- Email: [email protected]
Enhancing adolescent girls’ argument skills in reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions
Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Enhancing adolescent girls’ argument skills in reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions Wadiya Udell ∗ University of Washington, Bothell Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Box 358530, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011-8246, United States
Abstract The present study sought to evaluate (a) the effectiveness of an intervention in developing adolescents’ argument skills regarding a decision on a topic of high potential personal relevance (teen pregnancy) or one of general social relevance (capital punishment), and (b) differential effects of the two topics in promoting the generalization of skills to a new topic. Thirty 14–15-year-old adolescent girls participated in an intervention on one of the two topics. The 16 sessions of the intervention were identical except for topic. Argument skills were assessed on both topics at pretest and posttest. Both interventions were effective in developing rudimentary argument skills, but only the intervention focusing on the personally relevant topic resulted in transfer to the less personal topic. Transfer in the opposite direction did not occur. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Reasoning; Discourse; Decision-making; Adolescents; Cognitive development
The last decade has witnessed an increasing interest in the cognitive processes underlying adolescents’ decisions. The social and health decisions made by adolescents have led many to question their competency as decision-makers. Adolescents are often characterized as risky decisionmakers compared to adults (Byrnes, 1998; Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992; Scott & Steinberg, 2003), as they tend to take greater health and safety risks, such as engaging in unprotected sex (Scott & Steinberg, 2003; Troth & Peterson, 2000). Much of the cognitive research on adolescent decision-making applies value-based models of adult decision-making to adolescents. These models are based on assigning probability of occurrence and calculating numerical utilities for each alternative. Only recently have researchers within the value-based tradition begun to question whether the cognitive and decision-making processes of adolescents are the same as those of adults (Byrnes, 2002; Janis & Klaczynski, ∗
Tel.: +1 425 352 3672. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.02.003
342
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
2002) and to acknowledge the limitations of this approach with regard to real-world decisionmaking. Some researchers within this tradition have called for the increased examination of reason and argument as a foundation for decision-making (Hogarth & Kunreuther, 1997; Montgomery & Svenson, 1989; Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993; Slovic, 1975). Argument provides a foundation for effective decision-making, helping decision-makers to better define and justify choices, thus engaging the decision-maker in more thoughtful processing of options and consequences. From the perspective of the researcher, an advantage of focusing on reasoning and argument, rather than computational processes, as underlying decision-making is that it lends itself to the study of decision-making as a developmental process. The cognitive skills involved in argument have been shown to develop with exercise and in response to intervention (Anderson et al., 2001; Chinn & Anderson, 1998; Felton, 2004; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn & Udell, 2003). Felton found that young adolescents’ engagement in argument practice and reflection on their argumentation led to an improvement in rudimentary argumentation strategies (Felton, 2004). Building on these findings, Kuhn and Udell (2003) designed a successful goal-based intervention to develop adolescents’ argument skills. Although Kuhn and Udell’s (2003) intervention developed students’ skills in arguing about broad social issues, its relevance to adolescents’ thinking on topics of personal importance remained an open question. Adolescents are more likely to gain competency when skills are relevant to their everyday lives (Perret-Clermont, 2004). Research has shown people to reason differently about personal topics than less personal ones (Klaczynski, 1997; Klaczynski & Gordon, 1996; Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Loughlin, 1988; Kunda, 1987). For example, Klaczynski and Gordon (1996) found adolescents to use sophisticated strategies only when they led to conclusions supporting their personal beliefs. Adolescents have also been found to invoke inconsistent reasoning strategies in order to support their beliefs when reasoning about personally meaningful problems (Klaczynski, 1997). But perhaps the most important reason to examine adolescents’ argument skills in the context of personally relevant issues is the potential it has for improving adolescents’ lives. It is the personal decisions adolescents make, and not the non-personal ones, that have the most potentially detrimental consequences for the adolescent decision-maker. Given the difficulty cognitive researchers have had in promoting the transfer of skills across domains, it is important to test any intervention in areas of personal relevance. An intervention would be most valuable if it were able to promote competent reasoning in both personal and non-personal domains. The present study tests the relative effectiveness of an intervention in developing inner-city adolescent girls’ argument skills, comparing a broad social issue (capital punishment) and a relevant personal issue (teen pregnancy) as the topic of discourse. Whereas many adolescents may have strong opinions on the topic of capital punishment, the topic does not affect them personally. The topic of unwanted teenage pregnancy was chosen as a personally relevant one for the targeted population. Teenage birth rates in the United States is among the highest among industrialized nations (United Nations, 2003). In 2003, approximately 10% of all births in the US were born to young women under the age of 20 years (Martin et al., 2005a). While the teenage birth rate has decreased over the last decade, Black and Latina youth from socially and/or economically disadvantaged backgrounds continue to have the highest rates (Kaufmann et al., 1998; Martin, Kochanek, Strobino, Guyer, & MacDorman, 2005b). The girls participating in the study were acutely aware of how having a child during adolescence could place them at risk for future social and economic disadvantage. Many of the girls were born to women who were teen mothers, or have siblings or friends who have become pregnant during their adolescent years. The students have witnessed first hand the difficulties of teen
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
343
parenting, and many continue to struggle with issues of pregnancy during their own teenage years. The present study addresses the following questions: (1) Is an intervention as effective in promoting argument skills when the topic of discourse is one of personal relevance (teen pregnancy) as it is when a less personal topic (capital punishment) is the focus of discourse? (2) Are there differential effects of the two intervention topics in promoting the transfer of argument skills to a new topic? 1. Method Data for the present study were drawn from an experimental study in which 45 girls were randomly assigned to either an intervention condition focusing on teenage pregnancy, another focusing on capital punishment, or a posttest-only control condition. Comparisons of the control condition to both intervention conditions at posttest established both intervention conditions to be effective in developing argumentive reasoning skills relative to no intervention (Udell, 2004), replicating Kuhn and Udell’s (2003) previous findings that the intervention is effective in developing argument skills that would not normally develop under non-intervention circumstances. The present article therefore focuses on comparisons of the two intervention conditions. 1.1. Participants Participants were 30 adolescent girls between the ages of 14 and 15 years who attended an all-girls Catholic high school serving a working class to lower-middle class inner-city population in the Northeast US. Tuition expense for the school was in the range of $5000 to $6000 per year, and 85% of students required financial assistance. Participants consisted of equal numbers of 9th and 10th grade students. Of the 30 participants, 10 were Hispanic, 10 were West Indian American, nine were African American, and one was of mixed ethnicity. Participants were recruited at the beginning of the school year. Ninth and tenth grade students attended an assembly where they were given a description of the study and invited to participate. Participating students and their parents provided consent for the students’ participation. Participation was voluntary and occurred after school hours. In exchange for their participation, all students received movie passes and letters of recommendation to be filed for college applications. Participants were randomly assigned to each intervention condition. A total of 14 students participated in the intervention focusing on the teenage pregnancy topic (pregnancy-focused intervention). Two additional students in this condition began the intervention but dropped out prior to completing. The remaining 16 students participated in the intervention focusing on the topic of capital punishment (capital punishment-focused intervention). Each intervention condition extended over the same period of time, approximately one semester. Students met bi-weekly for a total of 16 ninety-minute sessions. Although students met for 16 sessions, the total period during which each intervention condition took place was extended to approximately 3 months due to holidays, school closings, and conflicting after-school activities. 1.2. Measures Assessments consisted of a questionnaire measuring participants’ opinions and justifications for their opinions, and a dialogic assessment measuring argumentive reasoning for each of the two topics: teenage pregnancy – whether a pregnant 14 year old with limited resources should
344
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Table 1 Pregnancy dilemmaa Jessica is a 14 year old who lives with her mother and three younger brothers. She is an average student who hopes to go to college. Jessica has just discovered she is 5 months pregnant, which is too late for an abortion. Jessica knows that it would be difficult to provide for her child. She is too young to work and her mother is already struggling to provide for Jessica and her three brothers. But her boyfriend has offered to help and said maybe they can get married when they finish high school. Jessica is thinking about keeping the baby but she’s also thinking of adoption as an option. A cousin in Puerto Rico has said she would like to adopt the baby. She thinks her child would have a better life if adopted by her cousin in Puerto Rico. However, Puerto Rico is very far away and she knows she will not be able to see the baby growing up and make sure the baby is okay. Jessica is really having a hard time deciding what to do. a For the topic of capital punishment, participants were given the following description of capital punishment: the issue of whether a person should be put to death for a serious crime.
