Collaborative Reasoning is an approach to classroom discussion intended to be intellectually stimulating and personally engaging. Stu- dents meet in heterogeneous groups of five to eight students in which they are expected to take positions on a “big question” raised by a text they have read, to present reasons and evidence for their positions, and to challenge one another when they disagree. Previous research on Col- laborative Reasoning has primarily involved stories addressing ethical dilemmas. The project described in this chapter is an effort to extend the approach to an environmental science and public policy issue.
Collaborative Reasoning features open participation in which stu- dents talk freely without raising their hands. The teacher is supposed to allow students to operate the discussion as independently as pos- sible. Ideally, students have control over what to say and when to say it, control over the topic, and the interpretive authority to evaluate the
ideas that are presented. Collaborative Reasoning discussions are char- acterized by long stretches in which the teacher says nothing (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001). During these stretches, students look at each other when they are speaking, sometimes addressing each other by name. They pick up on and respond to each others’ contributions.
Although the discussions are student led, the teacher is present to fos- ter the development of reasoning and positive social dynamics.
Collaborative Reasoning was designed as an alternative to recita- tion. Although it is commonly called a “discussion,” during a recitation the teacher expresses over half the words that are spoken and main- tains firm control over topic and turn taking (Cazden, 2001; Chinn et al., 2001). Recitation is an entrenched classroom practice in which teach- ers play a dominant role (Beck, McKeown, Worthy, Sandora, & Kucan, 1996; Bellack, Kliebard, Hyman, & Smith, 1966; Cazden, 2001). The manifest purpose of a discussion that takes the form of a recitation is to ensure that the students know the story, or textbook assignment, detail by detail. Most questions are simple, and the answers come directly from the text or, at most, require a limited inference.
The trouble is that recitations do not enable genuine dialogue (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003). Students do not have the chance to express extended ideas; their answers often consist of only a word or a phrase (Cazden, 2001). Students follow the teacher during a recitation; they have little opportunity to ask questions, redirect the topic, or otherwise take initiative. Recitations provide few openings for critical or reflective thinking.
Isabel Beck, whose distinguished career we are celebrating with this volume, has also designed an alternative to recitation, called Ques- tioning the Author. The genesis of Questioning the Author and that of Collaborative Reasoning are similar. Both approaches to discussion arise from dissatisfaction with superficial classroom talk and shallow engagement with texts. Isabel Beck and her colleagues investigated the reasons that school texts are frequently difficult to comprehend and then created systematic methods for making them better. Despite modifications of text that clearly improved coherence, readability, and voice, they found that students still frequently showed a disappointing lack of deep understanding. “In characterizing the problem [of lack of deep understanding], we turned to our observation that students tend to resist digging in and grappling with text ideas. It seemed as if stu- dents often took very little time to work through what they were read-
Collaborative Reasoning 173 ing and actually consider the ideas” (Beck & McKeown, 2001, p. 229).
Beck and her colleagues developed Questioning the Author to encour- age students to approach reading as a dialogue with the author of the text in a search for meaning.
A major feature that Questioning the Author and Collaborative Reasoning have in common is that both strive to make students active agents in their own learning. Teacher and student roles change, and both approaches affect classroom discourse. Teachers talk considerably less and ask fewer questions that call for students to retrieve details from the text; teachers start to construct their questions around stu- dents’ responses (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Chinn et al., 2001). At the same time, students’ level of participation increases greatly, and stu- dents move from providing answers lifted from the text to reflecting about ideas.
Although both approaches to discussion aim to promote more thoughtful engagement with text, the two approaches are designed to achieve somewhat different goals. In Questioning the Author, the pri- mary goal of discussion is to construct the meaning of the text based on what a “fallible” author has expressed. In Collaborative Reasoning, the primary goal is to construct reasoned arguments about issues raised in the text. Because of these different goals, participants in discussions take different stances. Questioning the Author assumes primarily an efferent stance (Rosenblatt, 1994), meaning that students are reading and discussing the text in order to acquire concepts and information.
Collaborative Reasoning assumes primarily a critical–analytic stance, meaning that students are reading and discussing the text in order to come to a reasoned decision about a dilemma (Anderson, Chinn, Wag- goner, & Nguyen, 1998). The two approaches also have somewhat dif- ferent modes of operation. In particular, in Questioning the Author the management of turn taking is controlled by the teacher via a series of teacher-posed questions, whereas in Collaborative Reasoning students talk freely around a single “big question.”
