Christine Sorsana

Contextual Determination of Human Thinking: About Some Conceptual and Methodological Obstacles in Psychology Studies.

This theoretical paper discusses some conceptual and methodological obstacles that one encounters when analyzing the contextual determination of thinking in psychology. First, we comment upon the various representations of the ‘cognitive’ individual that have been formed over the years – from the epistemic subject to the psychological subject, and finally, to the psychosocial actor. Second, we recall the main criticisms of ‘methodological solipsism’ found in cognitive psychology research, and we discuss heuristic methods for analyzing the contextual determination of thinking in psychological studies. Finally, we propose an analysis of some data using the approach based on interlocutory logic as a way to formalize reasoning moves and their transformations in the unfolding interaction.

Peer's verbal interactions specificity on cognitive development

In the field of cognitive development, the specificity of symmetrical interactions (child/child) is of interest because such an interaction, based on equality between participants (as opposed to adult/child interaction), is assumed to give rise to co-operation (Piaget, 1932; Youniss, 1980). Co-operative interaction is supposed to introduce a functional interdependence because it promotes a motivation to be, and act, with others. But it also encourages the search for agreement on ideas and intentions, and the finding of a good solution for both participants. Nevertheless, a childs goal is not always to co-operate and peer interaction has multiple meanings (Grossen, 1994). In other respects, interaction with an (expert) adult seems to remain necessary in order to construct epistemic knowledge (Baker, Leoni, & Perret-Clermont, 1978). Thus, the consideration of interlocutory characteristics of childrens exchanges is proposed. Specifically those characteristics that are likely to allow, or not allow, individual cognitive benefits. More precisely, we will discuss the characteristics of “transactive or exploratory” discourse, which is assumed to produce fresh knowledge because “the child is committed in a critical and constructive way to work on the partners reasoning” (Bachmann, 2001, p. 2; Mercer, 1995, 2000; Teasley, 1995; Wegerif, Mercer, & Rojas-Drummond, 1999).

Introduction: Developmental co-construction of cognition

Since the 1970s, a large number of experimental studies (see, for example, Gilly, 1995; Hinde, Perret-Clermont, & Stevenson-Hinde, 1985; Light & Butterworth, 1992; Perret-Clermont & Nicolet, 2001; Sorsana, 1999, 2001) as well as ethnomethodological observations of everyday cognition (Lave, 1992; Schliemann, Carraher, & Ceci, 1997) have brought out the fact that social interaction influences cognitive development. However, a crucial question remains: what is the true nature of this influence? Whereas the debate on the relationship between social interaction and cognition is not very evident in contemporary research in cognitive psychology of development and reasoning (Barrouillet, 2007; Blaye & Lemaire, 2007; Markovits & Barrouillet, 2004; Politzer, 2002; Siegler, 1998), with the exception of some work (for example, Moshman & Geil, 1998; Sorsana & Troadec, 2007; Troadec & Martinot, 2003) in the social psychology of cognitive development, such a debate invites specification of the role played by all the mediations that are involved in cognitive constructions and that produce systems of interaction with differentiated socio-cognitive dynamics. These include the partners with their roles, their status, their beliefs, their history, their culture; the task with its own architecture and meanings; the context of resolution itself and the contextual parameters of these communicative situations. The epistemological stake as well as the methodological one is considerable: What is regarded as universal in development? The postulate

Conversing as Metaphor of Human Thinking: Is Mind like a Conversation?

How can researchers shape their ideas so that they understand the mind better? This theoretical paper discusses the merits of the conversation metaphor as a means of analyzing the human mind. We will develop arguments concerning conversation as i) a situated and distributed activity, ii) a “product” in perpetual construction, and iii) the amount of credence and belief we afford it. Finally, we will advocate for metaphorical tools that promote a more dynamic conceptualization of human thinking.