keep her baby or give it up for adoption, and capital punishment – whether a person should be put to death for a serious crime (see Table 1 for the pregnancy topic). Pretest and posttest assessments were identical. 1.2.1. Opinions Participants’ opinions on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics were assessed using the opinion scale adapted from Kuhn and Lao (1996). The scale presents 13 statements representing a range of positions on the topic (teenage pregnancy or capital punishment). The statements consist of six statements in favor of the topic (of giving the child up for adoption or of the practice of capital punishment), one neutral statement expressing an undecided opinion, and six statements against the topic. The six statements on each side of the neutral statement ranged from slightly in favor (or against) the topic to extremely in favor (or against) the topic. The format for both the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment opinion scales was identical. The participant was also asked to give a justification for her opinion. 1.2.2. Dialogic argument Participants’ dialogic argument skills were assessed using the coding scheme developed by Felton and Kuhn (2001; see the Appendix for a summary of the codes). The Felton and Kuhn discourse scheme is a functional coding scheme, identifying the function of each utterance (turntaking) in a dialogue, relative to the immediately preceding utterance. Each utterance in a dialogue is segmented and categorized as reflecting one of the single-utterance argumentive operations in the coding scheme. Sequences of utterances are also identified as reflecting particular argument strategies. 1.3. Procedure Procedures were identical across intervention conditions. Pretest assessments began with the completion of an opinion scale on both the teenage pregnancy and the capital punishment (CP) topics. Responses were used to assign participants to a team within their respective intervention conditions (“keep” or “adopt” team based on the opinions expressed on the teen pregnancy scale, and “pro” or “con” team based on the opinions expressed on the CP scale). Participants who expressed a neutral or mixed opinion were assigned to a team based on the justifications given for their opinion.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
345
Each participant was then matched with another one holding a contrasting view on both topics. For example, a participant in favor of CP and believing it best for the teen in the pregnancy scenario to keep her baby was matched with a participant who was against CP and believed the teen should place her child for adoption. Each matched pair met in a private room to participate in a discussion on the two topics. Those participating in the pregnancy-focused intervention were asked to discuss the unwanted-pregnancy topic first, while those participating in the CP-focused intervention were asked to discuss the CP topic first. Before dyads discussed each topic, students again heard the pregnancy dilemma and were reminded of the definition of capital punishment. Dyads were asked to discuss each topic for 10 min. The posttest procedure was identical to the pretest. For the posttest dialogic assessment, participants were paired with the same person as on the pretest. All dialogues were transcribed and checked for accuracy. Two trained raters blind to the treatment, time, and identity of the participants coded the dialogues using the Felton and Kuhn (2001) scheme. The two raters practiced on a randomly chosen subset of dialogues constituting 15% of the database. Coded dialogues were examined for inter-rater reliability, and disagreement between raters was resolved by discussion. Practice was completed once the raters’ percentage of agreement reached 80%. One rater then coded all dialogues, while the second rater randomly sampled 25% of the coded dialogues and recoded them to establish reliability. Percentage agreement between the first rater and second rater on all codes in the coding scheme was 86% (Cohen’s kappa = .71). 1.4. Intervention The intervention was directed toward a final team debate, with students working collaboratively to develop their team’s argument and preparing for the debate against an opposing team. The two intervention conditions were identical except for the topic. Students in the pregnancy-focused condition were assigned to either a “keep” or “adopt” team (based on pretest assessment, as noted earlier), whereas students in the CP-focused condition were assigned to a “pro” or “con” team. There were seven or eight students on each team. Actual attendance on each day ranged from five to eight members. Teams met separately with an adult coach (the author and a research assistant) for each 90 min session. Although separated, the teams worked on the same activities at approximately the same pace. The adult coaches remained the same for both intervention conditions. For a detailed description of the intervention, see Kuhn and Udell (2003). Presented here is an overview of the key features of the activities and accompanying goals. The intervention was designed to develop the sequence of skills listed in Table 2. The intervention consists of ten main activities, each with an accompanying goal, and concludes with a team debate. Two key features of the intervention are the goal-based aspect and the externalization of ideas to promote reflection on them. For the students, the goal of the activity was to win the debate. As discussed by Kuhn and Udell (2003), this goal engaged and sustained students’ interest and provided a rationale for their involvement. An additional feature of the intervention is the external representation of ideas achieved through writing and social collaboration. Working as a team forced students to externalize their thinking. Throughout the intervention students were required to clarify and justify their viewpoints to their peers. Posttest assessment followed the intervention activities. The final group debate followed the posttest, allowing the posttest to serve as both a dyadic assessment identical to the pretest and as further preparation leading to the final debate.
346
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Table 2 Summary of activities and cognitive goals Generating reasons Goals: reasons underlie opinions. Different reasons → same opinion. Elaborating reasons Goal: good reasons support opinions. Supporting reasons with evidence Goal: evidence can strengthen reasons. Evaluating reasons Goal: some reasons are better than others. Developing reasons into an argument Goal: reasons connect to one another and are building blocks of argument. Examining and evaluating opposing-side’s reasons Goal: opponents have reasons too. Generating counterarguments to others’ reasons Goal: reasons can be countered. Generating rebuttals to others counterarguments Goal: counters to reasons can be rebutted. Contemplating mixed evidence Goal: evidence can be used to support different claims. Conducting and evaluating two-sided arguments Goal: some arguments are stronger than others.
