Student Discussion from an Evolutionary Perspective

• Authors: Metzgar Matthew
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Student discussion has been identified as a key ingredient in overall student learning (Flynn & Klein 2001; Safari et al 2006). However, in many classrooms, there is little to no discussion between teachers and students or among students themselves. This may result from high student-teacher ratios, or from the chosen pedagogy of the instructor. A variety of ideas to increase class discussion have been proposed over time. A number of these ideas have been shown to increase student learning (Freeman et al 2014 for a recent meta-analysis). This paper attempts to analyze student discussion from a human evolutionary standpoint. Such a view may add new insights into how discussion can be effectively used in the classroom. While looking at discussion from such an evolutionary view, several key questions arise: how and why did humans utilize discussion in the past? What are “natural conditions” for human discussion? How can these ideas help increase the use and effectiveness of discussion within an educational framework? This paper hopes to answer these questions and expound upon the evolutionary origins of productive discussion.

Keywords

EN

student; discussion; class discussion

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Zarządzania z siedzibą w Rzeszowie
• Journal: Social Communication. Online Journal
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 1(19)
• Pages: 9-14

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Metzgar Matthew

• University of North Carolina at Charlotte

References

• BARCELÓ, J. A., BERNAL, F. D. C., DEL OLMO, R., MAMELI, L., QUESADA, F. M., POZA, D., & VILÀ, X. (2014).Social Interaction in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Simulating the Consequences of Cooperation and Social Aggregation. Social Science Computer Review, 32(3), 417-436.
• BERNARD, S., MERCIER, H., & CLÉMENT, F. (2012). The power of well-connected arguments: Early sensitivity to the connective because. Journal of experimental child psychology, 111(1), 128-135.
• BRUFFEE, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the” conversation of mankind”. College English, 635-652.
• CROUCH, C. H., & MAZUR, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
• FINLEY, A. (2011). Civic learning and democratic engagements: A review of the literature on civic engagement in post-secondary education. Unpublished paper. Accessed October, 12, 2014.
• FLYNN, A. E., & KLEIN, J. D. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 71-86.
• FREEMAN, S., EDDY, S. L., MCDONOUGH, M., SMITH, M. K., OKOROAFOR, N., JORDT, H., & WENDEROTH, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201319030.
• GEARY, D. C. (2000). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and individual differences, 12(4), 317-345.
• GLASSMAN, R. M. (1986). Democracy and despotism in primitive societies: A neo-Weberian approach to political theory. Port Washington, N.Y: Associated Faculty Press.
• HILL, K. R., WALKER, R. S., BOŽIČEVIĆ, M., EDER, J., HEADLAND, T., HEWLETT, B., ... & WOOD, B. (2011). Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure. Science, 331(6022), 1286-1289.
• JONES, M., & SUGDEN, R. (2001). Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision, 50(1), 59-99.
• KUHN, D., & CROWELL, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552.
• KYNDT, E., RAES, E., LISMONT, B., TIMMERS, F., CASCALLAR, E., & DOCHY, F. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?. Educational Research Review, 10, 133-149.
• LAUGHLIN, P. R., & ELLIS, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 177-189.
• MAZUR, E. (1997). Peer instruction (pp. 9-18). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• MCGARTY, C., TURNER, J. C., HOGG, M. A., DAVID, B., & WETHERELL, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-19.
• MERCIER, H. (2011). On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11(1-2),1-2.
• MERCIER, H., & SPERBER, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(02), 57-74.
• MERCIER, H., BOUDRY, M., PAGLIERI, F., & TROUCHE, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 1-16.
• MOSHMAN, D., & GEIL, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 4(3), 231-248.
• NAGDA, B. R. A., GURIN, P., & LOPEZ, G. E. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race, ethnicity and education, 6(2), 165-191.
• NUSSBAUM, E. M., & SINATRA, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
• OSBORNE, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
• PRINCE, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231.
• PRITCHARD, J. K. (2010). How we are evolving. Scientific American, 303(4), 40-47.
• RICHTER, F. D., & TJOSVOLD, D. (1980). Effects of student participation in classroom decision making on attitudes, peer interaction, motivation, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 74.
• SAFARI, M., YAZDANPANAH, B., GHAFARIAN, H. R., & YAZDANPANAH, S. (2006). Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on students learning and satisfaction. Iranian journal of medical education, 6(1), 59-64.
• SUNSTEIN, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of political philosophy, 10(2), 175-195.
• TATTERSALL, I. (2009). “Language and the origin of symbolic thought,” in Cognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution, eds S. A. De Beaune, F. L. Coolidge, and T. G. Wynn (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 109–116.
• TROUCHE, E., SANDER, E., & MERCIER, H. (2014). Arguments, More than Confidence, Explain the Good Performance of Reasoning Groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (Forthcoming).

Identifiers

EISSN

2450-7563