Collaborative reasoning about sCienCe and PubliC PoliCy
Previous research suggests that being involved in argumentation helps people learn science and social science concepts. For example, Wiley and Voss (1999) found that students who were asked to write argu-
ments rather than narratives, summaries, or explanations outperformed other students in inference and analogy tasks. Previous research also supports the idea that collaborative group work meshes well with sci- ence and social science learning and engenders deeper thinking. For example, Okada and Simon (1997) found that, compared with students who worked alone, those who worked in pairs entertained hypotheses and considered alternative ideas more frequently and talked about justification more actively. Rivard and Straw (2000) documented that talk is important for sharing, clarifying, and distributing knowledge among peers and that asking questions, hypothesizing, explaining, and formulating ideas are all important mechanisms for science learning during peer discussions. Similarly, Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, and Sams (2004) showed that working together in small groups enabled students to improve their language and reasoning skills and to reach higher lev- els of attainment in science.
We have designed a multidisciplinary unit, featuring Collaborative Reasoning and other forms of small-group collaboration, about how wolves that live near a community should be handled—an issue that is controversial and highly interesting for elementary-age students. The Wolf Unit uses a variety of informational texts and a modified jigsaw structure (Aronson, 1978) to help students learn about issues surround- ing wolf reintroduction and management. Students read texts that incorporate different genres (e.g., expository text, newspaper articles, and formal letters). Working collaboratively, “expert panels” of stu- dents learn about a specific wolf-related issue (i.e., ecology, economics, or livestock and pets) and then share what they have learned with the rest of the class. The unit incorporates two Collaborative Reasoning dis- cussions, one early in the unit and one later when the students know more about wolves and their interactions with man. The Wolf Unit has been used successfully in a number of fourth- and fifth-grade class- rooms. In this chapter, we focus on two fourth-grade classrooms.
On the first day, students are asked to imagine that they are officials at the Wolf Management Agency. The agency has received a letter from the city council of a fictitious town called Winona that is concerned because wolves have been sighted near the town. Students get to know Winona better by studying a pictorial map of the town and reading an edition of its weekly newspaper, the Winona Messenger. They learn general information about wolves, such as their habitat, social behav- ior, and biology. Then, on the second day, students gather for their first
Collaborative Reasoning 175 Collaborative Reasoning discussion to decide whether they, as officials of the Wolf Management Agency, should give the people of Winona permission to hire hunters to kill the wolves. The initial discussions we have observed were lively. Almost all of the students are against killing the wolves. Most of the ideas they exchange focus on relocating wolves and separating wolves from humans.
On later days, groups of students do research about wolves. They watch a National Geographic video documentary, read magazines and books, and browse the Internet. Students learn from all these resources, but they find the video especially engaging and informative.
Over a period of several days, students work in expert panels to examine one of three facets of the wolf management problem: the eco- system, the economy, or livestock and pets. Students become “experts”
on these facets by reading and discussing booklets that we have written.
The booklets provide information on both sides of the wolf reintroduc- tion controversy. For example, in the information booklet on economy, students read that the presence of wolves may affect the tourism indus- try. The booklet suggests that wolves may attract wildlife fanciers who want to see wolves but, on the other hand, campers might stay away because they are worried about possible wolf attacks. Students read these booklets collaboratively with minimal teacher input. They find this section of the Wolf Unit, in its current form, to be the most difficult and least interesting.
The expert panels complete several graphing, calculation, and research activities. Each panel then constructs a poster and gives a pre- sentation sharing their expertise with the class. Students love making the poster together and think this is the most interesting and engaging activity in the whole unit. They also enjoy giving the presentation.
In the last session, students participate in their second and final small-group Collaborative Reasoning discussion. They reconsider the question of whether Winona should be allowed to kill the wolves. New discussion groups are formed, mixing students from the three expert panels. Students say that they appreciate getting to hear ideas from other expert panels. As we detail later, the students often use infor- mation from the posters they have created to support their arguments in this discussion. After the final discussion, students write individual letters to the citizens of Winona, each student explaining his or her own decision about whether the town should be allowed to kill the wolves.