1.5. Coding argument discourse strategies The present study examines rudimentary argument skills – construction of a functional counterargument that serves to reduce the force of the opponent’s argument. The quality or strength of counterarguments is not examined in the present work. Analyses focus on the key dialogic argumentive strategies Counterargument-Critique (Counter-C), and the related dialogic sequence Rebuttal that have been identified in previous work as showing increased frequency with age (Felton & Kuhn, 2001) and with practice (Kuhn & Udell, 2003). The Counter-C strategy is fundamental to argument discourse in that it enables the arguer to address one of the major goals of argumentation – to undermine the opponent’s position by identifying and challenging weaknesses in his or her argument (Walton, 1989). Counter-C is defined as a counterargument that directly critiques a statement made by the opponent. Closely related to Counter-C is the more advanced strategic sequence, Rebuttal, which is also crucial to skilled argumentation. Rebuttal is a sequence extending across two utterances. Its function is to reduce or remove the strength of an opponent’s counterargument through critique. Rebuttal is operationally defined as a Counter-C in response to a counterargument made by the opponent.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
347
1.6. Calculating extent of strategy use The coding scheme developed by Felton and Kuhn (2001) assigns a code to every utterance in a dialogue, capturing the function of an utterance and not its content. Consistent with previous studies (Felton, 2004; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn & Udell, 2003), participants’ use of a strategy was calculated as percent usage of the strategy in question (i.e., a rate of the number of utterances reflecting the strategy divided by the total number of utterances). This method of analysis takes into account differences in opportunity to execute strategies, given the differing dialogue lengths. Rebuttal sequences extend across multiple utterances involving both partners, making a proportion-based calculation difficult. Whereas proportions could be calculated in terms of the number of opportunities to make a rebuttal (i.e., an opponent’s counterargument), these percentages would be inflated for individuals who had very limited opportunities to make Rebuttals – 1/1 is not the same as 10/10. For this reason, analyses of Rebuttal are based on frequency. To control for differing dialogue length, the analysis included only the first 15 utterances exhibited by each participant in a dialogue. The first 15 utterances were chosen because they represent approximately half of the mean strategies exhibited by participants in both intervention conditions. Although individuals within conditions may have had differential opportunities to make Rebuttals, comparison of groups of individuals across conditions remains meaningful. 2. Results The goal of the analysis is to compare the effectiveness of the two intervention conditions in developing argument skills in the context of the intervention topic and in the context of a novel topic (the non-intervention topic). A 2 (intervention condition) × 2 (pretest versus posttest) × 2 (topic) repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted, to assess differential effects of the two intervention conditions in advancing both the Counter-C strategy and the Rebuttal strategy on the main and transfer topics. A check for pre-existing group differences between the two intervention conditions showed no significant pretest differences with respect to Counter-C and Rebuttal use. Presentation of results begins with assessment of the effectiveness of each intervention condition in advancing usage of the Counter-C strategy on the main and transfer topics, followed by assessment of the effectiveness of each condition in advancing usage of the Rebuttal strategy on the main and transfer topics. 2.1. Counter-C use on the main and transfer topics More than 80% of participants exhibited the Counter-C strategy at least once during the pretest. Given that the majority of participants exhibited some competence in the pretest, changes in Counter-C use by participants can be regarded as largely reflections of skill improvement (increased frequency of use) rather than acquisition of a new skill (Kuhn & Udell, 2003). As seen in Fig. 1, participants in both intervention conditions increased their use of Counter-C on the CP topic. However, as also seen in Fig. 1, only participants in the pregnancy-focused condition increased their use of Counter-C on the teenage pregnancy topic. A 3-way analysis of Counter-C usage revealed a significant 3-way interaction, F(1, 28) = 9.04, p = .006; partial η2 = .24 for condition × time × topic. Pairwise comparisons reveal the significant difference to lie in the two conditions’ use of the Counter-C strategy on the pregnancy topic at posttest, F(1, 28) = 10.31, p = .003; partial η2 = .24.
348
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Fig. 1. Use of Counter-C on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics. Note: P = pregnancy-focused group; CP = capital punishment-focused group.
2.2. Rebuttal use on the main and transfer topics As illustrated in Fig. 2, Rebuttal use by participants in both intervention conditions was infrequent. On average, participants in both conditions produced no more than four Rebuttals on either topic on the pretest or the posttest. Comparisons of Rebuttal use by participants in the two conditions reveal no significant effect of time, and no significant 3-way (condition by time by topic) interaction. However, a significant topic by condition interaction was found for the Rebuttal sequence, suggesting differential use in Rebuttal averaged across time, F(1, 28) = 18.25, p < 001; partial η2 = .39. As illustrated in Fig. 2, participants in the pregnancy-focused condition used more Rebuttals than those in the CP-focused condition on the pregnancy topic, whereas participants in the CP-focused condition used more Rebuttals on the CP topic than participants in the pregnancyfocused condition. Similar to the results for the Counter-C strategy, pairwise comparisons reveal significant differences in the two groups’ use of the Rebuttal sequence on their respective topics at posttest, F(1, 28) = 10.71, p = .003; partial η2 = .27 and F(1, 28) = 4.91, p = .035; partial η2 = .15 for the CP and pregnancy-focused groups respectively.
Fig. 2. Use of Rebuttal on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics. Note: P = pregnancy-focused group; CP = capital punishment-focused group.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
349
The fact that participants used Rebuttal more often on their intervention topic than did participants who had not been involved in an intervention on the topic is not surprising. Although a 3-way interaction was not found, comparison of Fig. 2 with Fig. 1 reveals a similar pattern in that participants in the pregnancy-focused condition showed improvement on both topics, whereas those in the CP-focused condition showed no improvement on the teenage pregnancy topic, and in fact showed some decline. 3. Discussion Research on adolescent decision-making has highlighted the need to improve the thinking underlying adolescents’ decisions. Consistent with previous research (Kuhn & Udell, 2003), the intervention involving the non-personal topic of capital punishment was effective in developing argument skills on this topic. Compared to those in the Kuhn and Udell study, participants in the present study showed similar improvements in the use of counterargument (specifically, the Counter-C strategy). However, unlike the previous study, the intervention was not effective in improving adolescents’ use of Rebuttal. In addition to partially replicating previous findings, the present study shows that the intervention can also be effective in developing use of counterargument in the context of a personally relevant topic. Adolescents participating in the intervention involving the pregnancy topic increased their use of counterargument to as great an extent as participants in current and previous capital punishment-focused interventions. 3.1. Transfer of argument skills Participation in the intervention focusing on the personally meaningful topic increased use of counterargument on the non-personal topic as well. The reverse was not true. Among participants in the CP intervention, use of counterargment on the personal topic slightly decreased following the intervention. Findings of differential effects in the promotion of transfer of Counter-C use are of particular interest. However, it is not clear why transfer occurred only for those participating in the intervention condition focusing on the personally meaningful topic. A possible explanation for this differential transfer has to do with the different meaning of the two topics for the participants. Whereas participants frequently voiced their strong personal feelings on the topic of teen pregnancy in the dialogues, they rarely did so when discussing the capital punishment topic. While discussing the pregnancy topic, many of the girls used personal experience about someone in their family to support their position; on more than one occasion participants became so immersed in the argument that they began to refer to themselves, instead of the fictional character in the scenario. This anecdotal evidence supports the greater emotional salience of the pregnancy topic. Although we cannot be certain, as participants’ emotional engagement on each topic was not measured, it is possible that developing argument skills with respect to a personally meaningful topic may have allowed participants to practice regulating their emotions in a way that developing skills in the context of a non-personal topic did not. Research has found emotion dysregulation to serve as a cognitive distraction (Byrnes, 1998), which can take the focus away from utilizing effective discourse strategies. If so, transfer of argumentation skills to a less personal topic would require less effort and be less challenging. Conversely, participants who developed argument skills on a less personal topic would find it more difficult to transfer these skills to a personally meaningful topic, where they would have to contend with increased affect as an additional factor.
