Also, two kinds of collaborative learning are considered, one that assures alternating of participation, the incentive of argumentation and the reciprocal evaluation (in other words, the promotion of the socio-cognitive conflict), and one that is carried out without any intervention (spontaneous collaborative learning). Results show the superiority of the promoting socio-cognitive conflict condition upon the others, both in a written production and in individual learning post-tests. In a second research the comparison is between three instructional modalities to teach an epistemic topic: expositive, participative (with teacher's scaffolding) and collaborative (only peers), in students of the first grade of secondary education (13 years old), in samples taken from two schools. Results for individual learning show that there are not great differences between the three modalities when the initial level (pre-test) of cognitive competence is high, but not if the cognitive level is low; here the collaborative condition (without scaffolding) has many difficulties. Finally, the article presents some general conclusions specifically concerning the socio-cognitive conflict.
ABSTRACT
Resumen El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar la influencia del tipo de tarea sobre la construcción dialógica y el tipo de resolución de conflicto sociocognitivo en díadas de estudiantes universitarios ingresantes. Se comparan dos tareas: leer e interpretar tablas de frecuencia y ordenar las posibles causas de una problemática social. Se diseñó un estudio cuasi-experimental de sólo post-test en el que 28 díadas realizaron ambas tareas y se evaluó el efecto del tipo de tarea sobre la construcción dialógica y la resolución. Los resultados generales indican que, en cuanto a la construcción dialógica, la argumentación presenta valores superiores en la tarea de ordenar causas. Con relación a los códigos sociales y organizativos de la resolución de la tarea, se observan valores similares entre ambas condiciones. Finalmente, se identifica una tendencia de la lectura de tabla hacia las resoluciones simétricas argumentativas y del ordenamiento de causas sociales hacia las resoluciones asimétricas argumentativas. Estos resultados, contemplados desde el ámbito educativo, destacan la importancia de la especificidad de la tarea a realizar, ya que la misma tiene influencia sobre los requisitos precisos que dan lugar a las resoluciones ideales que posibilitan avances en los aprendizajes.
Abstract The socio-constructivist perspective of educational processes confers an essential value to the dialogical construction of knowledge. In this respect, in case some conditions are given, conflict resolution may have an important epistemic effect. Therefore, the sociocognitive conflict and its argumentative resolution has been of great interest to researchers. Studies have shown that the type of the task has an effect on several cognitive and social elements of this process but no real consensus has emerged. Consequently, the present paper aims to analyze the influence of the type of task on dialogic construction and the type of sociocognitive conflict resolution in dyads of first-year university students. Two tasks are compared: reading and interpreting frequency tables and ordering the possible causes of a social problem. A quasi-experimental study with only post-test was designed in which 28 dyads performed both tasks. The effect of the different types of tasks on the dialogic construction and conflict resolution was evaluated. General results indicate, in terms of the dialogic construction, higher values of argumentative messages in the causes ordering task. In relation to other kind of messages, such as the social and organizational codes of the resolution of the task, both conditions show similar values. Finally, a tendency towards argumentative symmetric resolutions can be identified in the task of reading frequency tables, whereas the social causes ordering task appears to be associated with a tendency to argumentative asymmetric resolutions. These results, viewed from the educational field, highlight the importance of the specificity of the task to be carried out, since it has influence on some factors such as the participants' knowledge and motivation to perform the task, which appear to have an effect in both the dialogical construction and the conflict resolution. These are the precise requirements that give rise to the ideal conflict resolutions that allow advances in learning.
ABSTRACT
Resumen Objetivos: a) Identificar cualitativamente modalidades de razonamiento en díadas que resuelven problemas lógicos; b) explorar si estas varían en función de tres tipos de composición diádica: dos compañeros de baja competencia (simetría baja), dos compañeros de alta competencia (simetría alta) y un compañero de baja competencia junto a otro de alta competencia (asimetría). Método: Participaron 36 díadas (72 sujetos, edad: M=11 años, 3 meses; DE= 7 meses), de alumnos de quinto y sexto grado de primaria de Rosario (Argentina) La tarea consistió en una serie de diez ítems lógicos de dificultad creciente (matrices progresivas). Esta fue realizada de dos maneras: primero, de modo individual; segundo, bajo una modalidad colaborativa (en díada). El análisis de contenido se concentró en ítems seleccionados intencionalmente y estuvo basado en la construcción recursiva de categorías (método comparativo constante). Resultados: El análisis de las interacciones permitió identificar seis modalidades básicas de razonamiento, que fueron desde un nivel inicial basado en una selección arbitraria de la respuesta, hasta un nivel de alta complejidad basado en la construcción de sentido lógico integrando filas y columnas. Por otra parte, las modalidades más rudimentarias (ensayo-error) predominaron en las díadas con simetría baja (40,0%), mientras que las más avanzadas (de construcción de sentido entre filas y/o columnas) así lo hicieron en las díadas asimétricas (47,4%). Conclusiones: Los resultados permiten ahondar en la comprensión de los procesos sociocognitivos entre pares, especialmente en relación a los fundamentos lógicos propuestos en la actividad. Al mismo tiempo, se discute el concepto de modalidad de razonamiento y se lo diferencia del concepto de modalidad sociocognitiva.
