Expert-novice interactions: Influence of partner status

Abstract

The aim of this study is to highlight the influence of the sociorelational context in expert-novice problem solving situation.~assume that a hole range of interactive organizations coexist and vary as a function of the asymmetry of the relationships affected by the mastery o.{ the task and differences in partners status. Thirty six first graders aged 6;6 (18 hight achievers and 18 low achievers) were observed during a construction task. Hight achieving experts wereassignedto low achieving novices and vice-versa. As predicted, when hight achieving status was associeted with task relatedexpertise(rei!iforced asymmetry) the interactive dynamic was chieflY caracterised by guidance/tutoring. In contrast, when low achieving status was associated with task related expertise (counter balanced asymmetry), a variety of dynamics wereabserved most of which were either cooperative or exhibited reverse guidance by the hight achieving novice. Guidance management by the experts also differed between the reinforced and counter balanced conditions. The findings argue for a pluridimensional approach to socio-cognitive modes of aquisition:The study of tutoring interactions is one of the key concerns of educators and researchers who take an interest in the problems of acquisition of knowledge and knowhows in social contexts. The contribution of peer interaction has been shown to be of crucial importance. The aim of this study is to show that a whole range of modes of interactive organization coexist in expert-novice problem solving activity and that they vary as a function of the asymmetry of the relationships, affected by differential mastery of a specific task and differences in partner status.Numerous investigations have been devoted to mechanisms of progress and change in a whole host of contexts (developmental tasks or problem solving for example) and at different ages, in particular in school age children. Authors working in the area of progress mechanisms in problem solvingsituations (in the broad sense) tend to stress different interactive mechanisms. Some point to the efficiency of guidance-tutoring and emphasize help by the more skilledThe study reported in this article was conducted in a research unit affiliated with the C.N.R.S. (URA 1353).

The Beginnings of Collaboration in Peer Interaction

“…For infant tutors, the guiding activ ity often is no more than a prompt or an action facilitation. Older children guide their partners in more subtle ways, but the emerg ing guided activity in early peer interaction resembles that of the tutoring process between older children of different competence levels [Cooper et al, 1986;Verba and Winnykamen, 1992]. A child who knows more evaluates the means-end relationships, takes charge, and di rects and assists the partner.…”

Funciones y estrategias fundamentales de la guía-tutela entre iguales en las primeras edades

“…Diversas investigaciones sobre la interacción entre iguales (Cooper et al, 1986;Wertsch & Hickmann, 1987;Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976;Verba & Winnykamen, 1992;Verba, 1994;1998) sugieren que los niños/as enseñan de forma diferente al adulto. Los iguales tutores están más concentrados en las demandas inmediatas de la tarea y utilizan más demostraciones y modelamientos directos.…”

“…Diversas investigaciones sugieren que los niños/as pequeños/as poseen conocimiento acerca del rol y los procedimientos implicados en la tutoría en la edad escolar (Cooper, Marquis, & Edward, 1986;Verba & Winnykamen, 1992), y que se comienzan a vislumbrar signos del comienzo de las conductas de tutoría entre los 3;0-4;0 años (Verba, 1994;Verba & Marcos, 1995). Ya antes, entre las edades de 1;6 años y…”

“…Destacamos en este sentido las investigaciones de Beaudichon, J., Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. (1988);Pastor, E. y Sastre, S. (1994); Sastre, S. y Pastor, E. (1997); Stambak, M. & Sinclair, H. (1993);Verba, M. (1993); Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. (1992); Verba, M. (1994), y especialmente las hipótesis más generales de la perspectiva pluridimensional, que pueden resumirse como sigue: -Afirmar que no existe una única modalidad de construcción de saber en la interacción social. En estas situaciones se dan diferentes modalidades, que son correspondientes a una cierta pluralidad de conocimientos (Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F., 1992;Verba, M., 1994;Beaudichon, J., Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. 1988).…”

“…En estas situaciones se dan diferentes modalidades, que son correspondientes a una cierta pluralidad de conocimientos (Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F., 1992;Verba, M., 1994;Beaudichon, J., Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. 1988). Se supone que existen diversidad de mecanismos de construcción de saberes (organización cognitiva) (Roux, J. P. & Gilly, M, (1993);Fraysse, J.C. (1992); Gilly, M. (1980);Gilly, M. (1988;1989b) en función, básicamente, de si la situación de la interacción es simétrica o asimétrica.…”