350
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Without a direct measure of level of affect associated with each topic, this hypothesis remains a speculative one warranting further study. 3.2. Implications for adolescent decision-making and the development of argument skills Although the present findings show that the intervention is effective in developing argument skills (specifically, counterargument) in the context of a personally relevant topic, its limitations should also be noted. The intervention did not significantly increase Rebuttal. The average number of Rebuttals at posttest is comparable to that of participants in the Kuhn and Udell (2003) study (3.5 versus 3.8), suggesting this type of intervention to be most effective in getting students to acquire Rebuttal as a new skill. Future work should address how to increase usage of this fundamental argumentation skill in adolescent populations. The results also indicate it is not enough to develop argument skills in content domains that are not personally relevant with the expectation that they will transfer to personal domains. While transfer of argument skills from a personal topic to a non-personal topic did occur, it is not certain that teens would implement these same skills when making decisions outside of the context of the school-based activity in which they were involved in this study. However, as adolescents exercise these skills in various contexts and on a variety of topics, they will be more likely to adopt them as their own to be used in a variety of settings and across multiple tasks (S¨alj¨o, 2004). Future work should further explore the factors necessary to promote transfer of argument skills both across topic domains and across contextual settings. Most broadly, the present work stands to further our understanding of the thinking that underlies adolescent decision-making. Although the intervention did not focus directly on developing adolescents’ decision-making, it contributes to our understanding of how to develop cognitive skills that contribute to thoughtful and sound decisions. Reasoning and communication strategies, such as argumentation, are important factors in adolescent decision-making (Troth & Peterson, 2000). Given that many of the risky decisions adolescents make are made with peers, it is important for adolescents to develop reasoning that can be used when making decisions alone and together with peers. If we want to improve adolescents’ decision-making, we must develop the thinking and reasoning underlying it. Future work in this area should focus on further identifying and developing the thinking skills necessary to competent personal decision-making. Such research will not only enhance understanding of adolescent cognitive development, but also the personal lives of adolescent decision-makers. Appendix A. Summary of discourse codes Agree-? Case-? Clarify-? Justify-? Meta-? Position-? Question-? Respond-? Add Advance Agree Aside Clarify
A question that asks whether the partner will accept or agree with the speaker’s claim. A request for the partner to take a position on a particular case or scenario. A request for the partner to clarify his or her preceding utterance. A request for the partner to support his or her preceding claim with evidence or further argument. A question regarding the dialogue itself (rather than its content). A request for the partner to state his or her position on an issue. A simple informational question that does not refer back to the partner’s preceding utterance. A request for the partner to react to the speaker’s utterance. An extension or elaboration of the partner’s preceding utterance. An extension or elaboration that advances the partner’s preceding argument. A statement of agreement with the partner’s preceding utterance. A comment that does not extend or elaborate the partner’s preceding utterance. A clarification of speaker’s own argument in response to the partner’s preceding utterance.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352 Coopt Counter-A Counter-C Disagree Dismiss Interpret Meta Null Refuse Substantiate Continue Unconnected
351
An assertion that the partner’s immediately preceding utterance serves the speaker’s opposing argument. A disagreement with the partner’s preceding utterance, accompanied by an alternate argument. A disagreement with the partner’s preceding utterance, accompanied by a critique. A simple disagreement without further argument or elaboration. An assertion that the partner’s immediately preceding utterance is irrelevant to the speaker’s position. A paraphrase of the partner’s preceding utterance with or without further elaboration. An utterance regarding the dialogue itself (rather than its content). An unintelligible or off-task utterance. An explicit refusal to respond to the partner’s preceding question. An utterance offered in support of the partner’s preceding utterance. A continuation or elaboration of the speaker’s own last utterance which ignores the partner’s immediately preceding utterance. An utterance having no apparent connection to the preceding utterances of either partner or speaker.
References Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46. Byrnes, J. (1998). The nature and development of decision making: A self-regulation model. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Byrnes, J. P. (2002). The development of decision-making. Journal of Adolescence Health, 31, 208–215. Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions intended to promote reasoning. The Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368. Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35–52. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153. Furby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1–44. Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1997). Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself. In W. M. Goldstein & R. M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies (pp. 482–508). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Janis, J., & Klaczynski, P. (2002). The development of judgment and decision making during childhood and adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 145–149. Kaufmann, R., Spitz, A., Strauss, L., Morris, L., Santelli, J., Koonin, L., et al. (1998). The decline in US teen pregnancy rates, 1990–1995. Pediatrics, 102, 1141–1147. Klaczynski, P. (1997). Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 273–283. Klaczynski, P., & Gordon, D. (1996). Self-serving influences on adolescents’ evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 317–339. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74–103. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kuhn, D., & Lao, J. (1996). Contemplation and conceptual change: Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review, 18, 125–154. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647. Martin, J., Hamilton, B., Sutton, P., Ventura, S., Menacker, F., Munson, M., et al. (2005). Births: Final data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports, 54, 1–115. Martin, J., Kochanek, K., Strobino, D., Guyer, B., & MacDorman, M. (2005). Annual summary of vital statistics – 2003. Pediatrics, 115, 619–634.
352
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Montgomery, H., & Svenson, O. (1989). In H. Montgomery & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making. Chichester: Wiley. Perret-Clermont, A. (2004). Thinking spaces of the young. In A. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. S¨alj¨o, R. (2004). From learning lessons to living knowledge: Instructional discourse and life experiences of youth in complex society. In A. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 177–191). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Blaming youth. Texas Law Review, 81, 799–840. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 280–287. Troth, A., & Peterson, C. C. (2000). Factors predicting safe-sex talk and condom use in early sexual relationships. Health Communication, 12, 195–218. Udell, W. (2004). Enhancing urban girls’ argumentive reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. United Nations (2003). United Nations demographic yearbook. New York, NY: United Nations. Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.