Abstract Objetives: (a) To identify qualitatively modalities of reasoning in dyads that solve logical problems; b) to explore if they vary depending on three types of dyadic composition: two low-competence partners (low-competence symmetry), two high-competence (high-competence symmetry); a low-competence subject with a high-competence subject (asymmetry). Method: Participants were 36 dyads (72 subjects, age: M=11 years old, 3 months; SD= 7 months) of 5th and 6th grade of elementary school, from Rosario (Argentina). The task consisted of a series of ten logical items of increasing difficulty (progressive matrices). This was performed in two ways: first, individually; then, collaborative modality (dyad). The content analysis was concentrated on intentionally selected items and was based on the recursive construction of categories (constant comparative method). Results: The analysis of interactions allowed identifying six basic modes of reasoning, that were from an initial level based on an arbitrary selection of the answer, up to a level of high complexity based on logical sense construction integrating rows and columns. Moreover, the most rudimentary modalities (trial and error) predominated in the low-competence symmetry dyads (40.0%), while the most advanced (construction of sense between rows and/or columns) predominated in the asymmetric dyads (47.4%). Conclusions: The results allow to depth in the understanding of peer socio-cognitive processes, especially in relation to the logical fundaments proposed in the activity. At the same time, the concept of modality of reasoning is discussed and it is differentiated from the concept of socio-cognitive modality.
ABSTRACT
El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo estudiar el proceso de construcción sociocognitiva buscando identificar específicamente, en situaciones de colaboración, la presencia de diferentes tipos de conflicto: puramente social o no-cognitivo (CS), sociocognitivo implícito (CSCi) y sociocognitivo explícito (CSCe). Con este fin, se constituyeron dos grupos de 12 díadas, cada uno pertenecientes a dos disciplinas diferentes: Psicología y Física. Estas díadas debían aprender colaborativamente un material académico específico relativo a la temática de sus respectivas carreras. Las interacciones fueron grabadas, lo que permitió realizar un análisis exhaustivo de la verbalización. El análisis se centró en identificar al interior de la discursividad de pares la presencia de estos tres tipos de conflicto, tratando de detectar posibles diferencias entre ambas epistemes. En relación a Psicología, los resultados muestran que pueden distinguirse dos grupos de díadas: uno con predominio del CS en desmedro de la intersubjetividad cognitiva, y otro con predominio del CSCi por sobre la regulación puramente social (CS). En comparación con dicha episteme, en Física no existe tal sub-tipología sino que el patrón es relativamente uniforme en todas las díadas, con un predominio del CSCi, un decrecimiento del CS y un aumento CSCe.
This paper aims to study the sociocognitive interaction looking specifically identify the presence of three types of conflict: social, implicit sociocognitive conflict and explicit sociocognitive. For this purpose there were constituted two groups of 12 dyads each one belonging to two different disciplines: Psychology and Physic. These dyads had to learn collaboratively an academic text. The interactions were recorded, allowing a comprehensive analysis of verbalization. The analysis focused on identifying within a peer discourse the presence of these three types of conflict and detects a possible difference between both disciplines. The results show that while in Psychology is a typology that distinguishes dyads with a predominance of social conflict to the detriment of intersubjectivity, in Physics this sub-typology does not exist, the pattern is relatively uniform over all the dyads with a predominance of sociocognitive expanded conflict, a decrease of the social conflict and an increase of the sociocognitive conflict.
ABSTRACT
Aprendizaje colaborativo y representación social son dos conceptos de fuerte vigencia en la psicología educacional y la psicología social, respectivamente. Aunque la producción bibliográfica es muy vasta en ambos casos, las posibilidades y beneficios de un acercamiento conceptual no han sido advertidos, seguramente por corresponder a desarrollos epistemológicos independientes. Sin embargo, ambos conceptos aluden a la construcción de conocimientos en y a través de la interacción social, por lo que puede reconocérseles una identidad socioconstructivista. Pero también hay diferencias intrínsecas entre ambos conceptos: uno está focalizado en el conocimiento científico y el otro en el conocimiento de sentido común. En relación a esto se analiza el problema del cambio conceptual que, a la luz del reconocimiento de un doble sistema representacional, adquiere una nueva inteligibilidad.
This contribution deals with some links between CLT (Collaborative learning) and SRT (Social representation) on the assumption that there is a conceptual identity between both perspectives. This identity concern a common socioconstructivist framework: knowledge is viewed as a socially shared cognition. The present contribution analyses some common traits of CLT and SRT as a consequence of this constructivist view. Finally the paper focuses on the intrinsic conflict between CLT and SRT concerning the conceptual change in educational settings. In one way it is clear that the conceptual change toward a scientific knowledge is an objective of all educational action, but it is true that this change is not easy because the resistance of learners to surmount the common sense supported by the socio-representational knowledge.