Discussions were examined for the use of three modes of reasoning:
(1) arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals; (2) multistep causal reasoning; and (3) systems thinking. Of special interest is whether there was a change in the kind and quality of students’ reasoning from the first to the second Collaborative Reasoning discussion.
table 9.1. number of Words devoted to themes in two Collaborative reasoning discussions
Discussion themes First
discussion Second
discussion χ2(1) 1. Will the food chain be affected if wolves
are killed? 68 1002 13.32**
2. Do wolves (have the right to) attack livestock and pets? Should people kill wolves if wolves kill their livestock or pets? Do wolves affect ranchers’
livelihood?
896 989 0.04
3. Should wolves be separated from people by relocating the wolves into a zoo, park, or preserve and/or building a fence around the wolves?
1,519 854 3.54†
4. Do wolves attack people if people do not threaten them? Should people/
children be afraid of a wolf attack?
1,126 707 1.59
5. Should wolves be tranquilized? 196 670 4.03*
6. Do wolves affect the economy
negatively (or positively)? 71 661 6.74**
7. Do wolves have the right to live on land if they were there before people?
Should people be allowed to kill wolves if wolves go on people’s property?
Should people move if wolves go onto their property? Do wolves have the right to attack people if people go onto their land or threaten them?
174 587 3.80†
8. Should wolves be saved because they are endangered and might become extinct?
209 311 0.15
9. Do wolves have the right to kill other wild animals to survive (circle of life)?
Do wolves have the right to live because they are part of nature?
662 291 2.06
10. Do humans destroy wolves’ habitat? 0 214 3.05 11. Are wolves at the top of the food chain?
Are humans wolves’ predators? 90 141 0.34
12. Should people feed wolves to keep
them away from the town? 804 98 8.87**
13. Do wolves come into the town because they don’t have enough food in the wild? Do humans kill wolves’ prey?
213 56 1.02
14. Would hunters be able to kill the
wolves if they tried? 0 49 1.01
15. Is it against the law for people to kill wolves without a permit? Should there be rules against killing wolves?
261 48 1.85
Collaborative Reasoning 179
If at least one student in a discussion advanced a counterargument to challenge another student’s argument and a student responded to the counterargument with a rebuttal, then this discussion was coded as containing the core Argument → Counterargument → Rebuttal sequence. It should be noted that this category includes instances in which the counterargument being rebutted was not explicitly stated.
We defined multistep causal reasoning as having occurred when students reached a conclusion after considering a series of cause–effect relationships. If students decided that wolves should not be killed because X will happen, and then students explained in some detail how killing wolves affects A, A affects B, and then B affects X, this was considered a discussion with three-step reasoning. If a discussion had at least one example of a chain with two or more steps, the discussion was said to contain multistep reasoning.
A systems-thinking approach requires that students connect differ- ent facets of a problem to achieve an integrated evaluation. We consid- ered a discussion to contain systems thinking if students connected two or more facets, including economy, ecology, livestock and pets, and/
or moral or legal considerations, together at least once. We were not satisfied if students simply considered more than one perspective dur- ing a discussion. Only instances in which students explicitly asserted a relationship between two or more facets were credited as systems thinking.
16. Should people be educated about
wolves? 0 46 1.01
17. Do wolves have the right to live because they are living creatures just like people? (if explicitly stated)
216 44 1.02
18. Do people/wolves have the right to kill wolves/animals without using their pelts or meat? Do people have the right to kill wolves if they use their pelts?
175 40 0.34
19. Should people hire rangers/police to protect wolves (or put up signs to warn people)?
236 5 3.05
20. Should wolves be taught/trained to
behave in a way that is safe for humans? 21 0 0.00
21. Are wolves useful? 111 0 2.02
Note. Themes are sorted based on the number of words devoted to that theme in the final discussion.
† .05 < p ≤ .06; * p < .05; ** p < .01.
All 10 discussions (five groups, two discussions per group) were coded for these three modes of reasoning. The raters had 93% agree- ment for each of the three categories. Disagreements were easily resolved through discussion. Table 9.2 indicates that in the first and final discussions all groups used Argument → Counterargument → Rebuttal; however, only in the final discussion did all the groups use multistep causal reasoning. One group in the first discussion used a systems-thinking approach; however, four groups in the final discus- sion incorporated it. To give a clearer sense of these modes of reason- ing, the remaining portion of this section presents several examples of each type.
argument → Counterargument → rebuttal
Examples of Argument → Counterargument → Rebuttal are ubiqui- tous. The fact that students spontaneously challenged each other is not surprising, considering that respectfully challenging others is part of the Collaborative Reasoning approach. In the following episode from the first discussion, students are arguing about whether people have good reasons to kill the wolves. The students had read an article in the Winona Messenger that a sheepdog, named Elmo, had been found dead.