Enhancing adolescent girls’ argument skills in reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions Wadiya Udell ∗ University of Washington, Bothell Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Box 358530, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011-8246, United States
Abstract The present study sought to evaluate (a) the effectiveness of an intervention in developing adolescents’ argument skills regarding a decision on a topic of high potential personal relevance (teen pregnancy) or one of general social relevance (capital punishment), and (b) differential effects of the two topics in promoting the generalization of skills to a new topic. Thirty 14–15-year-old adolescent girls participated in an intervention on one of the two topics. The 16 sessions of the intervention were identical except for topic. Argument skills were assessed on both topics at pretest and posttest. Both interventions were effective in developing rudimentary argument skills, but only the intervention focusing on the personally relevant topic resulted in transfer to the less personal topic. Transfer in the opposite direction did not occur. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Reasoning; Discourse; Decision-making; Adolescents; Cognitive development
The last decade has witnessed an increasing interest in the cognitive processes underlying adolescents’ decisions. The social and health decisions made by adolescents have led many to question their competency as decision-makers. Adolescents are often characterized as risky decisionmakers compared to adults (Byrnes, 1998; Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992; Scott & Steinberg, 2003), as they tend to take greater health and safety risks, such as engaging in unprotected sex (Scott & Steinberg, 2003; Troth & Peterson, 2000). Much of the cognitive research on adolescent decision-making applies value-based models of adult decision-making to adolescents. These models are based on assigning probability of occurrence and calculating numerical utilities for each alternative. Only recently have researchers within the value-based tradition begun to question whether the cognitive and decision-making processes of adolescents are the same as those of adults (Byrnes, 2002; Janis & Klaczynski, ∗
Tel.: +1 425 352 3672. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.02.003
342
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
2002) and to acknowledge the limitations of this approach with regard to real-world decisionmaking. Some researchers within this tradition have called for the increased examination of reason and argument as a foundation for decision-making (Hogarth & Kunreuther, 1997; Montgomery & Svenson, 1989; Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993; Slovic, 1975). Argument provides a foundation for effective decision-making, helping decision-makers to better define and justify choices, thus engaging the decision-maker in more thoughtful processing of options and consequences. From the perspective of the researcher, an advantage of focusing on reasoning and argument, rather than computational processes, as underlying decision-making is that it lends itself to the study of decision-making as a developmental process. The cognitive skills involved in argument have been shown to develop with exercise and in response to intervention (Anderson et al., 2001; Chinn & Anderson, 1998; Felton, 2004; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn & Udell, 2003). Felton found that young adolescents’ engagement in argument practice and reflection on their argumentation led to an improvement in rudimentary argumentation strategies (Felton, 2004). Building on these findings, Kuhn and Udell (2003) designed a successful goal-based intervention to develop adolescents’ argument skills. Although Kuhn and Udell’s (2003) intervention developed students’ skills in arguing about broad social issues, its relevance to adolescents’ thinking on topics of personal importance remained an open question. Adolescents are more likely to gain competency when skills are relevant to their everyday lives (Perret-Clermont, 2004). Research has shown people to reason differently about personal topics than less personal ones (Klaczynski, 1997; Klaczynski & Gordon, 1996; Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Loughlin, 1988; Kunda, 1987). For example, Klaczynski and Gordon (1996) found adolescents to use sophisticated strategies only when they led to conclusions supporting their personal beliefs. Adolescents have also been found to invoke inconsistent reasoning strategies in order to support their beliefs when reasoning about personally meaningful problems (Klaczynski, 1997). But perhaps the most important reason to examine adolescents’ argument skills in the context of personally relevant issues is the potential it has for improving adolescents’ lives. It is the personal decisions adolescents make, and not the non-personal ones, that have the most potentially detrimental consequences for the adolescent decision-maker. Given the difficulty cognitive researchers have had in promoting the transfer of skills across domains, it is important to test any intervention in areas of personal relevance. An intervention would be most valuable if it were able to promote competent reasoning in both personal and non-personal domains. The present study tests the relative effectiveness of an intervention in developing inner-city adolescent girls’ argument skills, comparing a broad social issue (capital punishment) and a relevant personal issue (teen pregnancy) as the topic of discourse. Whereas many adolescents may have strong opinions on the topic of capital punishment, the topic does not affect them personally. The topic of unwanted teenage pregnancy was chosen as a personally relevant one for the targeted population. Teenage birth rates in the United States is among the highest among industrialized nations (United Nations, 2003). In 2003, approximately 10% of all births in the US were born to young women under the age of 20 years (Martin et al., 2005a). While the teenage birth rate has decreased over the last decade, Black and Latina youth from socially and/or economically disadvantaged backgrounds continue to have the highest rates (Kaufmann et al., 1998; Martin, Kochanek, Strobino, Guyer, & MacDorman, 2005b). The girls participating in the study were acutely aware of how having a child during adolescence could place them at risk for future social and economic disadvantage. Many of the girls were born to women who were teen mothers, or have siblings or friends who have become pregnant during their adolescent years. The students have witnessed first hand the difficulties of teen
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
343
parenting, and many continue to struggle with issues of pregnancy during their own teenage years. The present study addresses the following questions: (1) Is an intervention as effective in promoting argument skills when the topic of discourse is one of personal relevance (teen pregnancy) as it is when a less personal topic (capital punishment) is the focus of discourse? (2) Are there differential effects of the two intervention topics in promoting the transfer of argument skills to a new topic? 1. Method Data for the present study were drawn from an experimental study in which 45 girls were randomly assigned to either an intervention condition focusing on teenage pregnancy, another focusing on capital punishment, or a posttest-only control condition. Comparisons of the control condition to both intervention conditions at posttest established both intervention conditions to be effective in developing argumentive reasoning skills relative to no intervention (Udell, 2004), replicating Kuhn and Udell’s (2003) previous findings that the intervention is effective in developing argument skills that would not normally develop under non-intervention circumstances. The present article therefore focuses on comparisons of the two intervention conditions. 1.1. Participants Participants were 30 adolescent girls between the ages of 14 and 15 years who attended an all-girls Catholic high school serving a working class to lower-middle class inner-city population in the Northeast US. Tuition expense for the school was in the range of $5000 to $6000 per year, and 85% of students required financial assistance. Participants consisted of equal numbers of 9th and 10th grade students. Of the 30 participants, 10 were Hispanic, 10 were West Indian American, nine were African American, and one was of mixed ethnicity. Participants were recruited at the beginning of the school year. Ninth and tenth grade students attended an assembly where they were given a description of the study and invited to participate. Participating students and their parents provided consent for the students’ participation. Participation was voluntary and occurred after school hours. In exchange for their participation, all students received movie passes and letters of recommendation to be filed for college applications. Participants were randomly assigned to each intervention condition. A total of 14 students participated in the intervention focusing on the teenage pregnancy topic (pregnancy-focused intervention). Two additional students in this condition began the intervention but dropped out prior to completing. The remaining 16 students participated in the intervention focusing on the topic of capital punishment (capital punishment-focused intervention). Each intervention condition extended over the same period of time, approximately one semester. Students met bi-weekly for a total of 16 ninety-minute sessions. Although students met for 16 sessions, the total period during which each intervention condition took place was extended to approximately 3 months due to holidays, school closings, and conflicting after-school activities. 1.2. Measures Assessments consisted of a questionnaire measuring participants’ opinions and justifications for their opinions, and a dialogic assessment measuring argumentive reasoning for each of the two topics: teenage pregnancy – whether a pregnant 14 year old with limited resources should
344
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Table 1 Pregnancy dilemmaa Jessica is a 14 year old who lives with her mother and three younger brothers. She is an average student who hopes to go to college. Jessica has just discovered she is 5 months pregnant, which is too late for an abortion. Jessica knows that it would be difficult to provide for her child. She is too young to work and her mother is already struggling to provide for Jessica and her three brothers. But her boyfriend has offered to help and said maybe they can get married when they finish high school. Jessica is thinking about keeping the baby but she’s also thinking of adoption as an option. A cousin in Puerto Rico has said she would like to adopt the baby. She thinks her child would have a better life if adopted by her cousin in Puerto Rico. However, Puerto Rico is very far away and she knows she will not be able to see the baby growing up and make sure the baby is okay. Jessica is really having a hard time deciding what to do. a For the topic of capital punishment, participants were given the following description of capital punishment: the issue of whether a person should be put to death for a serious crime.
