Identified as an important force toward intellectual growth, peer argument is now promoted within educational policy. Nevertheless, implementation of policy is unclear, particularly when effective argument is known to be possible during the preschool years. One source of uncertainty is data indicating that the form of preschool argument varies with socioeconomic status (SES) and gender, and the study to be reported here was intended to probe this matter further. The study was based on recordings of the arguments held by 125 nursery school children. Observations were made in four activity contexts. Most children displayed sophisticated tactics, for example, justifying positions and selecting alternatives. However, sophisticated tactics were interspersed with rudimentary ones, for example, physical force and bland assertions, and (even with activity context taken into account) the manner of interspersion was dependent on SES and gender. The implications for educational policy and pragmatic theory will be discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, A.
, Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (in press). Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science.
2.
Berkowitz, M. W.
, Gibbs, J. C., & Broughton, J. (1980). The relation of moral judgement disparity to developmental effects of peer dialogue. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 341-357.
3.
Billig, M.
(1987). Arguing and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., and Baines, E. (1999). The nature and use of classroom groups in primary schools. End of Award Report to ESRC.
5.
Brown, P.
, & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In K. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 33-62). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Brown, P.
, & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Bruck, M.
, & Tucker, G. (1974). Social class differences in the acquisition of school language. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 20, 205-220.
8.
Corsaro, W.
, & Rizzo, T. (1986). Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 21-66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Davenport, P.
, & Howe, C. (1999). Conceptual gain and successful problem solving in primary school mathematics. Educational Studies, 25, 55-78.
10.
Doise, W.
, & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
11.
Dunn, J.
, & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy and understanding. London: Grant McIntyre.
12.
Eisenberg, A.
, & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflict. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.
13.
Ervin-Tripp, S.
(1982). Structures of control. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 27-47). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Foster, S. H.
(1990). The communicative competence of young children. London: Longman.
15.
Garvey, C.
(1991). Play. London: Fontana.
16.
Genishi, C.
, & Di Paolo, M. (1982). Learning through agreement in a pre-school. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 49-67). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Hardman, M. (1986). Structure and developmental change in social cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Strathclyde.
18.
Hartup, W.
(1983). Peer relations. In E. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social interaction (Vol. 4, pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley.
19.
Howe, C.
(1997). Gender and classroom interaction: A research review. Edinburgh, Scotland: SCRE.
20.
Howe, C.
, & Tolmie, A. (1998). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning in science. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 24-45). London: Routledge.
21.
Howe, C.
, Tolmie, A., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Computer support for the collaborative learning of physics concepts. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 51-68). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
22.
Johnson, J.
, & Ershler, J. (1981). Developmental trends in preschool play as a function of classroom program and child gender. Child Development, 52, 995-1004.
23.
Kruger, A. C.
(1992). The effect of peer- and adult-child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 191-211.
24.
Kuhn, D.
, Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
25.
Lloyd, B.
, & Duveen, G. (1992). Gender identities and education: The impact of starting school. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
26.
Miell, D.
, & MacDonald, R. (2000). Children’s creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development, 9, 348-369.
27.
Miller, P.
, Danaher, D., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged 5 and 7. Developmental Psychology, 22, 543-548.
28.
Minuchin, P.
, & Shapiro, E. (1983). The school as a context for social development. In E. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social interaction (Vol. 4, pp. 197-274). New York: Wiley.
29.
Orsolini, M.
(1993). Dwarfs do not shoot: An analysis of children’s justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 281-297.
30.
Piaget, J.
(1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
31.
Pontecorvo, C.
, Paoletti, G., & Orsolini, M. (1989). Use of the computer and social interaction in a language curriculum. Golem, 5, 12-14.
32.
Robinson, W. P.
(1974). Language and social behavior. London: Penguin.
33.
Robinson, W. P.
(1979). Speech markers and social class. In K. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 211-249). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Robinson, W. P.
(1981). Some problems for theory, methodology and methods for the 1980’s. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Communication in development (pp. 259-284). London: Academic Press.
35.
Roy, A.
, & Howe, C. (1990). Effects of cognitive conflict, socio-cognitive conflict and imitation on children’s socio-legal thinking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 241-252.
36.
Rubin, K.
, Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social interaction (Vol. 4, pp. 693-774). New York: Wiley.
37.
Sawyer, R. K.
(1996). Role voicing, gender and age in preschool play discourse. Discourse Processes, 22, 289-307.
38.
Schliemann, A.
, & Nunes, T. (1990). A situated schema of proportionality. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 259-269.
39.
Scottish Office Education Department
. (1991). English language 5-14. Edinburgh, Scotland: HMSO.
40.
Sheldon, A.
(1992). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 95-117.
41.
Slavin, R. E.
(1983). Co-operative learning. New York: Longman.
42.
Smith, P. K.
, & Connolly, K. J. (1981). Reactions of pre-school children to a strange observer. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.), Ethological studies of child behaviour (pp. 65-95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Strathclyde Regional Council
. (1994). Partners in learning: 0-5 curriculum guidelines. Glasgow, Scotland: Strathclyde Regional Council, Department of Education.
44.
Tizard, B.
, & Hughes, M. (1984). Young children learning. London: Fontana.
45.
Tough, J.
(1973). Focus on meaning: A study of children’s use of language. London: Allen & Unwin.
46.
Trudgill, P.
(1974). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
47.
Vespo, J.
, Pedersen, J., & Hay, D. (1995). Young children’s conflicts with peers and siblings: Gender effects. Child Study Journal, 25, 189-212.
48.
Wardhaugh, R.
(1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
49.
Webb, N.
(1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39.