Although the people had incomplete evidence, they speculated that wolves had attacked and killed Elmo. This segment of the discussion focuses on the conditions under which killing a wolf or a dog might be permissible.
Galeno: They [people] are killing them because the wolves killed Elmo, who was trying to protect the sheep.
addison: Supposedly. It [Elmo] might have wandered off and then the wolf chased it off to that place. It [Elmo] might have started something against the wolf.
Galeno: He [Elmo] was trying to protect the sheep.
addison: That is as far as they [people] know!
Galeno: Yeah, we don’t know if the wolves did or did not [kill the dog]. If they did, then that’s their [people’s] reason to kill the wolves.
This segment contains an Argument → Counterargument → Rebuttal sequence. The sequence begins with Galeno advancing the
Collaborative Reasoning 181
argument that the people do have a legitimate reason to kill the wolves:
Wolves killed Elmo, and Elmo was trying to protect the sheep. Addi- son advances a counterargument that Elmo may have initiated the conflict with the wolves and also questions whether the people had complete or accurate knowledge about what really happened. Galeno qualifies his argument by conceding that people might not have com- plete knowledge about the incident but maintains that the principle is still valid.
This discussion segment excerpted here illustrates that students’
talk is often elliptical and that they frequently use pronouns in a vague way. Anderson, Chinn, Chang, Waggoner, and Yi (1997) found that stu- dents’ naturally occurring arguments are filled with unclear referring expressions. They maintained, however, that unclear referring expres- sions are common in the unrehearsed everyday talk of adults, as well as the talk of young students. Furthermore, they asserted that students who are active participants in discussions generally seem to understand what is being said. We have clarified ambiguous expressions [in square brackets] to make the excerpts easier to understand.
Multistep Causal reasoning
During the second Collaborative Reasoning discussion, students in all of the groups used multistep reasoning to construct explanations of ecological and economic phenomena. In a segment of their final discus- sion, one group focused on the food-chain theme. To provide an expla- nation for the stance that wolves should not be killed, Haben envisioned two causal chains. The first one focused on scavengers, and the other focused on plants. In both cases, he maintains that if the wolves became extinct the entire food chain would be disrupted.
table 9.2. number and Percentage of uses of three Modes of reasoning in discussions and individual decision letters
Activity Core argument
sequence Multistep
reasoning Systems thinking First discussiona 5/5 (100%) 1/5 (20%) 1/5 (20%) Second discussiona 5/5 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 4/5 (80%) Urban decision lettersb 8/26 (31%) 4/26 (15%) 0/26 (0%) Rural decision lettersb 25/44 (57%) 17/44 (39%) 4/44 (9%)
aThe unit of analysis is the discussion group.
bThe unit of analysis is the individual student.
Haben: If the food chain, like if the wolf be um be extinct then the um, you know, as you know, like the um the hawks, the eagles eat the um leftovers from a wolf when they kill the moose and deers and the elk, and once the um the um the um the wolves become extinct, then I think the eagles would become extinct.
amy: We are not talking about eagles.
Haben: But I know that. I was talking about the food chain.
.. .
Haben: Okay, Anana, um what I said, like if they keep killing the wolves pretty soon the wolves will become extinct. Well, it is already becoming extinct. But um, but Anana said that we are at the top of the food chain, and if like we . . . we eat plants, right? And we use the trees but ( . . . ) and if the um, the plants, the tree eaters eat the um trees and plants and we eat the plants and we use the trees, so more likely the tree, and like the plants will become like gone, but then they will grow back, like I said. Like I said, in a while.
The first multistep argument captured in this episode started with wolves killing large herbivores, followed by scavengers feeding on the leftovers of the wolves’ kills. Without wolves, Haben predicted that the food chain would be broken and scavengers would become extinct. The second multistep argument in the episode is less complete.
Haben was trying to explain how wolves affect the producers (plants) of an ecosystem. His causal chain was developed as follows: wolves are becoming extinct, so implicitly there will be no species to control the population of large herbivores; humans eat plants and use trees; herbi- vores eat plants and trees; humans and herbivores will eat up all plants and trees. Based on this causal reasoning, Haben decided that wolves should not be killed because if wolves became extinct, then trees will become extinct, too. However, Haben failed to connect all the ideas in this chain. Although Haben’s arguments were not always complete, he demonstrated a serious attempt to engage in multistep reasoning. Fur- thermore, while it is not apparent in this example, Haben did incorpo- rate ideas from other students, demonstrating a collaborative process.
The previous example might leave the impression that students were able to achieve multistep arguments only by using the science content introduced in the unit. However, the following example shows that they were able to integrate moral arguments into their consider-