keep her baby or give it up for adoption, and capital punishment – whether a person should be put to death for a serious crime (see Table 1 for the pregnancy topic). Pretest and posttest assessments were identical. 1.2.1. Opinions Participants’ opinions on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics were assessed using the opinion scale adapted from Kuhn and Lao (1996). The scale presents 13 statements representing a range of positions on the topic (teenage pregnancy or capital punishment). The statements consist of six statements in favor of the topic (of giving the child up for adoption or of the practice of capital punishment), one neutral statement expressing an undecided opinion, and six statements against the topic. The six statements on each side of the neutral statement ranged from slightly in favor (or against) the topic to extremely in favor (or against) the topic. The format for both the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment opinion scales was identical. The participant was also asked to give a justification for her opinion. 1.2.2. Dialogic argument Participants’ dialogic argument skills were assessed using the coding scheme developed by Felton and Kuhn (2001; see the Appendix for a summary of the codes). The Felton and Kuhn discourse scheme is a functional coding scheme, identifying the function of each utterance (turntaking) in a dialogue, relative to the immediately preceding utterance. Each utterance in a dialogue is segmented and categorized as reflecting one of the single-utterance argumentive operations in the coding scheme. Sequences of utterances are also identified as reflecting particular argument strategies. 1.3. Procedure Procedures were identical across intervention conditions. Pretest assessments began with the completion of an opinion scale on both the teenage pregnancy and the capital punishment (CP) topics. Responses were used to assign participants to a team within their respective intervention conditions (“keep” or “adopt” team based on the opinions expressed on the teen pregnancy scale, and “pro” or “con” team based on the opinions expressed on the CP scale). Participants who expressed a neutral or mixed opinion were assigned to a team based on the justifications given for their opinion.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
345
Each participant was then matched with another one holding a contrasting view on both topics. For example, a participant in favor of CP and believing it best for the teen in the pregnancy scenario to keep her baby was matched with a participant who was against CP and believed the teen should place her child for adoption. Each matched pair met in a private room to participate in a discussion on the two topics. Those participating in the pregnancy-focused intervention were asked to discuss the unwanted-pregnancy topic first, while those participating in the CP-focused intervention were asked to discuss the CP topic first. Before dyads discussed each topic, students again heard the pregnancy dilemma and were reminded of the definition of capital punishment. Dyads were asked to discuss each topic for 10 min. The posttest procedure was identical to the pretest. For the posttest dialogic assessment, participants were paired with the same person as on the pretest. All dialogues were transcribed and checked for accuracy. Two trained raters blind to the treatment, time, and identity of the participants coded the dialogues using the Felton and Kuhn (2001) scheme. The two raters practiced on a randomly chosen subset of dialogues constituting 15% of the database. Coded dialogues were examined for inter-rater reliability, and disagreement between raters was resolved by discussion. Practice was completed once the raters’ percentage of agreement reached 80%. One rater then coded all dialogues, while the second rater randomly sampled 25% of the coded dialogues and recoded them to establish reliability. Percentage agreement between the first rater and second rater on all codes in the coding scheme was 86% (Cohen’s kappa = .71). 1.4. Intervention The intervention was directed toward a final team debate, with students working collaboratively to develop their team’s argument and preparing for the debate against an opposing team. The two intervention conditions were identical except for the topic. Students in the pregnancy-focused condition were assigned to either a “keep” or “adopt” team (based on pretest assessment, as noted earlier), whereas students in the CP-focused condition were assigned to a “pro” or “con” team. There were seven or eight students on each team. Actual attendance on each day ranged from five to eight members. Teams met separately with an adult coach (the author and a research assistant) for each 90 min session. Although separated, the teams worked on the same activities at approximately the same pace. The adult coaches remained the same for both intervention conditions. For a detailed description of the intervention, see Kuhn and Udell (2003). Presented here is an overview of the key features of the activities and accompanying goals. The intervention was designed to develop the sequence of skills listed in Table 2. The intervention consists of ten main activities, each with an accompanying goal, and concludes with a team debate. Two key features of the intervention are the goal-based aspect and the externalization of ideas to promote reflection on them. For the students, the goal of the activity was to win the debate. As discussed by Kuhn and Udell (2003), this goal engaged and sustained students’ interest and provided a rationale for their involvement. An additional feature of the intervention is the external representation of ideas achieved through writing and social collaboration. Working as a team forced students to externalize their thinking. Throughout the intervention students were required to clarify and justify their viewpoints to their peers. Posttest assessment followed the intervention activities. The final group debate followed the posttest, allowing the posttest to serve as both a dyadic assessment identical to the pretest and as further preparation leading to the final debate.
346
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Table 2 Summary of activities and cognitive goals Generating reasons Goals: reasons underlie opinions. Different reasons → same opinion. Elaborating reasons Goal: good reasons support opinions. Supporting reasons with evidence Goal: evidence can strengthen reasons. Evaluating reasons Goal: some reasons are better than others. Developing reasons into an argument Goal: reasons connect to one another and are building blocks of argument. Examining and evaluating opposing-side’s reasons Goal: opponents have reasons too. Generating counterarguments to others’ reasons Goal: reasons can be countered. Generating rebuttals to others counterarguments Goal: counters to reasons can be rebutted. Contemplating mixed evidence Goal: evidence can be used to support different claims. Conducting and evaluating two-sided arguments Goal: some arguments are stronger than others.
1.5. Coding argument discourse strategies The present study examines rudimentary argument skills – construction of a functional counterargument that serves to reduce the force of the opponent’s argument. The quality or strength of counterarguments is not examined in the present work. Analyses focus on the key dialogic argumentive strategies Counterargument-Critique (Counter-C), and the related dialogic sequence Rebuttal that have been identified in previous work as showing increased frequency with age (Felton & Kuhn, 2001) and with practice (Kuhn & Udell, 2003). The Counter-C strategy is fundamental to argument discourse in that it enables the arguer to address one of the major goals of argumentation – to undermine the opponent’s position by identifying and challenging weaknesses in his or her argument (Walton, 1989). Counter-C is defined as a counterargument that directly critiques a statement made by the opponent. Closely related to Counter-C is the more advanced strategic sequence, Rebuttal, which is also crucial to skilled argumentation. Rebuttal is a sequence extending across two utterances. Its function is to reduce or remove the strength of an opponent’s counterargument through critique. Rebuttal is operationally defined as a Counter-C in response to a counterargument made by the opponent.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
347
1.6. Calculating extent of strategy use The coding scheme developed by Felton and Kuhn (2001) assigns a code to every utterance in a dialogue, capturing the function of an utterance and not its content. Consistent with previous studies (Felton, 2004; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn & Udell, 2003), participants’ use of a strategy was calculated as percent usage of the strategy in question (i.e., a rate of the number of utterances reflecting the strategy divided by the total number of utterances). This method of analysis takes into account differences in opportunity to execute strategies, given the differing dialogue lengths. Rebuttal sequences extend across multiple utterances involving both partners, making a proportion-based calculation difficult. Whereas proportions could be calculated in terms of the number of opportunities to make a rebuttal (i.e., an opponent’s counterargument), these percentages would be inflated for individuals who had very limited opportunities to make Rebuttals – 1/1 is not the same as 10/10. For this reason, analyses of Rebuttal are based on frequency. To control for differing dialogue length, the analysis included only the first 15 utterances exhibited by each participant in a dialogue. The first 15 utterances were chosen because they represent approximately half of the mean strategies exhibited by participants in both intervention conditions. Although individuals within conditions may have had differential opportunities to make Rebuttals, comparison of groups of individuals across conditions remains meaningful. 2. Results The goal of the analysis is to compare the effectiveness of the two intervention conditions in developing argument skills in the context of the intervention topic and in the context of a novel topic (the non-intervention topic). A 2 (intervention condition) × 2 (pretest versus posttest) × 2 (topic) repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted, to assess differential effects of the two intervention conditions in advancing both the Counter-C strategy and the Rebuttal strategy on the main and transfer topics. A check for pre-existing group differences between the two intervention conditions showed no significant pretest differences with respect to Counter-C and Rebuttal use. Presentation of results begins with assessment of the effectiveness of each intervention condition in advancing usage of the Counter-C strategy on the main and transfer topics, followed by assessment of the effectiveness of each condition in advancing usage of the Rebuttal strategy on the main and transfer topics. 2.1. Counter-C use on the main and transfer topics More than 80% of participants exhibited the Counter-C strategy at least once during the pretest. Given that the majority of participants exhibited some competence in the pretest, changes in Counter-C use by participants can be regarded as largely reflections of skill improvement (increased frequency of use) rather than acquisition of a new skill (Kuhn & Udell, 2003). As seen in Fig. 1, participants in both intervention conditions increased their use of Counter-C on the CP topic. However, as also seen in Fig. 1, only participants in the pregnancy-focused condition increased their use of Counter-C on the teenage pregnancy topic. A 3-way analysis of Counter-C usage revealed a significant 3-way interaction, F(1, 28) = 9.04, p = .006; partial η2 = .24 for condition × time × topic. Pairwise comparisons reveal the significant difference to lie in the two conditions’ use of the Counter-C strategy on the pregnancy topic at posttest, F(1, 28) = 10.31, p = .003; partial η2 = .24.
348
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Fig. 1. Use of Counter-C on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics. Note: P = pregnancy-focused group; CP = capital punishment-focused group.
2.2. Rebuttal use on the main and transfer topics As illustrated in Fig. 2, Rebuttal use by participants in both intervention conditions was infrequent. On average, participants in both conditions produced no more than four Rebuttals on either topic on the pretest or the posttest. Comparisons of Rebuttal use by participants in the two conditions reveal no significant effect of time, and no significant 3-way (condition by time by topic) interaction. However, a significant topic by condition interaction was found for the Rebuttal sequence, suggesting differential use in Rebuttal averaged across time, F(1, 28) = 18.25, p < 001; partial η2 = .39. As illustrated in Fig. 2, participants in the pregnancy-focused condition used more Rebuttals than those in the CP-focused condition on the pregnancy topic, whereas participants in the CP-focused condition used more Rebuttals on the CP topic than participants in the pregnancyfocused condition. Similar to the results for the Counter-C strategy, pairwise comparisons reveal significant differences in the two groups’ use of the Rebuttal sequence on their respective topics at posttest, F(1, 28) = 10.71, p = .003; partial η2 = .27 and F(1, 28) = 4.91, p = .035; partial η2 = .15 for the CP and pregnancy-focused groups respectively.
Fig. 2. Use of Rebuttal on the teenage pregnancy and capital punishment topics. Note: P = pregnancy-focused group; CP = capital punishment-focused group.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
349
The fact that participants used Rebuttal more often on their intervention topic than did participants who had not been involved in an intervention on the topic is not surprising. Although a 3-way interaction was not found, comparison of Fig. 2 with Fig. 1 reveals a similar pattern in that participants in the pregnancy-focused condition showed improvement on both topics, whereas those in the CP-focused condition showed no improvement on the teenage pregnancy topic, and in fact showed some decline. 3. Discussion Research on adolescent decision-making has highlighted the need to improve the thinking underlying adolescents’ decisions. Consistent with previous research (Kuhn & Udell, 2003), the intervention involving the non-personal topic of capital punishment was effective in developing argument skills on this topic. Compared to those in the Kuhn and Udell study, participants in the present study showed similar improvements in the use of counterargument (specifically, the Counter-C strategy). However, unlike the previous study, the intervention was not effective in improving adolescents’ use of Rebuttal. In addition to partially replicating previous findings, the present study shows that the intervention can also be effective in developing use of counterargument in the context of a personally relevant topic. Adolescents participating in the intervention involving the pregnancy topic increased their use of counterargument to as great an extent as participants in current and previous capital punishment-focused interventions. 3.1. Transfer of argument skills Participation in the intervention focusing on the personally meaningful topic increased use of counterargument on the non-personal topic as well. The reverse was not true. Among participants in the CP intervention, use of counterargment on the personal topic slightly decreased following the intervention. Findings of differential effects in the promotion of transfer of Counter-C use are of particular interest. However, it is not clear why transfer occurred only for those participating in the intervention condition focusing on the personally meaningful topic. A possible explanation for this differential transfer has to do with the different meaning of the two topics for the participants. Whereas participants frequently voiced their strong personal feelings on the topic of teen pregnancy in the dialogues, they rarely did so when discussing the capital punishment topic. While discussing the pregnancy topic, many of the girls used personal experience about someone in their family to support their position; on more than one occasion participants became so immersed in the argument that they began to refer to themselves, instead of the fictional character in the scenario. This anecdotal evidence supports the greater emotional salience of the pregnancy topic. Although we cannot be certain, as participants’ emotional engagement on each topic was not measured, it is possible that developing argument skills with respect to a personally meaningful topic may have allowed participants to practice regulating their emotions in a way that developing skills in the context of a non-personal topic did not. Research has found emotion dysregulation to serve as a cognitive distraction (Byrnes, 1998), which can take the focus away from utilizing effective discourse strategies. If so, transfer of argumentation skills to a less personal topic would require less effort and be less challenging. Conversely, participants who developed argument skills on a less personal topic would find it more difficult to transfer these skills to a personally meaningful topic, where they would have to contend with increased affect as an additional factor.
350
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Without a direct measure of level of affect associated with each topic, this hypothesis remains a speculative one warranting further study. 3.2. Implications for adolescent decision-making and the development of argument skills Although the present findings show that the intervention is effective in developing argument skills (specifically, counterargument) in the context of a personally relevant topic, its limitations should also be noted. The intervention did not significantly increase Rebuttal. The average number of Rebuttals at posttest is comparable to that of participants in the Kuhn and Udell (2003) study (3.5 versus 3.8), suggesting this type of intervention to be most effective in getting students to acquire Rebuttal as a new skill. Future work should address how to increase usage of this fundamental argumentation skill in adolescent populations. The results also indicate it is not enough to develop argument skills in content domains that are not personally relevant with the expectation that they will transfer to personal domains. While transfer of argument skills from a personal topic to a non-personal topic did occur, it is not certain that teens would implement these same skills when making decisions outside of the context of the school-based activity in which they were involved in this study. However, as adolescents exercise these skills in various contexts and on a variety of topics, they will be more likely to adopt them as their own to be used in a variety of settings and across multiple tasks (S¨alj¨o, 2004). Future work should further explore the factors necessary to promote transfer of argument skills both across topic domains and across contextual settings. Most broadly, the present work stands to further our understanding of the thinking that underlies adolescent decision-making. Although the intervention did not focus directly on developing adolescents’ decision-making, it contributes to our understanding of how to develop cognitive skills that contribute to thoughtful and sound decisions. Reasoning and communication strategies, such as argumentation, are important factors in adolescent decision-making (Troth & Peterson, 2000). Given that many of the risky decisions adolescents make are made with peers, it is important for adolescents to develop reasoning that can be used when making decisions alone and together with peers. If we want to improve adolescents’ decision-making, we must develop the thinking and reasoning underlying it. Future work in this area should focus on further identifying and developing the thinking skills necessary to competent personal decision-making. Such research will not only enhance understanding of adolescent cognitive development, but also the personal lives of adolescent decision-makers. Appendix A. Summary of discourse codes Agree-? Case-? Clarify-? Justify-? Meta-? Position-? Question-? Respond-? Add Advance Agree Aside Clarify
A question that asks whether the partner will accept or agree with the speaker’s claim. A request for the partner to take a position on a particular case or scenario. A request for the partner to clarify his or her preceding utterance. A request for the partner to support his or her preceding claim with evidence or further argument. A question regarding the dialogue itself (rather than its content). A request for the partner to state his or her position on an issue. A simple informational question that does not refer back to the partner’s preceding utterance. A request for the partner to react to the speaker’s utterance. An extension or elaboration of the partner’s preceding utterance. An extension or elaboration that advances the partner’s preceding argument. A statement of agreement with the partner’s preceding utterance. A comment that does not extend or elaborate the partner’s preceding utterance. A clarification of speaker’s own argument in response to the partner’s preceding utterance.
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352 Coopt Counter-A Counter-C Disagree Dismiss Interpret Meta Null Refuse Substantiate Continue Unconnected
351
An assertion that the partner’s immediately preceding utterance serves the speaker’s opposing argument. A disagreement with the partner’s preceding utterance, accompanied by an alternate argument. A disagreement with the partner’s preceding utterance, accompanied by a critique. A simple disagreement without further argument or elaboration. An assertion that the partner’s immediately preceding utterance is irrelevant to the speaker’s position. A paraphrase of the partner’s preceding utterance with or without further elaboration. An utterance regarding the dialogue itself (rather than its content). An unintelligible or off-task utterance. An explicit refusal to respond to the partner’s preceding question. An utterance offered in support of the partner’s preceding utterance. A continuation or elaboration of the speaker’s own last utterance which ignores the partner’s immediately preceding utterance. An utterance having no apparent connection to the preceding utterances of either partner or speaker.
References Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1–46. Byrnes, J. (1998). The nature and development of decision making: A self-regulation model. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Byrnes, J. P. (2002). The development of decision-making. Journal of Adolescence Health, 31, 208–215. Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions intended to promote reasoning. The Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368. Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 35–52. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153. Furby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1–44. Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1997). Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself. In W. M. Goldstein & R. M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies (pp. 482–508). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Janis, J., & Klaczynski, P. (2002). The development of judgment and decision making during childhood and adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 145–149. Kaufmann, R., Spitz, A., Strauss, L., Morris, L., Santelli, J., Koonin, L., et al. (1998). The decline in US teen pregnancy rates, 1990–1995. Pediatrics, 102, 1141–1147. Klaczynski, P. (1997). Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 273–283. Klaczynski, P., & Gordon, D. (1996). Self-serving influences on adolescents’ evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 317–339. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74–103. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kuhn, D., & Lao, J. (1996). Contemplation and conceptual change: Integrating perspectives from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review, 18, 125–154. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647. Martin, J., Hamilton, B., Sutton, P., Ventura, S., Menacker, F., Munson, M., et al. (2005). Births: Final data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports, 54, 1–115. Martin, J., Kochanek, K., Strobino, D., Guyer, B., & MacDorman, M. (2005). Annual summary of vital statistics – 2003. Pediatrics, 115, 619–634.
352
W. Udell / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 341–352
Montgomery, H., & Svenson, O. (1989). In H. Montgomery & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making. Chichester: Wiley. Perret-Clermont, A. (2004). Thinking spaces of the young. In A. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. S¨alj¨o, R. (2004). From learning lessons to living knowledge: Instructional discourse and life experiences of youth in complex society. In A. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge (Eds.), Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth (pp. 177–191). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Blaming youth. Texas Law Review, 81, 799–840. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 280–287. Troth, A., & Peterson, C. C. (2000). Factors predicting safe-sex talk and condom use in early sexual relationships. Health Communication, 12, 195–218. Udell, W. (2004). Enhancing urban girls’ argumentive reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. United Nations (2003). United Nations demographic yearbook. New York, NY: United Nations. Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.